Another Kind of Dual Tracking: Loan Origination Fraud

NOTE: Dual tracking and loan origination fraud by the banks will be a prime topic explained in detail by Neil Garfield, Dan Edstrom and Jim Macklin at the upcoming seminars.

At the Sign Up for Full Day Seminar in Emeryville (San Francisco), a specialist from Nevada will present the issues in mediation and forcing the true decision makers and owners of the loan to step forward. We will also present this important material in the Anaheim seminars. One is for homeowners Sign up for 1/2 day Homeowners Seminar and the other is a CLE seminar for lawyers, paralegals and other real estate professionals Sign Up for Full Day Seminar in Anaheim. Participants will get discounts on the purchase of our forms library and workbooks. Call 520-405-1688 for details.

People ask me why I don’t write an ordinary book for layman instead of the manuals we sell. Well, I have written two and dumped them in the trash because they were just the kind of rehash you keep seeing new authors expounding upon the dead Norse that has already been expounded.

My book would therefore really be very short. It would start with the plain and simple and ingenious process that lies at the heart of the securitization fraud.

It is called dual tracking. And the reason for this name is that Wall Street didn’t name it. Wall Street would have named it something like synthetic collateralized real estate closings deriving their value from the dual process of lending of money to a homeowner or buyer and the parallel process of signing closing documents for trading. That sounds better than dual tracking doesn’t it? Because it doesn’t tell anyone what they were doing.


What we are left with is a chain of documents without value and a chain of money without documents. The third phenomenon arises from Wall Street’s ignoring its promises to depositors (investor-lenders) and promises made to homeowners who are buyers or refinancing existing homes they own.

Imagine that I loaned you $100. You would owe it to me even if we never wrote one word on paper. Now if I forged a note signed by you, or had it robo-signed, you would still owe me the $100. If I tried to use the forged instrument in a legal proceeding I would be subject to contempt of court, fraud charges and sanctions but you would still owe me the $100.  And THAT is the reason why most pro se litigants are losing. The lawyers are making the same mistake.

Back to dual tracking. Now let’s imagine that I did loan you the $100 but I did it by writing a Check using my bank as the intermediary. Nothing has changed, right? You have the check, you cashed it and you owe me the $100. Simple as that. But here is where lawyers, judges and policy makers are missing the genius of invention by Wall Street.

When I write a check on my bank to you, my bank and your bank are intermediaries. We depend upon the normal relationship of a customer and his bank. I expect my bank to pay your bank and I expect and you expect that your bank will pay you the money. And if that is what happens, then you still owe the $100.
Even if you deposit the check, which adds another bank intermediary to the story, nobody considers the banks to be anything other than providing services to you and me for access to the extensive grid that makes it possible to move money from me to you. Here again is where lawyers, judges and Policy makers get lost.
The presence of the banks is factually irrelevant because I could have lent a single crisp $100 bill to you without any banks being involved. Doing it by checks puts the nation’s payment processing grid to work — which makes it essential that you and I trust that the banks will do as we have instructed, which, after all, is governed by our contracts with our respective banks. It would never occur to either of us that the banks would make any claim to or about our private loan. And on the books and records of the intermediary banks there would be no loan receivable because such an entry would only be in my books and records. The loan receivable is mine because I loaned the money. It’s common sense.

In savings or investment accounts I maintain at the bank, the bank becomes both an intermediary holding my money safely and a borrower to the extent that the bank has agreed to pay me interest for leaving the money in the bank. Thus if my check to you was drawn on a money market account the amount withdrawn would only be the amount written on my check ($100). If the bank took part of the $100 and then forwarded to to your bank you would justifiably say the debt has been reduced because you didn’t get $100, you got less.

But if the bank loaned you $50 and you never received $100, you would agree that the debt is $50. In that case the bank would show on it’s books and records a loan receivable from you for $50. They would have you sign closing documents naming the bank as payee because the bank was the lender.
Sometimes banks intermediate loans just like they intermediate deposits. So in our example I might give the bank $100 with explicit instructions on what kinds of loans and what degree of risk was acceptable to me. If they loaned you money out of my account with the bank then the loan receivable would be on my books, not the books and records of the banks. And the documents you would sign for the loan would disclose that you are receiving the loan from me and that the bank was acting as an authorized representative for me. It’s all very logical and certain.
Now imagine that I wrote the check to XYZ investment bank for deposit. At that point they are still just an intermediary in the role of accepting deposits and not in processing transactions. They are awaiting further instructions from me as to what to do with the money I sent them. If the money was deposited into savings account, I sent them the money because they promised me interest of 5%.
As things get more sophisticated, I might deposit my money into an account to make loans to you and others like you for the same 5% interest or perhaps a little more in interest. But if they loaned you the money at 10%. as the depositor I understand that banks make money loaning out money on deposit. But I was expecting interest of 5% not 10% which is obviously a much riskier loan than I had agreed with the investment bank.

Why did the bank not follow my instructions and our agreement? The fact is they should have but they didn’t. Since I was loaning $100 and expecting 5% interest, I was expecting a $5 payment per year in interest. I expected the bank to get me a borrower whose credit rating was unassailable and safe or not to make the loan at all.

The bank violated my agreement, my trust and my instructions when they chose to insert themselves as a principal in the transaction. Both you and the banks became co-obligors. The bank would owe me money for whatever they took out contrary to contract and you would owe me money for the loan. The amount they took out of my account was much more than what you had actually borrowed.
The Bank’s obligation was to pay me back my principal with 5% interest. But they wanted more fees than customary so they found a less credit worthy borrower and loaned him the money. That borrower is you in many cases. And you agreed to the 10% interest because you knew you had bad credit.


But only on Wall Street would they take the extra interest charged to you using my money on deposit. They took it for themselves because they didn’t want to explain to me why they had funded a loan that violated the limits on risk that were expressed in my agreement with the bank. They lied to me and told me they had loaned $100 to you at 5%.  In fact they had only loaned $50 at 10%. By doing that they created a liability for the Bank which still owed me $100 even though they only loaned $50.

But wait. If the bank loaned the money out at 10% then the interest was being paid at $10 per year instead of five, right? Wrong! In order to get what I wanted, which was $5 per year, they only had to lend out $50 at 10%, which yields $5 per year. But I don’t know they did this because they reported that my money was being used as instructed when in fact they stopped being intermediaries and started being borrowers from me because now they had loaned you only $50 and they had taken $50 more from me. Remember I gave them $100, not $50.

If they were being truthful they would have said they couldn’t find a good borrower so they found one who wasn’t so highly rated. they should have given me the choice of whether or not to engage in that loan and I would have said no because I was interested in the safety of my money not the aggressive possibility of growth. And if they made the 10% loan anyway they would have reported to me at the end of the month in my end of month statement, that I had $50 still on deposit tom them in addition to the $50 I loaned you despite my instructions. So my statement would have two line items: one would be the loan receivable to me and the other would be the $50 they didn’t loan out which would be shown as cash on deposit with them, whom I trusted to keep my money safe.

But imagine now that they didn’t issue that report and instead issued a report that $100 had been removed to make loans to you and others, from which they had taken” customary fees”. Oops that would be a lie. They were using the other $50 for themselves, having sold your $50 loan to my account for $100, netting them as much in fees as had actually been used for my loan to you.

Back to dual tracking. Now imagine that the XYZ investment bank had to go looking for borrowers with higher credit risks in order to take that extra $50 out of my $100 investment. They find you. And they want you to sign the usual and customary paperwork associated with a loan, which of course is made payable to me, right? After all I was the lender, the source of funds and the creditor. But the XYZ investment bank when they took my $100 promised to pay me back $100 even though they were only lending out half. Just like any other deposit, where the bank will give you your money when it is due to you as a demand deposit, CD or in this case a loan to you.

Back to dual tracking. They couldn’t put my name on the loan documents because that would lead the borrower straight to me.  We would find out together that they loaned only half of the money I deposited with the bank and that the bank took the rest as “fees” and trading profits.

Enter the straw man also known as the nominee. The XYZ bank hires a mortgage broker who hires a loan originator who lies to you and tells you they are lending you the money. since you expected a $50 loan and you received the $50 loan neither you nor I was the wiser. We couldn’t compare notes or accounts because neither of us knew the identity of the other and I didn’t even know the transaction had occurred and that the terms of the transaction were so different from what I had agreed as a lender, should be the terms.

So you are asked to sign papers to some company called First Freedom Easy Mortgages, who your mortgage broker has told you is the lender. But we know now that First Freedom Easy Mortgage was not the lender. It was a hired actor in a play. You signed loan documents including a promissory note to a payee with whom you absolutely had no financial transaction and you still owe me the money. You owe me the money because it came from me, regardless of what paper you signed to anyone else. And you don’t owe the money to someone else just because you signed paperwork, but never received any money from them.

First freedom Easy Mortgage was a creature created by the banks, not me. They did that because they wanted to “borrow” the loan, claim it as their own, and sell it multiple times to multiple investors. This was all orchestrated by XYZ investment bank who not only sold and resold the loan as if it was their own, but they also bought insurance. They told me it was insured but they failed to tell me that they were the beneficiary who would receive the proceeds of the insurance — not as my agents, my depository institution, but for themselves.

When your loan went into default, according to the paperwork First Freedom Easy Mortgage was the payee on the note. And the only documents of your loan transaction are between you and First Freedom Easy Mortgage so that is the only thing that people look at and believe. But you still owe me $50 because the $50 you received was my $50.

Back to dual tracking. We have the money transaction in which I loaned you $50. And we have another $50 loan transaction that is fully documented but where no money was received by you. That was cover for the extra money the bank took for itself without using it to lend money and make interest income for me. According to the paperwork you owe $50 to First Freedom Easy Mortgage because that is what the documents say AND you still owe me my $50. So you owe twice the amount you borrowed. You know what we call that? Usury. It’s a crime.

If the signed documents have no value because no value was exchanged between those parties, then that mortgage is securing the faithful performance of the terms of a note in which there was no value (no loan was received by you from the documented transaction. So we are left with a document trail (securitization) with no value and in which all conventions and provisions were routinely ignored AND a money trail which leaves no documents at all (no footprints in the sand). That is dual tracking.

And that is why in discovery you need to press hard on the actual financial transactions to force them to show the actual flow of money. AND THAT is why they will most likely settle with you if it looks like you are getting too close for comfort.

269 Responses

  1. Good post. I learn something new and challenging on websites I stumbleupon everyday. It’s always useful to read content from other authors and practice a little something from their websites.

  2. Spot on with this write-up, I absolutely think this web site needs a great deal more attention. I’ll probably be returning to read more, thanks for the advice!

  3. Excellent post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am impressed! Extremely helpful info specially the last part:) I care for such information a lot. I was looking for this particular info for a very long time. Thank you and good luck.

  4. Right on topic

  5. Anyone who does not know the government is into this drug crime deep to their necks has his or her head in the sand. Doing drugs enables their crimes against you. Beside killing yourself off and others and ruining everyones life around you, you are feeding the criminals while they stab you in the guts. You are enabling terrorism in your own back yard. You are feed the ememy with the guns to shoot you and others in the military and in your neighborhoods. While they laugh at you on their way to the off shore banks .

  6. @JG
    I have evidence that a note which should have been destroyed has in fact been used to support a siezure. So its either stolen or its a forgery. There was no authentication upon delivery —mystery note that if original should have been destroyed.

    Ok so although we hear very frequently —the notes are lost or destroyed–here is one that they should have done a a lost note affidavit—if the servicer had concurrence from the holder who lost it—allowed its destruction. but this is supposedly an original which should have been destroyed by default in connection with filings in bk ct bigco

    so any way its prima facie that notes do turn up after shake-ups —after being long inaccessible—as someone told me “eventually they come up with a note’ —so this means i as an atty i think could reasonably expect that i could buy a bale of paper—work it against a homeowners credit profile etc——and identify a target for future action —not bankrupt being condition 1——then i pursue the notes

    they willstart with the mid-size that have been at least 3 years post-siezure

    bring note in –make claim—force makers to prove debt paid to the holder——-cite UCC ——–what do you show?

    a copy of the note?
    a copy of you giving away your warranty deed—or having other foreclosure method title work transfering to the servicer–or one step removed—placed by your servicer in a trust

    In defense against the junk note dealer——you have a problem–hes screaming washington case—wrongfully diverted property also—or hes waived that stick of collection rights

    No matter what—this case may be more helpful to the junk guys than homeowners –because homeowners arent well organized—the less likely to be able to afford an atty —–the more likely the homeowner to fight—90% just cant afford to fight—–no matter how egregious

    if the vultures can they will—-the UCC surety in all events should now be required–if the financial system elected to let ownership of notes become sloppy–then the cost and risk should rest with them–up front in the form odf a surety—-if they cant get a surety–then they shouldnt get the house–but they are getting waiver routinely on the front end of proving to DOT trustees and to judges in foreclosure states—no waivers ever should be given–or allowed

  7. @JG

    RE MICHIGAN STATUTE: I wondered where you were going—but yes–the ” Provided, That the agreement changing, modifying, or discharging such contract, obligation, lease, mortgage or security interest shall not be valid or binding unless it shall be in writing AND SIGNED BY THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM IT IS SOUGHT TO ENFORCE the change, modification, or discharge. History: 1941, Act 238, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;– CL 1948, 566.1″

    this makes the eal a one way deal—-which is more like a permision –revocable–not a contract—which seems to be how these modifiers treat it———the only way the homeowner can overcome is to assert estoppel by reliance—–that will overcome even this extension of statute of frauds–so the homeowner has a defense but burden on him to prove it—make it an irrevocable permission to modify terms—even if the other party is the holder

    but if the other party is not the holder ala washington decision—you are right–the note is not modified—only authorized party could modify–and show poa to sign—-so sad that basically all homeowners are engaged in a chess game against these people —-who will not settle–they lack authority–so therefore every settlement is meanigless absent 3rd party bonding—and thats crappy to have to worry about—–just the trick defend via a surety–better than nothing but still more litigation—and how does the homeowner ever pass good title in future–if this is admitted catch 22—quiet title required too

  8. @dcb – good points. Tell the truth, I have not read the Bain decision, only read various posts as I stumble on them. But it’s funny you would say what you’ve said just now. I had originally thought some of Bain may not be good for others in that it would be WA-specific. I encouraged people to read it and take what they could. This morning it occurred to me from the tenor of posts I’ve seen that the decision is so well-written, that its reasoning would support defenses or claims in other venues, as you say.
    FRE 1002 is a path for presentment of an original, also. Says the orig must be produced when the contents are at issue. Endorsements are rather salient “content”.
    Working on something and found this little tidbit for those in

    MICHIGAN: those in Michigan – CHECK THIS OUT

    Act 238 of 1941
    Section 566.1 Agreements to modify or discharge contracts and obligations valid without consideration.

    Sec. 1.

    An agreement hereafter made to change or modify, or to discharge in whole or in part, any contract, obligation, or lease, or any mortgage or other security interest in personal or real property, shall not
    be invalid because of the absence of consideration: Provided, That the agreement changing, modifying, or discharging such contract, obligation, lease, mortgage or security interest shall not be valid or binding unless it shall be in writing AND SIGNED BY THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM IT IS SOUGHT TO ENFORCE the change,
    modification, or discharge.

    History: 1941, Act 238, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;– CL 1948, 566.1

    Obviously this is Michigan specific, but the premise doesn’t change.
    It confirms for this lay person that a modification isn’t worth the paper it’s created on if not signed by the noteowner (or it’s duly-authorized agent with evidence of such agency and signed as agent with the for whom). They can’t make those mods, anyway. They are not licensed lenders and modification requires a disclosure of the same things found in the original Truth in Lending Reg Z: amt financed, a.p.r., etc. If it doesn’t, I’ll eat my hat. HAMP is a joke and it just makes me so damn mad. They just threw more taxpayer money at the banksters
    without one thought to the mechanics of modification, not to mention the conflicts of interests. It doesn’t really matter (well there’s an argument it has benefitted some even tho illegitimate) if modifications are being done since they’re fiction.
    Well, actually I see no benefit for those in Michigan in relying on this.
    It’s probably not going to get them the autograph they need on any
    modification agreement. The bankster will not get it because they
    can’t. The bankster could sign it (as agent for a named party) if they could come up with the appropriate agency agreement. Yeah, that’ll happen.

  9. @JG
    The more I think about the better this case supports erection of a claim on an original note or a nice copy by a junk note buyer—if i were representing the junk guy id pull the best copies i could and go after the homeowners where mers has talked them out of their houses—-kind of scary and outrageous result——but these bottom feeders have nothing to lose——-if they come up with notes –except where bankruptcy occurred. This case is the best argument to demonstate that the homeowner should not get credi against satisfaction of the note by having given it away to a thief—or just simply a non-holder. ie MERS—its open and shut—-i wonder if junkie can reopen the foreclosure? i guess if its reo—the one thing –homeowener is on the hook unless hes got a note marked paid in full–no defense against junky

  10. Yes if the servicer has a POA from the trustee to collect —but if it collects on a note stolen from possession of a trustee in bankruptcy for example—i would think that it would not be under authority of a POA—surely the trustee may not –would not—-authorize another to steal or forge documents in its name—–the trustee will back away ASAP from that—–as a matter of law a POA must be for a legal purpose–so even if the servicer had a POA —–if it committed forgery–or misrepresentation—the nominal trustee will deny joint liability as a matter of law–you would need to fing knowledge in the trustees employees that they have assisted the forger-thief—so you have a tort by the trustee —you have lost your house without due process—unless they cure with an authenticad and authorized POA to releases on the note—-that is why this is such as fluke–a thief stealing your house thru DOT or foreclosure–it only happens if the court allows relief to the thief—which is abuse of discretion in equitable context.

  11. @JG
    Now iv read most of the Washington State Supreme Court case –I think that it is sourcing to longstanding debt/mortgage relationship standards. The case is a well-written piece that is seminal for its reliance on general legal principals rather than Washington state statutory law. It states the DOT is a type of mortgage. The case draws upon and eloquently state the equitable nature of the relief in every state and the UK. –and probably Canada and Australia. There are two parties to the underlying transaction–the mortgage–and mortgagor. The “beneficary” the exact term used in Washington nevertheless must fit this greater mold. The statute simply reinforces the common law and uses a term in liue of holder of the original promissory note. Thus it implicates the UCC.

    The more general term beneficiary is used instead of holder—to allow for instances where because of limits on negotiability of the loan agreement it was not negotiable and not subject to UCC. In these instances the rule of contract prevails—the instrument itself is not subject to treatment as cash equivalent bearer paper. There would be rules governing added proof of entitlement.

    The mortgagees and servicers enjoy reliance on beaer paper—and copies without trail of custody of the original, they must have the original or credible evidentiary basis. This decision is seminal in that it reqiuires that the trustees of securitized notes alone can claim benefit of the DOT equitable enforcement. It can be viewed more widely as a general statement that MERS in this case if in a judicial state–would lack standing. It is entirely consistent—a good precedent.

    The dundamental question is the same in Washington State Court federal bankruptcy court—etc—–the holder must show his hand–the “original note” to have standing to sieze the house in Washington or Georgia or any state to avoid fraud as the court states
    . Starngers and thieves should not have justifiable claims in equity. The thief has dirty hands at least irrespective of normal law in respect of checks where negotiability is of primary concern. Here we overlat on the holder principal that of equity as explained in this case.

    The case should be cited in every foreclosure-related case in the country without regard to which particular set of procedures that were chosen by the legislateure to churn paper The latter is detail; the former right to demand the original [properly autheticated as any other peiece of evidence] note is a condition needed to meet equity which is also implicit to DUE PROCESS—-fundamental fairness. Due process is broader bu encompasses the principals involved. Absent presentation of the ORIGINAL NOTE–the borrower faces risk of a claim by the true holder. Can the thief cut or pretender release the onbilgation owed to another : NO. Can the pretender deliver good title NO. Lack of jurisdoiction ab initio which can only be cured by the holder setting forth the ORIGINAL–or at very least the pretender must provide BONDING to the borrower against the holder-

    Most importantly, but probaly not much considered,-the Washington decision can be used against borrowwers by the purported HOLDERS IN DUE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE—much after the property is in the hands of a bona fide purchaser. A junk note buyer will cite this case for the propsition the borrower allowed his house to be taken by the wrong person—-and still owes the whole note. .

  12. @dcb – just a reminder. That’s TWO reasons a party may become liable for the note. The other is when a party endorses a note for
    another, but does not endorse with disclosure of its relationship with the noteowner, i.e, as agent, as poa, whatever it could be. When that relationship does not exist as a matter of fact, that endorsement has another name: fraud, part of a rico pattern, I don’t know. yet.

  13. @dcb – I’ll see if I can find it today. Probably was in a case.

  14. I recently read that a party in a fiduciary postion (or maybe it was just a party who had custody of a note for another – my memory, you know) who gives the note to a party not entitled to its possession or to enforce is liable to the noteowner for the note.

    id like to see that–if you can remember where it came from–very important stuff here—–my understanding is that this is where those bottom feedeers are going to be coming from–with those rediscovered notes and many of the private label servicers that HUD does not recognize–its because they slole the notes out of bankrupt estates–eg the assignment of note after the named payee went out of businss–this is theft—–unauthorized diversion

  15. @dcb – I believe as I’ve said that a thief perhaps may enforce an
    UNsecured note. Imo, only the noteOWNER is entitled to an assgt of the collateral instrument and once received, is then entitled to go after the collateral upon default.
    I don’t know how a thief could mark a note paid. Got me on that one.
    I recently read that a party in a fiduciary postion (or maybe it was just a party who had custody of a note for another – my memory, you know)
    who gives the note to a party not entitled to its possession or to enforce is liable to the noteowner for the note.


    In this case, the borrower asserted the affirmative defense of inadequate consideration against the bank. The bank admitted it would not pay for an assignment of a dot, which is actually generally true (think it”s on pgs 8 & 9). What gets paid for is the note which includes the right to an assignment of the collateral instrument. The banksters nonetheless
    put “10 dollars and other good and valuable consideration” in the assgt, right? Why do they do this? A couple reasons. I believe they are actually using the assignments to assign the notes, despite the fact that 1) MERS under no theory could do this and 2) despite the fact it has been admitted in a case I linked here that the language regarding the note in the assgt of the deed of trust is merely
    “surplusage” (I beg to differ – there’s intent).
    When a court sees such an assignment, there is a reasonable impression that the assignee has paid consideration for the assgt of the dot (some courts actually think this is also an assgt of the note, though they skip any analysis of MERS’ ability to assign a note). The courts believe money has changed hands for the assignment of the deed of trust, which we know has not occurred. Assgts of the coll instrument don’t require funds. This case exposes the ruse: the willful misimpression both on public record and to the judiciary that money is changing hands for an assgt of the dot, and further, that MERS as the alleged beneficiary or even nominal ben is the recipient of those funds.
    Here is another interesting case. Started reading it but stopped at the foot note on page 1. Many of us have become aware of a few things regarding MERS, like that it is on its 3rd iteration (formation) of MERS and the facts regarding MERS v MERSCORP. MERS, the computer program, is named as ben onour deeds of trust, but it is MERSCORP, a separate entity, which professes to do anything at all in regard to the dot’s.
    footnote ref’d is on p.1

  17. @JG

    Some bank lawyers assert that even a thief of a bearer note may steal and enforce that note against the homeowner maker. There are very many notes being floated around in possesiion of uncertain claimants –relying on mere possession [assuming the docs are in fact originals] to enforce.

    So if these people are properly relying on such flimsy legal theory, then they arguably would be accountable to the party from whom the note was stolen–right? but if that party has abandoned the claims for whatever reason–hes not going to enforce–and our thief knows it and is enthusiastic in his claim.

    but what power does thief have to mark the document “paid in full”—to release another’s claim on the real estate—eg no chain of title but for a MERS manufactured assignment upon questionable authority—–?

    but in a state that says the mortgage follows the note–the assignment is irrelevant –a mere distraction as the court in BNY V Raftogianis said.

    so the thief should be able to stand solidly on UCC basis in tossing the homeowner in the street and siezing the home–basically simply knowing where the original is [a warehouse in melville ny] and having an insider there hand over the note–right?

    so what if you the homeowner do the same thing? are you able to steal the note from the thief —mark it “paid in full” and be free unless the party that abandoned it for having been paid out–or otherwise has issues via securitization–say sold twice–such that there is no single holder—-are you free and clear—what basis does the thief collection agency have to counter your claim?

  18. @JG

    you got it

    the 2nd guy–the HDC would say–you should have had them put on public record a satisfaction and release of note —–your error lead to my harm–im HDC

    pay me and sue the false claimant——-

    if you do not follow the UCC you do so at your own risk—you must get the original–properly legally authenticated as evidence—-and that is intimately tied to standing—that is where all this is supposed to be fought out–not 5 years later against a HDC—even if he bought at 15 cents —-best you can do then is argue HDC as a factual issue—you must prove he had actual notice if there is no record of constructive notice

  19. I do not subscribe to no damages, dcb. But I see your point. You are saying if you didn’t stand on production of the original note
    and then it being returned to you marked paid or cancelled, you will look rather foolish in attempting to rely on satisfaction to the pretend claimant if the true noteowner shows up. But that’s not a defense to a true hdc, anyway, if the true noteowner is a hdc, that is, which is likely your point. Or you are saying in addition to looking foolish, one gave up the right, and both of which, yeah, would stink. And seems to me that the second claimant might try to rely on estoppel against you for not demanding your rights (production of original and having it marked appropriately) against the first claimant. Maybe. And even if not, a court might so rule mol sua sponte. Well, then, that is an argument for a litigant in the first round, is it not? It then is not a matter of actual damage, or yeah, maybe it is if by not standing on your rights, you lost them. That is damage. Glad we had this chat!

  20. OK JG —-you subscribe to the no damages unless until it comes up—UCC says if they dont have the original—then put up a bond–period.

    So lets say you make a loan application—borrow 1000 —–you dont feel its worth mentioning that when you settled you did not follow UCC—-you did not recover the original–you did not obtain the bond

    the missing note was for 10000

    you show cash assets of 800–
    so your new creditor for 100 unsecured because you just swore that you had no debt and substantially more assets than the small unsecured debt

    now the oroginal and HDC show up with the 1000 note

    the new creditor recovers zip in the ensuing bankruptcy—except who has defrauded whom?? you squirming yet JG?

  21. You know, if the borrower is to be given the note back after f/c
    or whatnot, if one is in court, doesn’t that justify a homeowner’s
    need to know that the bankster HAS the original, that what is being presented IS the original, to give him back? If they argue, tell the court okay alternatively you’d like a binding indemnification (which the bankster also won’t like)? Isn’t giving the bankster an option reasonable and would it be reasonable or legally appropriate for a court to deny both? The courts aren’t seeing many duplicate claims under the same note, though it has happened here and there. Not seeing that shouldn’t influence decisions, but it might be nonetheless,
    so something to keep in mind imo lay opinion.

  22. @JG
    Isn’t it a matter of law that the borrower is to be given the note marked paid or cancelled or something upon foreclosure or settlement or what not? I think this is a supremely signficant issue

    It is supremely important. UCC provides exact language

    If the note is fully satisfied it is marked “PAID IN FULL” —if it is subject to further collection of a deficiency judgment –it will say “CANCELLED”—big difference—and certainly the wording on the deficiency is not exacting—the problem is ; what if this is typed or stamped on a COPY–or on an ORIGINAL by a forger that stole it?

    in briefing coolection agency counsel asserts —no damages until some HDC shows up with the original and demands payment

    like when you die and your life insurance is paid

  23. @dcb from 10:18 comment – that “marshalling” business seems to warrant futher research and discussion. Lord, don’t make it by me. It may provide some really useful stuff here.
    I nominate you for further explanation, keeping an eye on the necessity for discovery!
    Isn’t it a matter of law that the borrower is to be given the note marked paid or cancelled or something upon foreclosure or settlement or what not? I think this is a supremely signficant issue. I mean, those jerkies can’t take the home as satisfaction or even partial satisfaction and retain the other asset, the note. Bad kids.

  24. No in Ohio the note-holder or anybody with a nice copy actually—can chose any one or any combination or all of the below your house, your checking savings, insurance, car, or your wages for the next 7 years–no bankruptcy exemptions–maybe a car not in excess of $250 or so. Basically your choices if you are old are cheap dogfood or cyanide. But our boy Ryan will sure save the turning our maintenance over to Jamie dimon.

  25. Another potential issue is the posture of the litigants – who is the plaintiff and who is the defendent – when it comes to being put to one’s proof. When it’s helpful, note that some courts have found that an act of foreclosure makes the bankster the plaintiff, regardless of subsequent posturing in litigation. In other words, even if the homeowner is called the plaintiff in his complaint after a NOD, say,
    courts, some courts note the “some” courts, have deemed the bankster the plaintiff nonetheless by its act. When demanding (read asking nicely for good cause like due process need to know clearance on holder v hdc) the bankster be put to its proof, even if your jurisdiction has not so ruled, you could still argue you are the defendent tho you are the party who brought the litigation. You want the onus on the bankster as to proof, not on you.
    This is not legal advice. It’s a lay observation. Ask a lawyer.

  26. @dcb – Ohio rules stink then, don’t they? You said they could sue on the note but only take judgment out of the house because it’s non recourse stuff, I think. And I think that was the word I was looking for: nonrecourse. That’d be rather circular because they’d be right back at the house, only now by way of a judgment lien. It strains my brain to try to assimilate your stuff, but from what I get, it may make a difference (organizational structure) as to whom is doing a write-off or write-down. But, still, the UCC is in play here and it just can’t be overlooked, imo. A write off is surely deemed satisfaction. A 100% write-off would demand release of the collateral.
    I don’t get some of your stuff like about it’s written-down but not really, sort of. Would take me a lot of work to fully grasp, though abstractly I can get it. It does seem important, so someone needs imo to pursue it.
    I can only maintain that if there has been a tax deduction taken, thus
    satisfaction, that portion may not be re-collected by them or anyone else. Whether or not the “double-accounting”, my name for what else you said, would bring the same result as a write-off as to collection rights pursuant to the UCC or any other principle, I don’t know. You suggest it would be nice for them if that ‘double-accounting’ were not found to diminish the amt due. Yes, it would be nice for THEM, so I can only hope that isn’t the case and if it is, it’s a crock and one more stacked against one party, the homeowner.
    That all becomes distracting, even if necessary to understand. What we need to know is if they are taking write-offs (if we believe they are). If we knew this and could demonstrate that it is par for the course for a Party (who has allegedly transferred a loan in default) to take a write-off, we might have a shot at discovering what the alleged transferee paid for its alleged rights. So the querry, for me, becomes how to demonstrate that this is the m.o. of the alleged seller/transferor or alternatively that the junk dealer only buys defaulted papers, or only services defaulted paper. My legs hurt already at the thought of such an uphill battle. But it nonetheless seems to me that’s what’s needed to be done.
    Short of that, I go right back to one’s right to know if the bankster is claiming as a holder or hdc and why shouldn’t the claimant be put to its proof? You must know, you are entitled to know as a matter of due process, what defenses are available to you. Now, I would venture there is case law which would support them being put to their proof. They will try a thousand red herrings to avoid such proof. This we know, so I’d try to be ready for them.
    None of this butts head with NG’s ‘stuff’. Just looking as (almost) always for a path to discovery which would uncover what he and or others espouse as dispositive issues. And a ‘stay out of contempt’
    lay opinions. not legal advice – get a lawyer

  27. If a lender sells a 100k note for 70k and writes off the 30k, under the UCC or any other rule(s), is the note still collectable by a junk buyer at 100k?

    absent the limited recourse rules associated with consumer protection—general legal principles would allow a guy to pay 15cents on the dollar and collect $1.00——-not an issue—they do it all the time—–thats what the MBS buyers did–that was the whole reason why we have had all this predatory conduct

    the MBS are actually registered NOTES—–electronic so no indorsement issues but sure i could sell you a note that i have receivable from john doe for 50 cents /dollar face—and then you go to john who just won the lottery and you are a successful capitalist

    now these guys went farther–they intentionally depressed the MBS ,market——–turned the MBS into junk rated stuff–so pension funds sell —no buyers but the vultues because pension funds not allowed to buy and cant hold long the junk—trapped—

    sure as poopy said–lets put all our eggs in this basket and trust SEC and the vultures with our social security too

    why not easy come easy go—i only worked 40 years for that “entitlement welfare” as ryan describes it–paid in 500k –so sure why not have some twenty something play games with it–go buy some derivatives—some gold etfs—from a russian—-why not—if he loses –i can eat cheap dogfood—important thing is he still eats cariar

  28. For all I know, a bankster is selling defaulted debt, theorectically at a discount, and taking an appropriate write-off.

    sure they are—otherwise they cant take the tax deduction–albeit banks may have special loan loss provisions–in fact i guess it would surprise me if they did not—im speaking of non-banks–thats my experience—–banks seem to get special treatment as a matter of course–maybe another reason why investment banks want bank treatment—wouldnt it be sweet to make up your own write down—and then deduct it—but still hold the thing—and know you took a bigger loss than you expect to suffer–only problem is GAAP conformity–report loss to shareholders same as irs

    no rules apply–like dodge city w/o dillon——fastest gun does whatever he pleases—[actually London]

  29. write-off demands release /reconveyance of the collateral instrument and I don’t know why it wouldn’t.

    the holder of the note can/must reflect impairment “write down” —but needs to make no legal action under GAAP—-so if his rcvble is face amount 100 on a non-recourse note and house FMV is 50—GAAP says write down to 50—not necessary to do anything but debits and credits internal to its books—would not even have to be associated with the specific asset

    GAAP write downs have nothing to do with debtor creditor or real estate law—–a separate acct”impairment”

    if its a “write off” for tax purposes then —must be a legally recognized event—title transfered—-

  30. how does that play with what’s going on with the alleged write-offs and then still trying to sell something to another party, affectionately called junk buyers here

    if the house stands as obligor—they must use the DOT—my best guess–so long as you committed no fraud in the application for loan—–which i think is why they always try to get people to sign an application that the broker prepared for the homeowner————then you cant raise the limited recourse defense

    but if your talking about these bottom feeders—they ignore rules—-sure they will sue on the note and you must raise the stature on limited recourse as a defense–just like bankruptcy–or satisfaction—or anthing else—-these guys will come at your estate after you die—if you die intestate they will probably take everything–cause your not there to protect and defend your widow and orphans—

  31. @JG
    “Can a lender sue on the note before seeking the remedy of foreclosure”

    Yes–i posted on this this AM——-yes absolutely they can. Their ability to pursue this remedy vs the DOT could get tangled up with provisions limiting recourse to the house though—-as i understand exists in california. I understood that to be the tradeoff there: speedy siezure process by DOT–in exchange for limited recourse against you–in essence the house is the obligor. A non-recourse loan. I know next to nothing about these systems–i readily admit—-but if its not a qualifying property—as i understand it the exemption runs to personal residence—not investment property for example. Or in my friendly judicial state Ohio of which I know enough to be dangerous to myself—-the note holder can get a judgment on the note and then chase your assets as he pleases—-granish wages—-sieze bank accts—life insurance—if he does not want the house but determines you have other assets that he can grab

    as i noted —the PSA does not allow him to pusue a house which has an enviro spill cleanup risk–so in that case —say there was a leaking underground oil tank etc—the note holder if hes still associated with the trust —will definitely be pursuing other assets—just as he can to get the deficiency

  32. @dcb – glad you’re doing some research on the issues. My issue, though, wasn’t in regard to a deficiency. That’s something else.
    My issue had only to do with the remedy for default of a note with a dot as security. Can a lender sue on the note before seeking the remedy of foreclosure and if not, how does that play with what’s going on with the alleged write-offs and then still trying to sell something to another party, affectionately called junk buyers here. Before one can look at the alleged sale of what some here call “collection rights”, one needs to know if a write-off demands release /reconveyance of the collateral instrument and I don’t know why it wouldn’t. The ‘rules’ for a taking a write-off would fall, seems to this non-accountant, under gaap and if those rules are different for different organizations
    (bank, holding co.), I wouldn’t know. I’m not likely to pursue it further because I don’t even know that write-offs are taking place. For all I know, a bankster is selling defaulted debt, theorectically at a discount, and taking an appropriate write-off. Oh, heck. Heck because I wanted to give it up. That write-off is a form of remedy for breach (which I do question only because it isn’t an act against the collateral per se and I question if there’s a legal mandate under the Trust Act or any other reason that there must be an action against the coll as the first remedy for breach) and may impact under the UCC the amt collectable by the junk buyer. This isn’t receivables for furniture.This is about promissory notes. If a lender sells a 100k note for 70k and writes off the 30k, under the UCC or any other rule(s), is the note still collectable by a junk buyer at 100k? It would be, I think, if the lender hadn’t taken the 30k write-off.
    I think the 30k write-off is appropriately deemed satisfaction for that portion of the debt and that would preclude collection of that 30k, including out of the collateral by anyone.
    As to the junk buyer and Notice of dishonor of the note,(precluding hdc status) I have no doubt it’s notice is actual (v constructive) , but failing that, constructive notice might be argued if not plain imposed by the fact of the discount.
    as always, lay comments for discussion

  33. StanChart Redux: This morning’s editions of the Journal and the FT offer behind-the-scenes accounts of the Standard Chartered saga from different perspectives. The Journal describes how New York regulator Benjamin Lawsky blindsided his counterparts in Washington and London by forging ahead with money-laundering charges against the U.K. bank while the other agencies were still investigating. The FT’s story focuses on StanChart’s response — the bank considered suing Lawsky for reputational damage, the British paper says. But Lawsky’s threat to revoke StanChart’s license to clear dollar transactions spooked shareholders. Both papers quote analysts who found the settlement amount of $340 million paltry in light of Lawsky’s initial bluster and the bank’s earnings power (StanChart made about $4 billion in the first half of this year). As often, we find the reader comments on these stories nearly as interesting as the news itself. “This episode simply illustrates the cost of doing business in [the] US now for banks who trade where [the] US wants complete hegemony,” comments an FT reader. “Banks should identify it as a business risk similar to that which oil companies operating in Russia view the vagaries of the Russian legal system.” And it seems the now-infamous foulmouthed StanChart banker who complained about “you [expletive] Americans” is in good company. Another Journal article says European companies are complaining that “banks acting for them are refusing to handle legitimate trades with Iran for fear of falling afoul of U.S. regulatory authorities. They claim the situation has put them at a disadvantage to U.S. businesses whose trade with Tehran is soaring.”

  34. @JG

    You raised a number of interesting issues yesterday–im researching the holder in due course piece –because of the constructive notice of default issue——-and how do you make sure that the bottomfeeder is on notice of your defenses—–

    one item that may have some application —you were discussing the difference between proceeding on a mortgage vs a note—i think the non-judicial states’ procedure have created the impression that there is a difference—-and maybe there is—but id be surprised if the nonjudicial pursuit on a DOT actually waives follow up on the note–or even a collateral civil action on the note to pursue a deficiency although i know that sometimes the deficiencies are limited by law

    in a judicial —its truly a 2 step—1st prove default and acceleration of note —then proceed against the security–ie mortgage

    a creditor could elect to pursue the judgmenyt on the note —not pursue the security—he could get the judgment and go after your life insurance proceeds for example when he reads in the paper you died and he wants quick cash—he knows all about your life insurance from the insurance world info sharing–so probly has a tickler system

    another situation where this would occur is if there is a hazardous contamination on site—the PSA’s iv seen have typical bank boilerplate that they are not allowed to pursue a foreclosure on a hazardous contaminated site–because under RECRA etc cleanup—there is strict liability for all owners in a chain for cost of cleanup–including banks—although they fought like creazy to avoid that with some merit—but the enviros curiously didnt trust banks long ago and were afraid that if they exempt banks the banks would be used to to launder the dirty property somehow

    anyway–the servicer is prohibited from foreclosing in such instance—–the fake trust is supposed to be safe—-interestingly they dont check cause iv seen em foreclose on a property and take title when there was risk of multiple spills —one which occurred during the preservation–they tried to conceal dumping of 1200 gallons of toxic antifreeze from a boiler system into the subslab in a basement–next to a well—-poisonous with long halflife in that environment–they would have to get rid of this toxic liquid in order to cut all the copper pipe out

    anyway the servicer could also be restrained by other creditors from going after the insurance proceeds 1st—when he has a security interest in the house—to prevent him wiping out their recovery chances–its called “marshalling”

    the servicer will try to grab cash assets 1st —–keep building up claims against the house–then grab the house–and since he controls the disposition of the house–timing–hes going to eat it up too—-so marshalling says he must 1st go after the secured prorpoertty —then if there is a deficiency—share pro rata with other creditors in other assets

    really a lot of people are overlooking the siezure of life insurance proceeds—–even for people who have settled [they thought] there is possibility that there is a deficincy out there—-that a second claimant will pursue—or that the original one will resurrect —just as soon as a spouse dies——-they have 15 years so this is real risk—–so the collection agency or the subsequent bottomfeeder who bought the note/claim dfor pennies pops up to take the insurance from the widow and orphans——if the insurance beneficiary is the deceased estate or the widow—–too often people name the widow etc ——they proceed on the erroneous assumption that the note is satisfied–when an unfounded claimant managed to get by standing etc—-and a bottomfeeder has gotten the originial paper –or a deficiency claim [where all your issues were so important]

    so the bottom feeder swoops in at that point—believe me –they are sitting on those notes and deficiency judgments just waiting —and hoping that they can get you to drop dead or suicide—the jumbo people really need to look hard at their estate planning—you dont have to be rich to have term life—lots of employers provide it –or subsidize it—my guess is that with a 15 year claimperiod open and 95% of people who walk away without contesting the deficiency [absent bankruptcy] that this will be the best way for the bottomfeeders to cash in–it deserves one of neils pieces really –the average joes will be caught offguard–so many think its over–and really i dont think that it is—–they hand you a copy of your note at settlement–avoid recording a satisfaction of note and mortgag–instead will just file a release of mortgage for their own benefit

  35. JG,
    That’s OK about “legal title.” I won’t hold it against you ;-)! I don’t mind the salty language–what I mind is when we all say “I don’t get a lot of this stuff” or profess confusion about the intricacies. Of course we get it, and none of this is that intricate. I think that some of us come to the conclusion that we must be missing something because the courts aren’t putting a stop to this–i.e., if this was such massive, intentional, knowing fraud, surely the courts would stop it. Well, as it turns out, no they wouldn’t/won’t/don’t! We know what is going on, we know what the law is, we know that outright fraud has been and continues to be perpetrated on a grand scale, and neither the courts nor the Congress are doing a thing about it.

    Having said that, I was heartened to see the consent decree against Recontrust in Washington state. I don’t know if Recontrust plans to implement all of the things required in the decree, but if and when they do, I’m sure it will just be cursory compliance. Or perhaps I’m too cynical.

  36. @JG

    “Taking the write-off and selling whatever the heck they are selling to the junk buyers because it nets them more.”

    I think that you are mixing acctg and legal concepts. this is something that tax acctg/legal doctrine deals with as an analogy which may in fact control what these people are doing. theoretetically at least they must fit tax doctrine. Under tax law one is not allowed to “recognize” perc IRC 1001 a loss merely by “writing down” an asset in value unilaterally. Thus although you coul for actg purposes credit asset dr impairment to present net income—-you could not take a deduction for that item. It would be a schedule m item–timing difference.

    For tax purposes you must have a “closed transaction” meanig a sale, or otherwise clearly provable abandonment. as you noted these guys consumate the acctg “write down” with a “sale” for a set amt to some bottom-feeder. The same thing could be accomplished by executing a release of note and mortgage in favor of the homeowner—some enforceable identifiable irrevocable act of abandonment.

    However, “And if nothing else regarding the UCC, the junk buyer is not a holder in due course (took the note with notice of its default)”

    they are not conceding this—they are asserting that the bona fide purchaser takes the collection right——free of defenses –including satisfaction—absent recordation—–they want the ability to collecte twice–i would like to hear your take on the holder in due course aspect re collection rights under a contract—-bona fide purchaser –even if in default—–can the holder in due course default be waived as against the maker vs a bank 3rd party –ie as in a check which has been denied–im confused on this—–thoughts??

    the bottom feeders are taking with implicit notice of defenses [vs default] if they are buying for cents—

  37. @carie and anyone else who gives a hoot, henceforth ‘AE’

    Whether or not a lender has a choice as a matter of law to either
    1) foreclose or 2) seek a money judgment is not insignificant. If
    there’s a reason at law which compels the pretender to seek the remedy of foreclosure for (alleged) default as its first remedy, and that would to me include against the remedy of taking a
    write-off (altho one would think a write-off should be optional – still, I wonder), that reason would undermine the ability of a second pretender, the creep who allegedly bought the charged-off acount from the first pretender (and to this I still say “say what?”), to go for either foreclosing or seeking a money judgment. And I still say that if a debt has been charged off, the collateral is gone with it and the security instrument should have been released / reconveyed at the time of the write-off of the debt as uncollectable. How can the collateral survive writing off the debt? Sure wish someone who might understand this rather salient issue would weigh in her: is foreclosure, or any action which at its core is one after the collateral, a mandatory course of first-action for remedy for breach? Why isn’t the collateral obligation snuffed when the debt which gave rise to the coll agreement is written-off?

    I question the right to even write-off the debt as uncollectable without first seeking what might be a prescribed remedy for default
    (foreclosure) or even if not, the write-off as remedy may get them a
    better bottom line to which they are not entitled for failure to attempt to collect the debt themselves. Shouldn’t they be compelled to live with any write-off after foreclosure instead of taking a probable larger one with no attempt to themselves collect by foreclosure?
    If so, their duty as to taxation is not met by the method they are
    employing: Taking the write-off and selling whatever the heck they are selling to the junk buyers because it nets them more.
    They are stashing the junk buyers’ funds somewhere for tax avoidance, foisting the junk buyer payment or promise to pay on the investors, or taking any actual payment by the junk buyer in a future tax year or years. I can’t prove this; it’s theory.
    If they are taking a promise to pay from the junk buyer in lieu of money, it’s probably not taxable until received. I don’t know.
    Course, they’d have to report it, right? Taking a promise to pay in lieu of money has UCC implications. And if nothing else regarding the UCC, the junk buyer is not a holder in due course (took the note with notice of its default) and is subject to all affirmative defenses available to the homeowner. This could lead to an unassailable need for discovery because in my lay opinion, the pretender should be put to its proof of holder v hdc and how could it be said this is unreasonable?
    Ask an attorney. These are lay opinions and not legal advice.
    I don’t know that write-offs have occurred. I’m taking someone else’s word and looking at it as if it’s true.

    @zur – I gave you a bum steer. The words “legal title” describe the interest of a nominee. More later fwiw. I’m working on cases where MERS has found it necessary to volunteer, in fact, argue that it may not act in its own right. Have some, want more. Also found two cases wherein court found the relationship between MERS and its members is more akin to a trust than any other (such as agent /principal), so a trust within a trust basically.

  38. This is the one post of NG’s that I wanted to pay particular attention to because it’s evident a lot of work went into it. But I have been onto something else that takes all my time and then there’s another thing. There was a time when arms weren’t that bad. They were limited to a 1 or 2 percent note rate increase per year with a lifetime ceiling of 5 or 6. They had no negative am. They were tied to a particular index with a margin of 2 to 2 1/2 percent over that index, not anything heinous. The index only moved much when the chairman of the fed opened his mouth (one could count on that). This is another example of lenders being given an inch and taking a mile. As far as I know, FHA and VA were never participants in the teaser rates bs that private sources developed ,came up with and pawned off on the unknowledgeable.
    National, concerted RICO suit? That would take an incredilbe amount of A – list talent.
    As to this website: Neil can password protect it if he chooses to keep us plebes in any line he chooses. I, for instance, don’t like the use of bad language here because it undermines credibility to me, long and short. I couldn’t ask my family and friends to come here because they would leave upon that language. I understand the desire to let it out. It’s not my site, so that’s not my business. And while I’m at it, as far back as I can find, there has been very little participation by attorneys.
    Could probably count them on one hand. I’m sure they have their reasons, which probably have nothing to do the material of the posts here. But it doesn’t look like we the great unwashed have run them off. That rather leaves us. I personally don’t get a lot of this stuff.
    My own focus for which I won’t apologize is to try to find a reliable path to defeat mtns to dismiss or SJ so that one can get to discovery for whatever reason it’s espoused as necessary and or would be dispostive, including to demonstrate Neil Garfield or anyone else’s tenets.


    I apologize again for introdicing material into this string that is only tangentially relevent or only distantly relevant to the issue of prime interest to readers—most probaby now a small crew who have folowed this particular thread. The European condition is tangentially relevant because it may affect both funding availability for housing in the short term and interest rate long term.

    Todays news indicates further slide of Eu econimcally with Finland and Germany facing slowdowns. Greece is living by paying back 1st tranche ECB borrowings with money borrowed from its own domestic banks. These obtain their funds from the Greek central bank which then is funded by the ECB–subject to northern member co-operation. Thus, the existing “OLD “debt owed ECB is being rolledThe Greek internal economy—is borrowing weekly or monthly in addition to the rolling of old debt deal. Greece has today requested additional $20 billion in addition to th 3% previously agreed. The total greek bailout is at more than 200 Billion euro. With a rapidly growing debt burden nuder the refis of old debt at increased interest rate. And for funding the new internal prop up: increased debt and increased interst rates. That is if Greece stays in the Euro –it drives up competitive rates—if it drops out the rates will go much higher on new money, The old money will not be paid at all. EURO will “eat” this loss by printing money. The money Either way rates are forced up. This is typical of hard times, high risk, and expanding money supply to let people pay utilies eat and etc. There is no room for capital investment –such as refi of vacant homes in the US. without higher rates.

    Unless high interest rates arrive to pull money —with shaky jobs base. seniors trying to sell into a falling market –which will be depressed further by high interest rates. 90 % of federally “involved” loans are fixed rate. Ok why is FHA-Ginnae, Freddie –etc. feeding ANY ARM’s. These are obviously “designed to fail” mortgages.
    Why would anybody be allowed to assume risk of default from interest rate increases ala 2003-4? Why would FHA insure these? Who originates these ARMs and what other likely predatory elements are there. An ARM today for residential real estate in particular is in itself a bright red flag. It seems that rising interest rates will force these occupants to default. They must be marginal to seek the predatory teaser rate marginal monthly dollar difference. This is more housing that will roll—every time these roll –more fees are generated.

    This speaks to a deliberately setup fee mill–AGAIN.

    Further, the same sorts of advance planning and real estate selection for default happened in 2003-4. The records of the causation of financing collapse will reveal that prior pattern of conduct —predatory by design on investors and homeower victims–like this new crop.

    The cause of action is RICO. The proof of it is in those records that are being held sealed. Past experience in suit details—the materials that are concealed are likely the ones needed to prove RICO.
    The sealed files of the supporting info of the Congressional investigation may contain the evidence needed.

    The fact that this material is sealed indicates that it is economically sensitive. For those of you that have cases–that assist others–what effect would it have on your case to have a default–industry-wide RICO claim supported by judicial notice of government-held documents–including confessions? The damages would reasonably establish basis for setoff —excess of loan to value–plus past injury and overpayment. With these adjustments most people should be able to remain in their houses. complete elimination of debt for thoseoriginated today which are predatory would help prevent continuation of the predation. 10% fit that class—how do you get that out of FDCPA/RESPA/TILA—-not dealing in good faith–no benefit intend or received by the new buyer?

    How older can sell is another matter.

  40. Shocking details have emerged regarding the alleged Colorado Batman shooter James Holmes.

    Holmes’ father, Robert Holmes, reportedly is a senior lead analyst with FICO, and was scheduled to testify as a whistle-blower in the coming weeks regarding the LIBOR scandal, was was reportedly ready to NAME BIG NAMES involved in the massive global fraud as well as provide evidence to the Senate Banking Committee linking the high level executives to their crimes!

    Robert Holmes, the shooting suspect’s father, is a senior lead scientist with FICO, the American credit score company. He was scheduled to testify in the next few weeks before a US Senate panel that is investigating the largest bank fraud scandal in world history. This banking fraud threatens to destabilize and destroy the Western banking system.

    Robert Holmes not only uncovered the true intent of the massive LIBOR banking fraud, but his “predictive algorithm model” also traced the trillions of “hidden”dollars to the exact bank accounts of the elite classes who stole it. In other words, Robert Holmes could NAME NAMES!

    Those names WOULD AWAKEN THE WORLD to the depth of government and corporate corruption which could include members of Congress, Wall Street, Federal Reserve and EU executives and could even include US Presidential candidates and the British Royal family.

    The motives for the massacre are:

    1) To silence whistle-blower Robert Holmes

    2) To influence the upcoming vote on the UN Global Small Arms Treaty which could result in gun confiscation and disarming world citizens. The UN treaty could override national sovereignty and give a license to federal governments to assert preemptive gun control powers over state regulatory powers.

  41. @CARIE

    Please describe how that NPV is supposed to work?

  42. carie-
    So under the hamp guidelines, a “creditor” is to consider the npv in determining if mod is best – best for whom? and is this conjecture or fact in the hamp guidelines. I have someone’s HAMP agreeement at scribd, pretty sure, and I don’t recall seeing that in there. I think it’s FNMA’s guidelines where npv is found and if that’s the source, well,
    not sure that it would actually comport with hamp guidelines. Oh, wait. I don’t actually know of any HAMP guidelines or mandates other than ‘here, take this money and modify. But in their own deal, that is, FNMA’s mandates to servicers, maybe the price paid should in fact be relevant. I have never taken on fnma’s hamp guidelines to servicers except the most cursery look. No one else here has cared to, not even those denied modification, far as I can tell.


    Here is your answer:

    Under HAMP, the “claimed creditor” is required to consider modifications. They are to use certain methods to calculate Net Present Value to determine if a modification would be beneficial. Net Present Value must consider the present value of the debt. Without disclosing how much a creditor purchased the collection rights for, any net present value calculation would be inaccurate. Thus, for loan modification consideration and calculations, how much the debt buyer paid for the debt must be disclosed.

  44. @dc: $400 billions of “sweeping somthing under the rug”:

  45. $400 billion chunk of Drug Money: anyone remembers WACHOVIA which swept over $400 billions of pure drug money under the rug of WELLS FARGO. Is anyone smelling that except the officials who got paid off in the process & the people who used & trafficked the dope, some of you included??? Dope trafficking & its money laundering is way of like in this drugged country because majority of population is addicted to it (including your prescription dopes)!!!

  46. Carie- (and all) your posts are tremendous girl.

  47. What is that old phrase: “sweeping somthing under the rug” —but even if its out of sight–it still smells like rotting fish

  48. @ALL FYI——sure they only laundered $15 million–thats why they just agreed to pay $340 million?

    What about the banks that they paased the $250 Billion to???

    From “American Banker ” today:
    “Britain’s Standard Chartered Bank will pay $340 million to settle claims that it laundered hundreds of billions of dollars in illegal foreign transactions for Iran and other parties.

    The case was brought by New York State’s Department of Financial Services, a combined banking and insurance regulator that shocked both London and Washington by aggressively interjecting itself into the Standard Chartered matter. Other banks have quietly settled similar allegations with federal regulators in the past, paying big fines but staying out of the limelight.

    In contrast, the DFS threatened to revoke Standard Chartered’s state banking license and publicly aired damning emails in which a bank executive aggressively stated contempt for Washington prohibitions on dealing with Iran.

    “You [expletive] Americans,” the most widely cited such email read. “Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we’re not going to deal with Iranians.”

    The enforcement action by the DFS, a recently reformulated agency headed by Benjamin Lawsky, effectively sidelined Washington regulators from the enforcement action. Notably, Lawsky’s settlement does not include the Treasury Department or other federal enforcement bodies that may still have open investigations of Standard Chartered, leaving the question of whether Standard Chartered has fully resolved its legal issues unclear.

    “While the dollar values in some prior sanctions cases against foreign banks have been huge, the New York Department of Financial Services’ threat to pull Standard Chartered’s license is likely to be viewed by most banks as much more ominous,” said Meredith Rathbone, a partner in Steptoe & Johnson’s DC office who handles AML cases. “It is unclear whether the New York Department of Financial Services involvement in sanctions enforcement actions is going to become the ‘new normal’ in this space.”

    Unlike previous large-dollar laundering settlements which went to the federal government (Credit Suisse) or ones that were split between New York and the U.S. (ING) Standard Chartered’s $340 million will go entirely into New York State’s general fund.

    The DFS’s aggressive methods and results will likely raise eyebrows both in Washington and abroad. Following the DFS’s initial salvo in the case, politicians and newspapers in the UK branded Lawsky a “rogue regulator.”

    “This is a substantive strategic event for not just foreign banks in the US but for any bank with a state charter,” said Karen Shaw Petrou, Managing Partner of Federal Financial Analytics. “Standard Chartered saved its license at the cost of $340 million and a lot of reputational damage.”

    Standard Chartered initially argued that its prohibited transactions were limited to around $14 million, and were the result of administrative errors. According to the DFS release on Tuesday, the bank agrees that “the conduct at issue involved transactions of at least $250 billion.” But the release does not state that Standard Chartered concedes it has misbehaved.

    The settlement will give New York significant oversight of the banks’ anti-money laundering efforts in the future. In addition to the fine, Standard Chartered has also agreed to give the DFS significant access to its operations in order to monitor for compliance.

    “The Bank shall install a monitor for a term of at least two years who will report directly to DFS,” the department’s release states. “In addition, DFS examiners shall be placed on site at the Bank.”

    While DFS’s actions may have been a surprise to regulators in the UK and Washington, they appear to have gone over well in Albany. Shortly after the DFS announcement, the office of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued a press release praising Lawsky’s actions.

  49. SHOCKING VIDEO! Her evidence has the potential to rock the finance industry.
    Australia’s Sub Prime Mortgage Scandal Grows
    Australia’s largest banks are being forced to forgive mortgage debts of borrowers granted loans based on falsified or fraudulent information supplied by mortgage brokers.
    (In lawless America, where law enforcement has the backbone of a squid – they give money, equity and FREE houses to the people who create falsified and fraudulent information.)
    Australian lenders are refusing to provide low-doc borrowers with copies of their applications, while other lenders have told borrowers that such documents have been destroyed – to cover-up the crime.

  50. Lesson to learn dont file any false documents unless you work for the TBTF banks.

  51. thanks carie.

  52. Speaking of the “F” word. Jamie Dimond believes this is a free country to F__k!

  53. @carie – “And, that creditor should disclose how much they paid for collection rights — and at what discount”.
    I’m not convinced the “creditor” in this sentence is a creditor since I’m not convinced fwiw which isn’t much admittedly there’s is anything
    to lawfully purchase, but disregarding that, why should a ‘creditor’
    make such a disclosure? Without the why, that becomes an empty
    statement. Is it good manners? Is it law and if so, what law? Mechanics of UCC? Not smarmy, not meant that way at all. But the argument seems incomplete as stated.


    Here is your answer:

    The trusts had a waterfall structure, that is top is paid pass-through first. Bottom tranches are credit enhancement tranches that get paid only if there is anything left over. When the crisis hit, we had what you call a trigger event, meaning the trusts could no longer “pass-through” what was supposed to pass through due to huge default. In a normal situation, the trust would just dissolve, with those tranches protected by swaps paid out. Instead of just naturally letting the trusts dissolve, as they should have, the government stepped in, purchased the tranches, paid the swaps, and, in effect, put these trusts on “artificial life support” to keep certain flows going to security investors. In addition, in normal times, there were always buyers of loans that defaulted and no longer had current cash “pass-through”, thereby they were removed (swapped-out) from the trust. But, during the crisis even the debt buying market dried up. Government came to the rescue, by TARP, and various other programs, and purchased these “toxic assets” from whoever owned them. After the top tranches are paid-out by swap contracts, the waterfall structure has been destroyed. There is no “trust” remaining as it was intended to be. The trigger event for default payout destroys the very intention of the trust.

    The government has been slowly selling the remnant “tranches” and “pools” of “distressed” debt loans to distressed debt buyers (who have revived themselves also with government help). In courts, foreclosure attorneys still claim the creditor is the trustee to trust. This is even though the trust has been dismantled, kept on artificial support, and torn apart, with LOAN POOLs sold elsewhere. Further, swaps were never securities and part of the the trust, they are contracts.

    Yes, derecognition and accounting chicanery. But, the chicanery was occurring BEFORE the crisis. This before the crisis chicanery is what CAUSED the crisis. The subprime loans that supported these trusts were NEVER valid mortgages. It was easy for the government, at the crisis, to de-recognize the “assets” — because they were never assets!!!

    Taxpayers harmed? Maybe. But, it is the homeowner victims that are the real people that were harmed. They were the scapegoat. Victims of fraud twice — once at loan origination, and second at foreclosure. At the very least, the creditor should show its ugly head and stop hiding behind an empty Trust. And, that creditor should disclose how much they paid for collection rights — and at what discount? How much profit will they make at the foreclosure? And, why did they not sit down with the borrower and discuss lowering their profit in order for borrower to keep his/her home??

    Why isn’t the creditor at the table? Deregulation — they do not have to be, and few courts are not challenging this.


  56. @ET



    If I knew OBAMA had forced her out Id vote for him—–but……???
    “WASHINGTON — After Julie Williams, the longtime No. 2 at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, announced she was leaving, one question dominated the resulting discussion: Was she pushed out or did she jump?

    Williams has been a dominant force at the agency for 19 years, serving four comptrollers and seen as the principal architect of the OCC’s controversial 2004 preemption rules.

    But many insiders have been waiting to see how long and whether she would last after Comptroller Tom Curry was installed in April. Curry has already criticized the agency’s past behavior and is expected to moderate the OCC’s views on preemption.

    While no source claimed to definitively know if Williams was forced out, most agreed there were tangible signs of a rift between her and the agency’s new leadership. Curry was keeping Williams at a distance, sources said, and it was clear she would have significantly less influence on policymaking. Some suggested Williams may have disagreed with the direction Curry was planning to take the agency.

    In a potentially telling move, the OCC also offered no reason for Williams’ resignation, other than to say she would stay on until Sept. 30 (and remain a federal employee until the end of the year). There was no quote from her in the press release announcing her departure, and she declined through a spokesman to speak to the media.

    It was also apparent that the Obama administration — and consumer groups that support it — was not a fan of Williams. In a surprise move in 2010, Williams was passed over for acting comptroller after the departure of John Dugan — a public snub due to her role in crafting a preemption policy with which the administration disagreed.

    Additionally, the Treasury Department publicly rebuked the OCC last year after it authored an opinion maintaining that preemption standards had not changed in the wake of the Dodd-Frank Act — an opinion which, as general counsel, Williams effectively authored.

    Williams’ future plans are unclear, but she is sure to have her pick of jobs among financial law firms, consultants and financial institutions.

    It is difficult to overstate what a unique role Williams has played as a top staffer at a federal banking regulator. Generally speaking, the players behind the scenes seldom gain the same attention — or notoriety — as the agencies’ principals.

    But Williams has proved to be a notable exception — almost certainly against her will. Although the preemption rules were promulgated in 2004 under Comptroller John D. Hawke, and supported by his successor, consumer groups saw her as a driving force behind them. Indeed, many came to see her as the power behind the throne, a characterization that the comptrollers and multiple sources said is unwarranted and incorrect.

    “The idea that she ran the agency is simply not true,” said Hawke, now a partner at Arnold & Porter. “I can’t think of a single occasion where I asked Julie to do something and she refused to do it, or she didn’t come to me first if there was a significant decision to be made. She was an ideal first senior deputy and general counsel.”

    Eugene Ludwig, another former comptroller and now chief executive of Promontory Financial Group, praised Williams as an exceptional lawyer and a person of high integrity. “Exemplary in terms of service to her country, and an enormously talented legal mind,” he said.

    Hawke said consumer groups — and the Obama administration — have unfairly targeted Williams.

  58. Claims that Australia’s banking sector is conservative, safe and secure have taken a bath in recent days as evidence has emerged of Australia’s own sub-prime lending scandal.

    In April, we learned via the Australian newspaper how Australia’s largest banks are being forced to forgive mortgage debts of borrowers granted loans based on falsified or fraudulent information supplied by mortgage brokers.

    Wow! What a novel idea! The banks having to eat losses….how revolutionary! They must still have a government down there…I mean…one that is separate from the financial community….I wonder what that would be like? To be free from Dictator Dimon….I call him Dick for short….and for brains…..

  59. Cutting them off at the throat is the best thing everyone can do. Cut off bank accounts Dont purchase anything you can not pay cash for. Purchase the Kevin Trudeau book and cut off the payments on all unsecured accounts theyt are milking you for by rigged LIBOR ratings. Pull your money out of the stock market what ever it takes think about it and do it. I did a long time ago. Use credit unions. I give my customers discounts on smaller packages so they dont use credit cards. So they can get out of debt. A lot of my customers have gone to credit unions and are purchasing smaller packages by check or cash. No debit fee for the banksters. No credit card fees for the banksters. They can have the best credit in the world and a good paying job and if they are one day late on a low interest rate card the find themselves paying 30% interest. My daughter is using her puppy money to pay off her cards, she did not get paid off with her income tax return. She is cutting them all up. All my adult children are banking in credit unions. Inform people not to rent these stolen houses and not to purchase them. I have stopped the purchase of stolen houses many times. I sent them to the Clouded titles web site Dave Kreiger has to protect us all. All of us informing others makes a big difference. Take time top call your government represenatives and email them. Big waves of compliants scare them only due to votes. Take time to email everyone and ask them to spread the word and to help with evidence. I would camp out on our family property in Oregon before I would rent a house or my own house from these devils.

  60. I rest my case. Imagine being that heartless-bloodless robot and still sweating bullets day in, day out, fearing that some French guy previously employed by a bank might very well have already spilled a few beans. Imagine having billions to lose and knowing that it is right at the corner? I wouldn’t sleep too well. Having nothing, hence nothing to lose, I can tell you that i sleep like a log! And make no mistake: so many are asking the questions that the responses are bound to come up…

    Tuesday, August 14, 2012
    A Tax Expert Takes a Closer Look At Romney’s Tax Returns

    Tax Notes has seen fit to put an informative article by Lee Sheppard about Mitt Romney’s tax returns outside its paywall. This piece shows that questions about what might lurk in the returns that Romney has withheld has diverted attention from some dodgy tax issues in the filings he has provided.

    The public has gotten understandably unhappy about the $3 million Swiss bank account he held. Sheppard points out that it was common for people like Romney not to report it at all, and the release of older returns would reveal whether he had complied before the US crackdown. Her comment:

    Swiss bank account. Issue: Did Romney report it properly?

    A Romney grantor trust had a $3 million Swiss bank account at UBS that the trustee closed in 2010. Romney’s campaign said that the account was disclosed on foreign bank account reports and that U.S. tax was paid on the interest from it…

    Nondisclosure was common among rich people before the 2010 enactment of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. The penalty for failure to file an FBAR was bupkes, and the agency in charge of enforcing the law, Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, had no interest in enforcing it. Very few FBARs were filed before 2010. At about 200,000 filings annually, the rate of FBAR compliance was estimated to be less than 20 percent before the IRS crackdown.

    Another issue which the media has flagged is the monster size of Romney’s IRA. The tax expert’s view:

    IRAs. Issue: Can profits interests or special classes of shares in private equity target companies be contributed to IRAs?

    Romney has a gigantic IRA, which may hold as much as $100 million in assets. We do not know what it contains. We can only speculate. Given the applicable contribution limits, it is hard to see how the IRA got so big, even if Bain deals were hugely profitable. Regardless of what is in the IRA, serious valuation and self-dealing questions are raised.

    A detailed discussion follows, and it’s hard to see how this IRA is kosher.

    The article discusses nine additional troubling aspects of the Romney returns that have been put on view, and they are instructive and pointed. For instance, finance people always refer to the manage participation in fund profits as a “carried interest”. But as Sheppard stresses, the IRS calls that a “profits interest” and they have specific valuation rules. And she is clearly not happy with how the popular press missed the real issue with Bain’s use of Cayman Islands investment vehicles:

    Private equity. Issue: Cayman residence of funds.

    The places where some of Bain Capital’s numerous private equity funds are organized — Bermuda and the Cayman Islands — are tax havens. The widespread use of tax and banking havens by large U.S. multinationals and investment funds as an escape hatch from U.S. tax, banking, and securities laws, while offensive, is tolerated and even encouraged by U.S. law and administrative practice.

    Mainstream newspapers howl that Romney has assets in the Caymans, but the reality is worse. Bain Capital invests in the United States and other countries, including China, but it organizes its funds in the Caymans to keep investor lists secret while availing itself of British corporate law. Every other investment fund does the same thing.

    The practical effect of Cayman registration is that if investors were of a mind to lie to their home governments about the existence of or income from their Bain investments, the secrecy of investor lists makes it easier to do so. As the Romney campaign pointed out, all these investors still owe tax to their home governments (including the U.S. government) on their Bain income.

    She flags the Marriott tax shelter as improper, some treatments as particularly questionable, such as the intramarital/intrafamily transfers and the notorious show horse:

    Ann Romney’s Olympic horse. Issue: Is Rafalca a business?

    Probably not. Before the Romneys can claim any passive loss deduction for Ann Romney’s share of Rafalca’s expenses, the LLC that owns the horse, Rob Rom Enterprises, has to be engaged in a trade or business. For that, it has to satisfy the hobby loss rule for horses, which has a rebuttable presumption of a business if there is a profit in two out of seven years (section 183(c)). Rob Rom has owned Rafalca for six years.

    Rafalca’s rider said she would be bred when her show career was over. That may be a stretch, because the horse is 15 and has been in strenuous competition for 11 years. If she could produce a foal or two, it would have to be sold for $500,000 or more.

    Moreover, the prize money in dressage competitions doesn’t come close to covering the roughly $120,000 per year for Rafalca’s upkeep and transportation from California to European competitions. So it is unlikely she would ever make a profit for her owners

    I encourage you read the article in full. It is very accessible and informative. In closing, Sheppard observes:

    It is often said that the rich get rich and stay rich by watching every penny. Romney certainly fits that description. He looks for every tax angle, to a degree that is unbecoming in someone who would be the executive in command of the administrative apparatus that enforces the tax law.

    And that is what is so bizarre about Romney on this issue and many others. He’s not a Perot, who entered politics abruptly and therefore could be expected to have some trouble in making the transition from corporate life to being on the public stage. But Romney is an archetypal member of the 0.1%. He is so far removed from ordinary Americans that he can’t grok what proper behavior is even if he were to try.

  61. Zur,

    I really don’t think we’re fucked. Whatever there was to lose, we already lost (except for life, of course, but then, that might be the best thing that ever happens to us. ‘Cuz what we’ve been going through since 2007 is anything but life!)

    Nah… We’re in the best position we could be in. Got nothing left to lose. Unlike those greedy bastards who are so afraid of the future that they white knuckle every minute of every day, conniving and trying to hold on to their chimera. At least, we can start rebuilding. They can’t. They have to hang on ’til they hit rock bottom. Long road ahead of them. By the time they do hit rock bottom, we, the 99%, will be up and running. Those guys are the future homeless of the world. And i doubt that anyone of us will have one drop of compassion left: we’ll have already given everything we had!

    Closed your bank accounts yet?

  62. While I’ll wholeheartedly agree that we’re all fucked, my real reason for posting is to be the 200th comment. Because I can.

    It’s vitally important in life, when totally fucked, not to lose sight of the little triumphs. It’s all good. Well….not all of it. As a matter of fact, a lot of it sucks. But it is what it is.

  63. @UKG,
    Yes, I agree. We ARE all fucked.

  64. I guess you all know where my emphasis has been, so it should come as little surprise when I confess I don’t know what you’re talking about a lot of the time. LIke: how do they give fed res or anybody notes which are the property of trusts? If the loans belong to trusts (and the trusts are the parties with blanking recourse, which is a clue as to who owns them, that is, who has the recourse against the borrower), how does this make someone else broke? Seems to me the banks are broke, if they are, for one or all of three reasons: they’re eating the losses by way of 1) guarantee 2) the loans are merely hypothecated to the trusts which is maybe tied up with no. 1)
    3) overextended commitments of payment streams on the loans whether a result of too many stinking tranches or multiple sale of same note.
    But to say something like they gave the feds the notes for tarp funds, which is just an example of things said here which undermine the trusts owning the loans, is to say they could because the trusts don’t own them, is it not?

  65. @ALL

    Final thought for the day: JPM is so repentant with moneylaundering—-rate fixing etc etc —TBTF——–that it announced today that it was merging its investment banking and commercial banking operations into a single unit —-thus it cannot be disassembled—TBTF squared

    global domination NOW

  66. Perhaps the bank CEO’s should do the evictions. To many innocent lives are being taken. Let them do their own dirty work. They wouldnt! To risky. !

  67. a guy I know told me today that the notes were given to the Federal Reserve (in exchange for the TARP money), that’s why all they have are “copies” of the notes. I know the story about the security (mortgage) being lost to derecognition.

  68. ANONYMOUS, explain something for me.Trusts show zero balance. Bloomberg shows the trust certificates still paying, except for 3 of the four top tranches that show paid off (PO tranches). The loan is still being carried and shows the balance reducing accordingly as though paid. Did they take all the TARP money, stuff it in escrow, and then use the dough to continue to pay the certificate holders?
    tell me again, daddy-o. This is just accounting chicanery? I don’t think so, rather, this is accounting 101 with other peoples money? As in the taxpayers?

  69. Boy oh Boy. Do you know that FEMA is Fed owned. The private Fed that so many tell me is government owned. So many people do not know half the truth. The FEMA camps are terribly frightening. A secretary of one of our senators here in WA is a friend and customer of mine.She sent me a map of the FEMA camps when I asked her what she knew about FEMA camps. She stated on her email, this is probably the most important email I will ever send you and will not make another comment on it to me.She will email me in minutes for anything and will not email me or comment any further on the FEMA camps. Just the map of gross ammounts of FEMA camps.That has frightened me a lot.

  70. What you are describing Neil is called entrusted lending. In China, it is illegal for two commercial entities to loan money between eachother. They work around this hurdle by using a bank as an intermediary. The bank is entrusted to make an off balance sheet loan according to specific instructions, to a specific target, for a specific amount, at a specific interest rate, over a specific term.

    It is a third party loan. Borrowers were targeted for investment by the entrusted lender on behalf of the trustor. We all received entrusted loans. The obligation was never on the balance sheet of the intermediary. They were never entitled to the “borrowers” performance. There were never any rights and privilages to the consideration for the loan. I invite you to google entrusted lending or China entrusted loan

  71. those trucks looked like the “microwave on wheels” vehicles they use to disperse crowds. They turn it on you and you start to cook from the inside out.

    And the Racine, Wisconsin, police department has a bunch of armored vehicles in their parking lot. They look much more “military” than “public safety” oriented.

    I think we’re all fucked.

  72. im not upset about it—they are there to sweep immigrants into camps —just like 2001—and the occassional OWLS—geez—it would cost them too much just for my drugs–plus I whine a lot—the biggest threat I pose is making a mess on the rug on the way to the bathroom

    my sons would look good in those blackshirts—-

    im trying to remember who the DHS uberfuhrer is these days?

    the thing about it is that the rest of the govt guys would be wondering which drug cartel the driver worked for in his off hours–im dead serious

  73. Let’s not panic. I’m sure we’re making too much of it. Let’s revisit the issue in a few weeks if need be… Until then, no need to lose sleep over it. Plus, your stomach is going to act up again. Not good.

  74. but on wheels and black? i know theyv been stopping people on I-80 east/west south of cleveland–1.5 hrs from any border–a doctor friend told me–he was surprised because DHS/customs so far from border

  75. tanker trucks are semis—that pull into gas stations –long cylindrical—-if this was an actual moving group it would have its own fuel trucks–not usually as big as the 9000 gallon ones for retail–maybe 70% size

    otherwise these are just out going on local drive to make you feel safer

  76. DCB,

    Most of the ones i saw this morning were not on flat beds. And i have no idea what a fuel tanker truck looks like. I’m a GIRL!


    this is not an armoured personnel carrier—-this is not military–as the letters show—its a patrol vehicle for DHS—maybe police too–light armor

  78. @dcb – maybe it’s common knowledge in those circles that Obama
    has a blank-load of mandates and orders ready to sign on a particular
    November eve, either way.

  79. thats what i thought—-headed to ky

  80. Iv been seeing stuff like the kids video for many years —-hodge podge of old equip–looked like a natl guard training thing to me–i cant tell what those turret things are??? maybe they are bases for satellite stuff–could be a communications group

    the black of course is DHS—–im wondering if a convey on flatbeds of shiny new stuff is a delivery from a northern ohio manufacturing plant—i do not know who has that contract —but if they are black they are either DHS or not yet painted—did they have lettering? the one video clearly showed DHS lettering—all the customs dhs uniforms are black–look just like SS uniforms

    if they are new and black headed south they could be moving where they need to be —hurricane alley–or border–either way thats where they belong——did you see black fuel tanker trucks?

  81. Columbus-by-the-sea is an inside joke. I mean your wonderful capital.

  82. I caught them south of Polaris Pky going south. They stayed there and didn’t veer to 270. You’re starting to get me concerned. What are your thought? And the kids on that video mentioned being at the Sandusky level or somewhere around there.

  83. Columbus-by-the-sea—WHERE IS THAT? on I-71 where?

  84. And you asked how many. i didn’t count. 50, 60. Maybe more.

  85. @DCB,

    This morning, they were going south toward Columbus-by-the-sea. On Saturday, on that video shot by the two kids, they were traveling in both directions, still on 71.

    Please don’t panic. But if you think it means something, you might as well let us know.

  86. @ DCB, never any need to apologize to me, I’m not one to pull my hair and grind my teeth.

    Off-topic is A-OK with me, as long as you don’t start rallying behind Obama. Or Romney.

  87. “While Mexico imports mostly yellow maize for animal feed and produces close to sufficient white maize
    for human consumption, the prices of the two commodities still move together as they are substitutes”







  89. @DCB,

    Mostly black.

    Not really off topic. For all we know, all that mortgage, banks, securitization crap is about to become a moot point.

  90. I have to admit I have seen many military vehicles for miles and miles in the past all my life traveling down the freeway or on roads we traveled and on rail cars. So that would not be unusual. While traveling to Oregon and Idaho from Washington. Easy to feel intimidated right now with all this crazy take over by the bankster/government right now. But not unusual to see miles of military vehicles going down the road.

    I sent my daughter to the airport two days ago to pick up a great dane I purchased from Russia. When she went to customs, I recieved a call from a border patrol agent. He wanted to know where my daughter lived and how old she was. I told him how do I know he is really from border patrol and why is border patrol asking these questions. Why should I tell you where my daughter lives? He said lady I am from customs and I am trying to get your dog from Germany (which was incorrect , it is Russia) through customes. Well he did not say customs he said border patrol and he wanted to know my daughters age her name and where she lives. He started laughing. I told him she is thirty and he said are you sure. She looks twenty or younger. I said yes, then I gave him my business address originally so he said do you have another address. and why didnt you come for the dog? We finally got it taken care of. How was i suppose to know customs had border patrol? and not someone I did not want to give our address my daughters name and age to. We tend to think the worst and panic a litte. So much bad outrrageous evil out there.. No one trust our government nor the banks. Our neighborhoods are loaded with sex offenders. I quit counting and keeping track when it went over fivehundred sex offenders here in Auburn years ago. Over ten at number three levels. We all carry pepperspray. What a world we live in. No trust in our systgem at all. We are not safe in our houses at all or our neighborhoods. The judicial system does not protect us. The Sheriffs throw vulnerable famlies out of their homes in the name of fruadsters, and we dont trust what convoys of the military are doing driving down the road and why should we?

  91. @ET
    I apologize–you are correct—this discussion has veered far off topic

  92. @ENRAGED

    Were the vehicles black or camo/green?
    How many?
    Going South?

  93. DCB,

    Doesn’t look to me like national guards going on summer training. Some guy made a video Saturday of what i saw this morning driving down 71. I know nothing about military vehicles. Still doesn’t look good.

  94. From American Banker trade press; this smells like private labels” to me—a rush to originate FHA insured mortgages and issue MBS; sounds familiar—i wonder what proportion are ARM’s?
    “Don’t call us, we’ll call you.

    That’s the feeling at Ginnie Mae, which is being bombarded by requests from small mortgage banks to become issuers of its mortgage-backed securities. Fewer large banks are willing to purchase their loans, so the mortgage banks are throwing themselves into the arms of Ginnie.

    They have become spooked by the exit of Bank of America (BAC), Ally Financial (ALLY) and MetLife (MET) from correspondent lending. Wells Fargo (WFC) may have intensified their worries by refusing in July to fund mortgages through its wholesale channel from independent mortgage brokers.

    But Ginnie officials are reluctant to take on more lenders, especially those who do not have the financial strength to share the risk of loan defaults. The agency is considering raising minimum net-worth requirements for its MBS issuers to thresh out weak applicants.

    “We’re thinking long and hard about our minimum requirements right now,” says Gregory Keith, Ginnie’s senior vice president and chief risk officer. He found many applicants are ill-equipped for the role.

  95. They always make budget reathorization as dramatic as possible—it forces the military base representatives to line up on other things–like farm bill which is also stuck in the mud—its politics as usual—they do it on highway bill—the contractors line up to make contributions so there is no break in contract payments. im sorry i sound so cynical–i spent a lot of years up there—–

    from american banker on another topic
    “WASHINGTON — Julie Williams, one of the nation’s top regulators for large banks, announced Monday that she will depart from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency on Sept. 30.

    “In her 19 years at the OCC, her contributions to the agency and her role in the world of financial services regulation have been extraordinary,” said Comptroller Thomas J. Curry in a press release Monday. “In my few months as Comptroller, Julie played an integral role in my transition and has played an indispensable role in my leadership team.”

    As the OCC’s chief counsel for the last 18 years, Williams was central in leading the agency’s overall efforts under multiple comptrollers. She is often credited with key roles in policies ranging from federal preemption to how the OCC viewed protection of financial consumers at large banks. Williams at times has also been a target of criticism for the agency’s large-bank supervision.

    Consumer groups, in particular, have blamed Williams as the principal architect of the agency’s preemption rules, which they say prevented states from enacting tougher consumer protection controls on banks.

    No explanation was offered for Williams stepping down, and she was not immediately available for comment. The agency’s press release said following her departure from the agency at the end of September, Williams plans to retire from federal service at the end of the year.

  96. ToLLe,

    “DCB and Enraged, I think you two should get a room.” No need to incur the expense: I live in a free house. 🙂 … with a husband.

  97. Max Keiser puts the outside date of the financial collapse at April 2013. We don’t have long.

  98. “All over the globe, governments and big banks are acting as if they are anticipating an imminent financial collapse.”

    Actually, and more in my face, is the fact that all over the globe, governments and the big banks are acting as if NO ONE IS WATCHING THEM LOOT THE ENTIRE PLANET!

    Right on Shelley and Z.

    DCB and Enraged, I think you two should get a room.

  99. notice how it is always the smaller criminals that get caught and pay their dues. But none of the TBTF banksters and their side kicks that get caught pay out trinket money for big crimes and get forgiven? This is big but small compared to the big guys.

  100. Ftr – the transfers of servicing rights have never been recorded – ever.
    That was just propaganda from MERS to advance its agenda and a bald face lie told by MERS and its gang in more than one case I’ve read. They said it was a purpose of MERS – to avoid having to notice
    by recordation in public records the transfer of servicing rights. Courts were unduly influenced by this perjury, even if it were slight. They better hope to high hell i don’t come into some scheckels and a second wind in the near future because if I do, I’m going to catalog their lies and obfuscations for mass dissemination. Right after that I’d become an expert on the use of estoppel. I wish one of you young masters would create a website where these various fables could be highlighted in one place, not just the cases, but also the “offensive or patently conflicting tales” within each case. I’d throw in some dollars for that deal. Anyone have a 12 yr old computer geek handy?

  101. @Shelley,

    No need to fear. It won’t help anything. And i doubt it will wait that long.

  102. I am in fear as soon as the president is elected we are in for a rough ride.

  103. The writings have been on the walls for a long time. When are we going to wake up?

    Are The Government And The Big Banks Quietly Preparing For An Imminent Financial Collapse?

    Michael Snyder
    The Economic Collapse
    August 13, 2012

    Something really strange appears to be happening. All over the globe, governments and big banks are acting as if they are anticipating an imminent financial collapse.

    Unfortunately, we are not privy to the quiet conversations that are taking place in corporate boardrooms and in the halls of power in places such as Washington D.C. and London, so all we can do is try to make sense of all the clues that are all around us. Of course it is completely possible to misinterpret these clues, but sticking our heads in the sand is not going to do any good either. Last week, it was revealed that the U.S. government has been secretly directing five of the biggest banks in America “to develop plans for staving off collapse” for the last two years. By itself, that wouldn’t be that big of a deal. But when you add that piece to the dozens of other clues of imminent financial collapse, a very troubling picture begins to emerge. Over the past 12 months, hundreds of banking executives have been resigning, corporate insiders have been selling off enormous amounts of stock, and I have been personally told that a significant number of Wall Street bankers have been shopping for “prepper properties” in rural communities this summer. Meanwhile, there have been reports that the U.S. government has been stockpiling food and ammunition, and Barack Obama has been signing a whole bunch of executive orders that would potentially be implemented in the event of a major meltdown of society. So what does all of this mean? It could mean something or it could mean nothing. What we do know is that a financial collapse is coming at some point. Over the past 40 years, the total amount of all debt in the United States has grown from about 2 trillion dollars to nearly 55 trillion dollars. That is a recipe for financial armageddon, and it is inevitable that this gigantic bubble of debt is going to burst at some point.

    In normal times, the U.S. government does not tell major banks to “develop plans for staving off collapse”.

    But according to a recent Reuters article, that is apparently exactly what has been happening….

    Click on the link for the rest.

  104. It is my belief the entire stock market is a scam to steal the wealth from stock market gambers, just like casino gamblers. All pre set up for stealing, all manipulated from insider trading. No one should chance the stock market any more than gambling in a casino. Exspect to say good bye to your money. Just my personal feelings.

  105. You are absolutely correct, but this manipulation can not last long and the real deal is going to come fast and hard. All could have been prevented. Done on purpose. We have a trojan horse in our Whitehouse.

  106. @DCB,

    “It is difficult to see how the US stock market can be up–in the face of these very sobering statistics. Govt intervention?”

    I would think so. And since Govt is 16 trillion down the hole, it can only print paper. That’s why i stopped reading and listening to anything having to do with stock exchange. it means absolutely nothing. We’re getting there. The can has been kicked over and over and now, we’re right at the edge of the cliff. “The US is shifting money around to pay bills…”

    That’s why i don’t read into this morning’s convoy what you read. National guard? In summer training? How are we going to pay them?

    Military pay in doubt if the government defaults in August

    With the announcement Monday that the US has reached its debt limit of $14.3 trillion and is shifting money around to pay bills, there is a question of whether military paychecks are in danger.

    Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) is the chief sponsor of a bipartisan bill that would guarantee military pay. HR 1551, the Guarantee Paychecks for America’s Military Family Act, would guarantee that military service members and civilian federal employees working in a combat zone, would continue receiving their pay even if the government runs out of money or if there is any lapse in federal funding.

    Aside from HR 1551, there are several other bills on the table that would also protect military pay. However, House leadership is not promising to pass any of the bills because the threat of not paying troops and federal employees is a huge bargaining chip in trying to get a debt ceiling agreement with opponents. Any pay protection is likely to be passed at the last possible moment.

  107. @ENRAGED

    Here is some objective evidence of the status of the Euro——-per today’s financial times

    In Spain in the 1st quarter of 2012, there were 58 commercial property transactions recorded–in the immediately preceeding 2nd quarter 2012 there were only 3 transactions.

    In Italy same periods there were 56 in the 1st quarter and only 2 in the 2nd

    in 2011 fo the year the value of transactions across southern europe was at one-third of the 2008 amt—–it is not clear how the 1st quarter 2012 compared to 2011 in italy and spain—–i wouldv liked to know how bad the 1st quarter 2012 was vs 2011

    Portugal had more transactions than Spain and Italy combined

    The article notes that property values are falling precipitously—strange no buyers yet–I guesss the bottom is a ways off. Those villas ought to be getting cheaper Bob.

    Greece had no transactions which looks where spain and Italy are headed. Itally is the 3rd largest economy in Euro-zone—-spain 4th.

    It is difficult to see how the US stock market can be up–in the face of these very sobering statistics. Govt intervention?

    hedge and equity fund manager euro-rules effective next year [based onthis years performance] causing panic—payouts to be tied to performance

    short selling on euro aurtomakers at highest since 2009 —based on news coming out of china

    Am I a pessimist?

  108. @Shelley,

    It HAS collapsed. In fact, it collapsed in 2007. Since then, it’s been artificially kept from unraveling through constant money infusions from the feds. The fed is broke. The fed prints paper money to pretend that the system is still operating.

    How long do you think we have? A few weeks? A couple of months? Why do you think BRICS countries are scrambling to establish their own currency? Why do you think China and Japan started trading outside of the dollar in June?

  109. Shelley Erickson said:

    “…all notes are void. The banks know it and the only way Freddie and Fannie can collect is a continuous con game using debt collectors as their soldiers to collect uncollectable alleged debts through fraud affidavits or flat out deciet to the judges and courts to steal the loans back.”

    I totally agree. Ever wonder why Fannie Mayhem/Frauddie Mac NEVER foreclose in their own name? Because they can’t! They know very well that they can’t. They know they never took the notes by transfer and that the notes were never endorsed. They know that their own “trusts” or “pools” are figments of OUR imagination. Even if the trusts/pools DID exist, I know for a fact that Fannie states in its trust documents that they grant/transfer/assign/convey ALL Fannie’s interests to said trusts/pools, meaning that Fannie Mayhem NEVER has a beneficial interest in any notes. They even state it on their website, saying that (paraphrase) “the notes that are in Fannie pools are NOT Fannie assets.”

    Fannie/Frauddie, like MERS, are giant scam operations–mortgage chop shops–that exist to help the banks conceal the non-negotiability of the notes and to give the banks plausible deniability for their fake securitization, and the purpose the purported securitization is to facilitate the derivative market which is what will bring down the world financial system. It’s only a matter of time until that happens. And the purpose of the derivative market was to vastly enrich the masterminds of that game so that when the financial system DOES collapse, said masterminds will be the only ones left standing, holding all the property and money they’ve stolen from all of us. I’m not a lawyer–this isn’t legal advice, it’s for entertainment purposes only.

  110. It’s sickening that there are so many folks attempting to make money off of the already duped American public by attempting to explain what happened.
    Most of these “experts” know what is happening, what happened, and that it’s useless to fight.
    Seminars, books, expert witness, securitization audits– All of their shenanigans are bull kaka.
    They are no better than the Wall Street securitizers, bankers, mortgage schemers and accountants that dreamed up the complicated mess.
    When the cow poops, the worms come out to eat it.
    Why not just tell folks exactly what this is?
    Why keep it a secret?
    The government is seizing our homes.
    The government took the title to your home and put it in trust for bonds and those bonds were bought by the WORLD.
    Why do you think Obama quietly sign the martial law act on Friday night, March 16, 2012?
    To keep the foreigners from taking our land! We’ve stiffed them out of their money. They are pissed.
    Better our government seize our land than foreigners.
    Roll over America.

  111. As an example, this morning, going down 71, there was a long military convoy.

    Its summer–natl guard practice —–frankly id much rather see them here than overseas–cheaper–safer—-and thats what ntl guard is really for—going to perform emergency services—–hopefully heavy on engineers and light on armor—now if they have a bunch of tanks???

    We truly need the natl guard HERE—not off fighting the never-ending war “to win the heatrs and minds”———I dont know how long you have been in this country—but the words used are verbatim same as Vietnam——i remember “win the hearts and minds” —and if that doesnt work–kill em—-

    and i never minded that—as long as theres a good reason that is for the benefit of the US citizenry—–not to pump election year numbers—-nor pump the profits of Northrup Grumman—I feel so sorry for those young men that suffer because they were not good at reading history books—but im afraid its revisionist history —they need to roll out the Eisenhower speach on ilitary industrial complex and play it —i havent seen it on the neverending WWII “military” channel——see Hitler almost anytime day or night —certainly on weekends—-but hardly ever Eisenhower–because he tarnished his reputation with that speach—i suppose in another 20 years–when the last of us alive when he was president are gone—the speach will disappear with us

    I wonder if it doesnt make em a bit nervous with the continuous focus on Nazis that they might be inadvertantly glamorizing them—-

  112. THE CON GAME!!!! Our government is throwing all the crime under the table by lack of investigation by professionals. They are doing a cover up.
    Williaim Black must be ready to explode! Like the rest of us. .

  113. Asperger syndrome (AS), also known as Asperger’s syndrome or Asperger disorder, is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development. Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported.[1][

  114. @DCB,

    I feel your pain. Something’s been boiling for a long time and I can’t put my finger on it. As an example, this morning, going down 71, there was a long military convoy. I don’t know how many MVs I passed but it took a while. And, of course, not a peep on MSM (main street media).

    We don’t have a war going on. We don’t have borders to protect. Last i checked, Canada was nowhere near invading us. Why the military in Columbus-by-the-sea?

    And I have the same problem you do about Chase. Mind boggling but I can’t even wrap my brain around it.

  115. @ JG et al
    Re servicer being subject to FDCPA—-

    FDCPA applies to anybody trying to collect a debt. If you are a day latethe servicer rep might call you—to “collect a debt” —does not have to be in default necessarily though obviously thats when it arises most clearly–the collection aspect.

    The “debt collector” is suposed to identify himself on correspondence as such—so the friendly letter —you are late or whatever forced place insurance etc should have the statement——they should talk about recording on the phone —-when recording for “quality purposes” —verifying info—thats debt collection stuff—the are debt collectors

    the servicer’s business is “debt collection”

    The larger more complex question is whether parties who assist the servicer are also “debt collectors” ——some of the network attys seem to fal squarely in the scope —but attorneys are usually trying to exclude themselves from the reach—-

    Anybody who is a joint venturer sharing fees with the servicer should pick up the taint. If there is a common profit motive–sharing of revenue—-vs an hourly or contract price for doing a specific act–such asserving process ——then the co-venturer/partner of the servicer/collection agency is a debt collector as well.

    a subcontractor of the servicer who is engaged in contacting the debtor is debt collector.—so if you get a call from an outsourced Indian outside the allowable hours —that person and that entity is a debt collector and is an agent or partner of the primary debt collector

    The question emerges : is a document creator that makes a document that is essential to the collection action also a debt collector—–so if for example the document preparer is creating documents that are made without the purpose of haveing legal effect—but rather to intimidate and mislead a debtor———-as for example a robosigner outfit atty —but another uses that document to collect the debt—then it is arguable that the document preparer is a party to tthe prohibited action —and should be subject.

    so lets try an example [hypothetical] assume that a document preparer KNOWS that the document prepared is a worthless thing without legal effect but is designed by that preparer perhaps in concert with the servicer/collection agencyto have maximunm intimidation effect–or other FDCPA prohibited purpose. They catch the debtor in a loop—–the collection agency will say–I did not knowingly prepare a worthless document designed to intimidate–i just used what was given to me by the document preparer–the document preparer says –i have no contact with the debtor–im no debt collector–i just make documents

    Clearly if the collection agency did the subject document creation designed to intimidate but without legal effect and then used them that collection agency would be in violation of FDCPA

    so should the violation be deemed not to occur because the two functions are carried out under two roofs?

    that is where it would be great to have a case taken up—

    my thought would be that so long as the document preparer knows what the effect of her document is –what its intended purpose is that she is joining in an enterprise with the debt collector and receiving payment for perforning activities prohibited by FDCPA—and should not be able to escape liability by having corporate walls—-any more than splitting the functions between divisions of the same company–attribution and agency law—–

    of course i cannot cite any precedent—-but that is what you are talking about i think–it starts to sound a lot like state or fed RICO

    However there is one that is close to support the argument/conclusion—-where there was an assignment of mortgage—and the state had a mortgage follows the note rule—–the judge stated in a sort of dictum “the assignment of mortgage is a mere distraction” ———well if one took that and built on it—looked through to the purpose of the dcument —which that judge stated had no legal effect——-its more than a mere distraction as far as the debtor is concerned

    it is stamped by a notary with a lot of intimidating language [maybe was not even really notarized if one got to the bottom of it–eg wrong person used the stanmp and forged the signature—-then the allegedly notarized document is received by a couty recorder who applies his stamp—–then is attached to the complaint and that is stamped by clerk of cts and that package is delivered by pricess server acting under color of law——-as an officer of the court—-well that is a pretty intimidating package largely founded upon a totally worthless piece of paper—what is the purpose of the assignment in this case? and if the doc preparer uses an assembly line—inattentive to details because the operator of the assembly lines knows full and well the assignment even if properly notarized is totally meanigless??????

    think about it
    RICO IS tough to plead much less prove

  116. @ ANONYMOUS, what good is any of it? Or better yet, how can your info possibly help a borrower out? Except maybe out of the courtroom, hat in hand?

    When absolutely nobody in a regulatory capacity has any body parts capable of clanging, how in the hell can any of this info advance the causes outlined here? You’ve been tooting that horn for years, and I’m still not hearing any orchestration. And yet you seem so determined, so sure of your thesis….

    I wandered into a spring 2011 offering by LL last night while doing some research. There you were arguing with Dave Kreiger about this stuff, as well as your contention that MERS was going down.

    Last I looked, MERS is still supported by all of the crooks who are still supported by MERS….it’s a very vicious cycle, to say the least. And Dave Kreiger appears to be advancing his cause. What’s your plan?

  117. “….what did Solomon claim to be expert witness for?

    Asperger’s Syndrome? 🙁

  118. Due to the exact reasons exsposed by this deposition as well as Michelle Solanders deposition, and more information I have seen, I believe after default only a debt collector can go in and attempt to collect the alleged debt due to there are no lawful owners or lenders that can collect on the alleged note/debt. It is my belief from the Phil Ting Report the John O’Brien reports the McDonnell reports the Oppenheim Reports, that all notes are void. The banks know it and the only way Freddie and Fannie can collect is a continuous con game using debt collectors as their soldiers to collect uncollectable alleged debts through fraud affidavits or flat out deciet to the judges and courts to steal the loans back. Why would the V. family in a non judiial state have BOA try to recind the unlawful RECONTRUST forecloser and discontinue sale, pretend they have the right to do a mod, then file la complaint agianst the V family for quiet titel because they had pulled the wool over their eyes and they had agreed to do a mod unknowing the deciet, then BOA asking for Quiet tile if they owned the loan.

    Why would the attorneys for BOA ask my son to sign a document they sent him to approve them to be representing bankrupt Countrywide instead of MERS, BOA and US Bank./RECONTRUST. [HE REFUSED TO SIGN DUH!], The without telling my son withdraw the UNLAWFUL FORECLOSURE AND DISCONTINUE SALE ON COUNTY RECORDS, we discovered when we checked his county records. No notice of it to him. A new debt collector put in place that he objected to. If BOA and in my case the deposition now of Chase not recieveing the documents either. If the foreclosing banksters owned the debts. It is my assumption from also the assumption agreement and extended assumption agreement Chase never purchased the loans nor did the loans get transferred to them. Also the same with Countrywide and BOA or anyone that is claiming to have a countrywide note. They do not have the authority to be in court or country records. The proof is on line. I have permission to share the V family docs to help others and my sons docs. anyone wanting copies can ask for my email and I will send it.

  119. @ usedkarguy: what did Solomon claim to be expert witness for???

  120. @enraged – I don’t know why the Nobelman case is getting any hype
    because c-13 debtors haven’t been able to cram down the 1st’s on their primary residences for forever that I’ve seen. Maybe they didn’t agree that they couldn’t. I don’t know that I agree, but as always, I wasn’t asked. But C-13 debtors may still strip the lien of a wholley unsecured 2nd on their primary residences.
    C-13 debtors can cram down the firsts on rentals, which are for the purposes of bk considered income-producing properties. So move out, rent your home, knowing that at least one day you have somewhere to call home again (when your bk plan is done). Ask a good bk attorney.

  121. @usedkarguy – from my notes, Johnson v HSBC says that the
    FDCPA applies to anyone who took a loan after default, and that
    appears to include the servicer. I think someone linked it here.
    It’s Gregory Johnson v. HSBC Bank N.A. 11-2091, DC SD CA
    Maybe you or someone else will comment further.

  122. Financial Times devoted an entire page this weekend to poor StanChart. This bank was labeled a “rogue” by New York State regultors.
    he bank primarily does business in parts of the world financial area where real financial corruption and sanction avoidance are the order of the day : middle east–Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq—-I would not be surprised if it were not used to parly those billions that went missing from US aid to Afghanistan. This is a nasty shadow world where money is circuitously passd around to avoid sanctions and prohibitions on moneylaundering —the anti-bribery laws etc [Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

    This article for the 1st time lays out the bank’s defense—and its really bad: the US Treasury facilitated dealing with Iran—-even though one branch FINCEN—is supposedly there to prevent this moneylaundering——suggests Geithner has been in on it for years–since being in New York fed—no wonder US officials are so upset!

    The article states bluntly:
    “The U-turn mechanism was one set up by the US authorities to allow non-US entities to trade in US dollars with Iran.”

    Im not sure exactly the mechanism of the “U-turn” but basically it appears that as employed by StanChart—it meant the New York City branch received wire transfers from say Iran–or payers of money to Iran–or both—deleted all indications of source of money–then passed the funds on to others –of course the source then became a US branch of a London bank–and all stigma and sanctions for receiving it were avoided by the happy recipients of this cash—–which the other article last week suggested strongly included Bank of New York Mellon and JPM. In the case of these two–that put the money in a position to move directly into US investments.

    So the US treasury and/or Federal Reserve who atre both complaining about the “rogue” New York regulator would have to basically be trying to cover up Geithner’s role in allowing this as New York Fed and as Treasury Secretary charged with enforcement. So if my guess is right –it would be New York fed that designed the scheme–to enable the US dollars to floew into US banks —-and then Treasury to intentionally ignore the enforcement implications.

    Obviously Geithner on the hook no matter what: “US authorities” can mean only Fed and Treasury——who else?

  123. @ENRAGED


    ” Although the U.S. Department of Justice was unsure whether to even bother pursuing a case against StanChart (“the conduct was less egregious than what investigators found at other banks,” an anonymous source tells the British paper), ”

    Financial Times refered to Bank of New York Mellon and JPM as apparent recipients of the laundered money from poor liitlre StanChart—-this comment suggests that others were also doing what StanChart was ——–but US DOJ would seemingly be looking at those doing business in US——AND/OR the recipients of StanCharts’ launderings were also sweeping in every loose dollar in the globe from every drug transaction, every blood diamond deal, every pillaged foreign govt –etc ———-WHAT BANK COULD BE BIG ENOUGH TO DO THAT AND STILL BE SMALL ENOUGH TO CONCEAL IT ? OH AND SO BIG THAT ITS “TBTF” and as webve all suspected/known “too big to prosecute–which is a logical corrollary to TBTF—WHAT BANKS FIT THIS DESCRIPTION???? ——

    Allin in all—though we are focused here on there antics in screwing US homeowners we know that this is just one corner of their portfolio of evildoings—and press and voters are both weary of hearing it—and thinking [wrongly] that Dodd-Frank and CFPB, HAMP etc are “taking care of our problems” ——-this is raw fresh meat—-right before election –timely enough to get some journalist a Pulitizer Prize akin to the 1900 meat packing scandals —etc—

    In order for the overall spectre of invicibility that these guys bring to the table–it takes identification of a big exploitable chink in their armor to truly slay the dragons–and they must be slain–or the homeowner meatgrinder will speed up after election—– and every new loan given to our kids for the next generation will be modeled after the worst of the predatory loans and securitization schemes —because as we know “they have basically gotten away with it–via the putrid $25 billion settlement that directed money to buy office chairs at AGs headquarters—–etc etc—-anything except where it shouldv gone—to mods–to legal aid that provides some protections –some glimmer of justice. That $25 billion that they talk about is actually a CAP—–and it appears that the OCC review is more likely to result in outlays more like about $100 million to homeowners–plus the mollifying purchase of new office chairs for AGS—so they will stay firmly rooted in those chairs rather than getting out and interviewing–investifgating—

    Even when they are given clear evidence —they sit there and stare at it –and do nothing—maybe lean back in that comfy chair and go online to look up the latest in LL BEAN Fall sales—the more aggressive ones file a complaint, issue a press release—-then do nothing—–only the missouri and New York guys have done something—-and the New York FSA is being accused of political motivation……..yeah—if they get out of the chair–its politically motivated.

    So people —watch carefully the stanChart stuff—it is the equivalent of the tiny piece buried in the corner of the Washington Post page 20—–“door found with lock broken at ‘The Watergate'”




    JEEZ—if laundering $250 billion AFTER getting a warning in 2004 and settling by agreeing to stop it is not bad enough to warrant action –compared to other banks—what were the ‘others doing??

    The more these guys keep pointing fingers at each other the worse it smells……and its really tough for bad odors to stand out in this putrified monetary slaughterhouse !!!!

    Receiving Wide Coverage …
    StanChart Update: Standard Chartered is trying to settle New York state regulators’ allegations it laundered money for Iran, ahead of a hearing scheduled Wednesday on whether the U.K. bank should keep its local license, the FT reports. However, there is a sizable bid-ask spread in the negotiations, as it were: Benjamin Lawsky’s Department of Financial Services wanted $500 million, and StanChart came back with an offer of $5 million, which the regulator rejected. Although the U.S. Department of Justice was unsure whether to even bother pursuing a case against StanChart (“the conduct was less egregious than what investigators found at other banks,” an anonymous source tells the British paper), Lawsky’s agency “could intervene because it need only decide whether the bank meets safety and soundness standards to have a banking licence and does not have to prove the merits of the allegations.” In an op-ed in the FT, Kishore Mahbubani, a Singaporean academic, writes that Benjamin Lawsky has become “a Lawsky unto himself.” His unilateral decision to go after the U.K. bank “appears to have been driven by domestic political considerations, not by the merits of the case,” Mahbubani writes. “In the strange political climate of the US, anyone who stands up to Iran is a hero.” Lawsky could go public with his charges without the cooperation of nominally more powerful federal agencies because “it would be political suicide to take on a brave crusader battling against Iran. … The big question that US regulators face now is whether their overall system will work to deliver a fair and balanced judgment on StanChart.” For U.S. bankers, Lawsky’s actions could have long-term consequences, Mahbubani warns: “Would another regulatory authority someday similarly retaliate against an American bank?” However, in the Journal’s opinion pages (which are usually skeptical of regulatory and prosecutorial zeal), columnist L. Gordon Crovitz compares StanChart’s alleged actions to the Bank of England’s “appeasing Hitler” by transferring gold reserves to Germany’s central bank in 1939. “Any bank that helps Iran’s nuclear ambitions by undermining sanctions deserves all the harm done to its reputation,” Crovitz writes. And for those who are just getting back from vacation and want to get up to speed on the developing StanChart story, this feature from the weekend FT is a good place to start.

  125. Weidner calls JPM “sleaziest of ’em all”. I second that… But Naranjo still may file a second amended complaint and throw in a lot more than she originally had in her original complaint. And her claim for attorney’s fees stands. So, if she plays her cards right, she should be ahead of the game.

  126. Once again, the deck is stacked against us. Forget BK: apparently, you can still be nailed for the unsecured portion of your underwater mortgage loan…

    Mortgages and Moral Hazards
    Published 1, August 13, 2012 Congress , Courts , Economics , Justice , Politics 19 Comments

    By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger

    In 1984 Leonard and Harriet Nobelman purchased a condominium with the assistance of an adjustable rate mortgage loan from American Savings Bank. Six years later, the Nobelmans encountered financial difficulties and filed Chapter 13 proceedings in bankruptcy court. At the time of their filing, their mortgage balance, including accrued interest and late fees, was $71,335.00 and the fair market value of their home was only $23,500.00. Accordingly, the Nobelmans proposed a reorganization plan which treated the difference between the mortgage balance and the fair market value, a total of $47,835.00, as unsecured debt.

    Under bankruptcy law, the reclassification of indebtedness exceeding the value of the collateral from secured to unsecured status is known as a “cramdown.” This is a commonly used device that effectively “strips” the lien of a security interest down to the collateral’s value. It enables a debtor to retain property while insuring that the secured creditor will recover at least as much as it would realize from a foreclosure sale of the property.

    The problem is that as a practical matter, unsecured creditors, whether in reorganization or straight liquidating bankruptcies, seldom receive any of the amounts owed to them. So American Savings Bank, staring at the potential loss of more than half of the mortgage principal, filed an objection to the Nobelmans’ plan. The ensuing litigation odyssey required three years and produced a Supreme Court decision that has particular significance in the current housing crisis.

    The Court ruled that the Nobelmans could not cram down their mortgage with American Savings Bank. Why? Because, said the Court, when Congress reformed the bankruptcy laws in 1978, it eliminated the availability of cramdown for mortgages encumbering a debtor’s home. More specifically, Section 1332(b)2 permits the modification of any secured debt “other than a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence.” Had the Nobelmans’ condominium been held as an investment or used as a vacation home, the cramdown provisions could have been applied and their plan would have been approved. Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324 (1993).

    The change in the law was a result of intense lobbying by groups such as the Mortgage Bankers Association. The industry argued that it was entitled to special protection in view of the fact that lenders were providing a “valuable social service” for people desirous of purchasing a home and that the risk of modification in bankruptcy would adversely impact the mortgage market and make home ownership more difficult. How the “valuable social service” attending the approval of a home mortgage is distinguishable from the “valuable social service” rendered when the loan is secured by an office building or strip mall has never been satisfactorily explained.

    The impact of the Nobelman decision has been significant. Prior to 1978, home mortgages were frequently modified in bankruptcy. Even after the passage of the 1978 act, many courts interpreted the statutory amendments to still permit cramdowns of such mortgages. There have been attempts to restore the pre-1978 cramdown rules, but they have been met with strong opposition, and that opposition is frequently couched in distinctly moral terms. During Congressional debate in March of 2009 over the proposed Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, for example, Rep. Michele Bachmann advanced a form of sacred covenant argument. “Of the foundational policies of American exceptionalism,” she said, “the concepts that have inspired our great Nation are the sanctity of contracts and upholding the rule of law.” Rep. Louis Gohmert added that permitting home mortgage modification by bankruptcy judges was “rewarding greed and improper conduct” and warned it would enable bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages on a “whim.” The only thing missing from the debate was a request for publication of the Collected Sermons of Cotton Mather in the Congressional Record. In April of that year, a Republican filibuster killed the bill.

    A version of these arguments was repeated again two weeks ago by Edward DeMarco, who is apparently destined to remain acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency as long as Pres. Obama remains in the White House, and who once again declared his opposition to Administration proposals to permit refinancing of home loans by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, citing a vaguely defined “moral hazard” that would follow pursuit of such a policy.

    The appeal to American exceptionalism and the neo-Calvinist assault on the good faith of the average homeowner is both absurd and insulting. There is certainly no evidence that would suggest that homeowners treat their contractual responsibilities with less regard than do commercial businesses. And the “sanctity of contract” argument has neither discouraged the political resolve to eliminate public employee union contracts nor dissuaded the Bain Capitals in the land from bankrupting companies and walking away from pension obligations.

    Moreover, the various proposals for mortgage modification and partial principal forgiveness are not without historical precedent. In 1933, Pres. Franklin Roosevelt created the Home Owners Loan Corporation in response to the surge in home foreclosures. Over the next several years the HOLC purchased mortgages from lenders in exchange for government bonds. Hundreds of thousands of these loans were thereafter refinanced for longer terms at fixed interest rates and, in many instances, with principal reductions to 80% of appraised values. By the time the HOLC had completed selling off the loans and ceasing operations in 1951, it had actually made a small profit.

    Few people will remember the HOLC, but many will recall the Farm Aid concerts begun in 1985 in response to a farm foreclosure crisis in the Midwest and Great Plains states. Record profits from agricultural exports during the 1970s generated demand for more farm land, leading in turn to higher land prices. In Iowa alone, the price per acre of farm land quadrupled between 1970 and 1982. Farmers accumulated significant debt to finance expansion and banks, eager to cash in on the boom, made huge loans largely in reliance on anticipated increases in land values. Sound familiar? When demand for farm products slackened beginning in the late 1970s, farm revenues became insufficient to service debt and land prices plummeted. The efforts of Willie Nelson, John Mellencamp, Neil Young and others brought pressure to bear on Congress, and in 1986 a new Chapter 12 became part of the bankruptcy code. Designed specifically for family farmers, it permitted the stripdown of secured debt, including debt encumbering a farmer’s residence. Chapter 12 became a permanent part of the bankruptcy code in 2005. The legislation did not produce the flood of farm bankruptcies predicted by its critics nor appreciably hamper the ability of farmers to obtain credit.

    The claim that underwater homeowners are “undeserving” of assistance or that providing that assistance will encourage irresponsible behavior is not a conclusion from evidence, but a moral judgment predicated upon a cynical view of human nature. And the myth of “sanctity of contract” no more justifies legislative inaction than the myth of “voter fraud” justifies voter suppression laws. As Justice Holmes once observed, “Nowhere is the confusion between legal and moral ideas more manifest than in the law of contract. . . . The duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction that you must pay damages if you do not keep it-and nothing more.” Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harvard L. Rev. 457, 462 (1897). Of course the duties imposed by a contract are to be taken seriously, but being overtaken by events over which one has no control is an increasingly common fact of life. Under such circumstances, the inability to continue meeting the payment terms in one’s home mortgage is not a mortal sin or cause for moral censure. It is instead an example of precisely the sort of difficulty for which bankruptcy laws were intended to provide relief.

    A mortgage is not a sacred instrument and the housing crisis is not a moral dilemma, but an economic problem requiring economic solutions. There is no rational basis for compelling homeowners to adhere to a set of rules applicable to no one else. Mr. DeMarco and members of Congress need to climb down from their moral high horses and recognize that the needs of distressed homeowners are at least as important as the needs of holders of mortgage securities.

  127. The guy got his car back. Happy for him.

    Saturday, August 11, 2012
    Return Of Stolen Muscle Car Taken By Foreclosure Vendor Brings More Heat On BofA For Lack Of Oversight In Hiring Process
    In Worcester, Massachusetts, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette reports:

    On Tuesday afternoon, a garage door rolled up at the Manchester Police Department in New Hampshire, and Sims Dahrooge laid eyes on a familiar rear spoiler and dual exhaust pipes bristling from the back of a vintage purple muscle car.

    “That’s all I had to see, and I couldn’t help it. I just started to burst into tears,” he said yesterday, back in the city with the 1973 Dodge Challenger he restored with his father, Aaron Dahrooge.

    As the Dahrooges towed the car back to Worcester on a trailer, on account of a blown transmission and rear tires scorched smooth from untold burnouts, two Manchester men were being held on Massachusetts warrants for receiving stolen property.

    The classic American muscle car had been taken from the Burncoat home of Aaron Dahrooge’s deceased mother in March, a day after a Bank of America contractor had gone to the home to winterize and secure it.

    Bank of America is foreclosing on the vacant Uncatena Avenue home, which is in Mr. Dahrooge’s control in the meantime as executor of his mother’s estate. He stored the Challenger in the home’s garage during the winter as he did when his mother was alive, he said.

    A neighbor told Mr. Dahrooge that the same crew that had winterized the home and padlocked the garage door in March returned the next day, used a key to open the garage lock and towed away the distinctive purple car, which has dual four-barrel carburetors and a chrome air scoop sticking up through the hood.

    Mr. Dahrooge, who immediately reported the car stolen, said his attempts to get information about the winterization crew from Bank of America were met with months of stonewalling, a characterization disputed by the bank.


    The Dahrooges said investigators told them the two New Hampshire men arrested have criminal records, one of them extensive. They maintain the bank should be liable for the damage to the car.

    “The biggest thing for me is Bank of America hired criminals. Don’t they do background checks? This is supposed to be a professional bank,” Sims Dahrooge alleged.

    His father’s lawyer, Thomas J. Scannell of the Worcester firm Fusaro, Altomare & Ermilio, said he’s looking into whether the Dahrooges have legal grounds to sue the bank for damages.

    In the meantime, Patrick Peryer, 22, and Kurtis Lavigne, 27, both of Manchester, N.H., are fighting rendition to Worcester on charges of receiving stolen property. They were arraigned Tuesday as fugitives from justice on the charges in New Hampshire.

    For more, see Missing muscle car back home in Worcester amid foreclosure battle (No explanation of how it was taken, but charges against NH men).

    For story update, see Car stolen from foreclosed house causes bank, vendor freeze:

    Local muscle car enthusiast Aaron Dahrooge’s successful battle to get his stolen 1973 Dodge Challenger back has prompted one of the world’s largest financial institutions to temporarily stop doing business with a major foreclosure vendor in Massachusetts and to require the vendor to verify that all of its employees and subcontractors have up-to-date background checks.

  128. Coursen v. JPM. Defendant’s motion to dismiss… denied! Click on link for complete order.

  129. (a) General rule
    Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), all persons, in whatever capacity acting (including lessees or mortgagors of real or personal property, fiduciaries, employers, and all officers and employees of the United States) having the control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment of any of the items of income specified in subsection (b) (to the extent that any of such items constitutes gross income from sources within the United States), of any nonresident alien individual or of any foreign partnership shall (except as otherwise provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary under section 874) deduct and withhold from such items a tax equal to 30 percent thereof, except that in the case of any item of income specified in the second sentence of subsection (b), the tax shall be equal to 14 percent of such item.
    (b) Income items
    The items of income referred to in subsection (a) are interest (other than original issue discount as defined in section 1273), dividends, rent, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income,

  130. The Tax Reform Act of 1984, section 129, 1984-3 (Vol. 1)
    C.B. 163, added section 1445 to the Internal Revenue Code as a
    means of enforcing the tax imposed pursuant to section 897 on
    dispositions by foreign persons of investments in U.S. real
    property. Section 1445(a) provides that a transferee of a U.S.
    real property interest from a foreign person must deduct and
    withhold a tax equal to 10 percent of the amount realized by the
    foreign person on the disposition

  131. @JG
    ” upon the disposition of U.S. real property interests. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (b), an entity described in paragraph (a) of this section shall be liable to withhold tax upon the distribution of any amount attributable to the disposition of a U.S. real property interest, with respect to each holder of an interest in the entity that is a foreign person”

    This real esate sales withholding provision is of significance in that a failed trust otherwise intended to meet REIT/REMIC standards. Thus yes there are withholding implications that are triggered if the t’s are not crossed. Also see IRC 1441-1442—-re withholding on interest payments.

  132. .. CFR › Title 26 › Chapter I › Subchapter A › Part 1 › Section 1.1445-8prev | next..26 CFR 1.1445-8 – Special rules regarding publicly traded partnerships, publicly traded trusts and real estate investment trusts (REITs).
    U.S. Code

    § 1.1445-8
    Special rules regarding publicly traded partnerships, publicly traded trusts and real estate investment trusts (REITs).
    (a) Entities to which this section applies. The rules of this section apply to—
    (1) Any partnership or trust, interests in which are regularly traded on an established securities market (regardless of the number of its partners or beneficiaries), and
    (2) Any REIT (regardless of the form of its organization).
    For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the rules of section 1445 (e)(1) and this section shall not apply to a publicly traded partnership (as defined in section 7704) which is treated as a corporation under section 7704(a), or to those entities that are classified as “associations” and taxed as corporations. See § 301.7701-2 .
    (b) Obligation to withhold— (1) In general. An entity described in paragraph (a) of this section is not required to withhold under the provisions of § 1.1445-5(c), which states the withholding requirements of domestic partnerships, trusts and estates upon the disposition of U.S. real property interests. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (b), an entity described in paragraph (a) of this section shall be liable to withhold tax upon the distribution of any amount attributable to the disposition of a U.S. real property interest, with respect to each holder of an interest in the entity that is a foreign person. The amount to be withhold is described in paragraph (c) of this section.

    Does this mean foreign investors in U.S. Trusts were to have taxes withheld (b)? Or could they just hide under a new or existing
    American company with Americans on the paperwork? Just ran accross this….curious. Applicable?

  133. Solly, what gives here? And how could you have the balls to try and pinch me again? That money you took from ME really was from my disabled daughter. I am afraid to say what is really on my mind.

    found this at MS Fraud dot org:
    Sources close to M. Soliman (sshafer) say that M. Soliman (sshafer) has reached an agreement with state and federal prosecutors to testify against the K-Platinum defendants and also crooked attorneys who were involved in the K-Platinum civil cases. M. Soliman has bragged that he wore a wire and got a lot of incriminating evidence against the crooked attorneys.

    M. Soliman will receive full immunity from any prosecution and will be able to resume his expert witness service after serving only 6 months of probation. He should be available as an expert witness again in 2013.

    This sounds like one of your own press releases. And I thought you were one of the “good guys”? Very disappointing. Lose my number, will ya?

    Or send back the money.

    Yep, I got screwed a couple years ago by my old buddy M.Soliman. Very sad, because I do think he has the ability to help. Unfortunately, he appears to be just helping himself. Caveat Emptor, my friends. This guy is good at what he does. Look out.

  134. Neil+: How about this dual tracking: fraudsters train realtor cons how to turn NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALES into BANKNOTES!!! Think I’m kidding?? sign up for their webinar & find out how…..

  135. @Martha: confession of your Robo-signers to FBI:

  136. usedkarguy

    Evidence is mounting. Check your records — thoroughly. Do not be lazy.

  137. In the dictionary grass hoppers can be very distructive fits the ticket doesn’t it.

  138. I stand corrected. i am sleep deprived again. I just purchased a puppy from Russia to breed to help pay my attorneys fees for the attorney i feel I am going to need if my last effort does not fly in the court. Both the worrying and the puppy are keeping me up at night. He will be old enough in a few month to breed my two year old dane.I am doing everything I can to put money in the pocket of a good attorney. So I can just focus on making money and let the attorney do the work.

  139. Yes, Shelley—it will collapse and nothing will stop it. For the next ten years there will be intense suffering—everywhere. Humanity won’t wake up to Reality until there is great suffering.


  141. and ukg—ANON does have “documentation”—and shared it with various agencies—including Fannie/Freddie—and was told basically: “We know, and we don’t care—let it go.” I kid you not.

  142. @ukg

    I wasn’t referring to anything ANON said before…I was referring to something I said more that a year ago about the debt collectors and the FDCPA.

  143. I stole that from somewhere. Everyone needs a chuckle once in a while…

    RETIRE WHERE? Here are some of possible your choices:

    You can retire to Phoenix, Arizona where…
    1. You are willing to park 3 blocks away because you found shade.
    2. You’ve experienced condensation on your hiney from the hot water in the toilet bowl.
    3. You can drive for 4 hours in one direction and never leave town.
    4. You have over 100 recipes for Mexican food.
    5. You know that “dry heat” is comparable to what hits you in the face when you open your oven door.
    6. The 4 seasons are: tolerable, hot, really hot, and ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!!


    You can retire to California where…
    1. You make over $250,000 and you still can’t afford to buy a house.
    2. The fastest part of your commute is going down your driveway.
    3. You know how to eat an artichoke.
    4. You drive your rented Mercedes to your neighborhood block party.
    5. When someone asks you how far something is, you tell them how long it will take to get there rather than how many miles away it is.
    6. The 4 seasons are: Fire, Flood, Mud, and Drought.


    You can retire to New York City where…
    1. You say “the city” and expect everyone to know you mean Manhattan .
    2. You can get into a four-hour argument about how to get from Columbus Circle to Battery Park, but can’t find Wisconsin on a map.
    3. You think Central Park is “nature.”
    4. You believe that being able to swear at people in their own language makes you multi-lingual.
    5. You’ve worn out a car horn. (ed. note if you have a car).
    6. You think eye contact is an act of aggression.


    You can retire to Wisconsin where…
    1. You only have four spices: salt, pepper, ketchup, and Tabasco .
    2. Halloween costumes fit over parkas.
    3. You have more than one recipe for casserole.
    4. Sexy lingerie is anything flannel with less than eight buttons.
    5. The four seasons are: winter, still winter, almost winter, and construction.


    You can retire to the Deep South where…
    1. You can rent a movie and buy bait in the same store.
    2. “Y’all” is singular and “all y’all” is plural.
    3. “He needed killin” is a valid defense.
    4. Everyone has 2 first names: Billy Bob , Jimmy Bob , Mary Sue, Betty Jean, Mary Beth, etc.
    5. Everything is either “in yonder,” “over yonder” or “out yonder.” It’s important to know the difference, too.


    You can retire to Colorado where…
    1. You carry your $3,000 mountain bike atop your $500 car.
    2. You tell your husband to pick up Granola on his way home and so he stops at the day care center.
    3. A pass does not involve a football or dating.
    4. The top of your head is bald, but you still have a pony tail.


    You can retire to the Midwest where…
    1. You’ve never met any celebrities, but the mayor knows your name.
    2. Your idea of a traffic jam is ten cars waiting to pass a tractor.
    3. You have had to switch from “heat” to “A/C” on the same day.
    4. You end sentences with a preposition: “Where’s my coat at?”
    5. When asked how your trip was to any exotic place, you say, “It was different!”


    FINALLY You can retire to Florida where.
    1. You eat dinner at 3:15 in the afternoon.
    2.. All purchases include a coupon of some kind — even houses and cars.
    3. Everyone can recommend an excellent dermatologist.
    4. Road construction never ends anywhere in the state.
    5. Cars in front of you often appear to be driven by headless people

  144. He said “they are going to put the old system in a coma and come up with something new”. Darn! Sounds ominous… Then again, what could they come up with that’s worse…?


    I guess I stand corrected…

  145. @carie, the point that was made PREVIOUSLY was that the loans were “defaulted” automatically after origination. All that may be true for SOME loans, but your friend UNANIMOUS offered nothing to prove the veracity of that claim. A bunch of anonymous opinion without any supporting documentation is….useless banter. There is a lot of misinformation/misinterpretation going on here on this site. Very little presented here is relative to a “winning argument” in a court of law.

    @enraged, thanks for that Johnson vs. HSBC case.

    @nabdulla, thanks for that. with all the shit going on I’m getting a little gun shy.

    @shelley: the bullies were grasshoppers. You gotta watch “A Bugs Life” again.

  146. This is one reason for the changing of the horse, however I feel it is also to cover up for the unlawful foreclosure debt collectors including MERS that were not registered to be doing business in any state.

  147. @MR
    Re the Nabdulla stuff on renting your home,
    Just a few thoughts to consider in this decision-making. Do they let you off the hook for a deficiency? That would be a big plus.
    Do they expunge the credit report “trade-line or report it as an “adverse” result deed in lieu–which is pretty similar to a bankruptcy?

    In many instances, homeowners could go on defending foreclosures for years–we all know that. There are even lawfirms out there to which you can make de facto rent payments to while they drag out foreclosures–
    But in either of the cases, to me, it seems the rub comes when it is necessary to make some substantial expenditure for repair—EG the place needs reroofed–or a new furnace —-or something of that nature. Does anyone know if this becomes the Catch 22 ?

    If the objective of the servicer is to get possession of the property for resale —to “cash in”—as for example after the servicer has bought out the trust loan and REO portfilio using its own accrued but unpaid accumulated receivables for fees etc——-they can “creep ” into a position of advantage by using whatever scheme to obtain the homeowners’ concurrence in a deed transfer—such as yes you can stay and pay rent—but then fail to make repair investments? What kind of lease do the happy homeowners get?

    If they get true tenant status they get much more protection from abuse than a homeowner receives from the collection agency.

    Landlord /tenant laws prohibit entry without notice, require repairs or pay rent into court —must use judicial pricess to evict etc etc—treble damages for violations. Are these ne landlords in some fashion circumventing these basics? Are the states creating exemptions for leases to former homeowners–i fear this latter—how bad would that be –a 2nd class tenant–right below a slum tenant—-which is really where a homeowner in alleged default is today. No way a landlord can threaten a tenant –but boy –they dont hestitate to use bouncer-type thugs to intimidate homeowners.

    it eludes me how state legislators can unhestitatingly extend protections to tenants with no more than a $75 deposit and a year lease on a house—-embrace this for decades—but deny an alleged defaulting homeowner any of those protections—as if the dfault homeowner were a criminal—except thats not a good analogy either—a criminal gets free legal aid. why is a defaulted homeowner that has lost thousands of dollars—-maintained a house from her own pocket–protected it from weather, theft, vandalism–unlike most tenants—-why is this person deemed such an awful imoral creature –entitled to no protection at all????

    Even lanlords should be asking this question—-its discrimnatory treatment at a constitutional level for both default homeowners and traditional landlords—-no rational basis for the denial of equal protections—vis homeowners/tenants or landlords/servicers

  148. This is a complete take over of the people, I mean slaves, by the government/I mean banksters whom are the government, I mean governing. A man just wrote a book called ” Screwed”. That says it all. We are not done fighting this battle yet folks. We the people I mean debt slave ( ants) must fight the mafia banksters, I mean crickett bullies.

  149. oops.

  150. Four signatures on the property Kingsely, the OLD house, with the cracked slab they defrauded me over in 1999 on. This name is on lots of West Coast Documents, and all four signatures are not the same!


  151. I just emailed the case to Neil. The V– family wase on national news for BOA sending an armed repre to threaten them. Is why I and a few friends got involved to look them up and give them needed info to send to their attorney. They nor their attorney had a clue this was so full of fraud and deciet. This family is from my neck of the woods. Just miles from us.

  152. To add to this. This attorney did not understand what has been happening until I sent her proof of docs and articles proving what I was saying. She has stated this is helping several other cases she is working on. The same crap behind the scenes. What a tangled web of deciet they weave. This family has the same robo signers as my sons and the same unlawful RECONTRUST company that has left this state due to being caught. However most all of the original foreclosers are unlawful and not licensed to be doing business in any state including MERS. Now Crab tree that filed the case for BOA is on the hot seat for unlawful activity here in Hawaii for exactly what hey are pulling here WA. Not following proceedure at all.

  153. I agree. Rent the stolen homes instead, by black mailing the homeowners we wont cause you the biggest nightmare of your life if you sign your deed over to us. WTH____! If they owned the deeds they would not need us to sign them over to them. A case in Washington I have in hand, is BOA/RECONTRUST[WHOM IS UNLAWFUL and left this state] through illegally working in this ste Crab Tree will gladly recind the (concealed fraud closure and discontinue sale at auction) due to the family will sign a mod agreement with us (even though we have been dragging them through hell for two years, sent armed with guns repres to your door, but now since it is on national tv we will recind the foreclosure) due to the family agreeing to all the above we are now filing in the courts a complaint against this family asking the court for quiet title. I kid you not! I caught this and now this families attorney is wise to all and is fighting against the bank and asking for proof of ownership of the note.

  154. Our origins…

  155. ToLLe,

    Working your way back to your origins?

  156. And in fact, that 2008 piece I posted about CDS explains very well, in that context, how banks were able to makes $400 trillions out of… what?… $80 trillions? They had to transfer assignments and notes over and over in order to make a buck. As Bill Black was saying: “Perverted incentives”.

    The fact that we, honest trying-to-become-homeowners were on the receiving end of all that crap was completely irrelevant to any of them. The fact that over 2 bi9llion people starve to death as a resu8lt of their actions is completely irrelevant.

    Man is man’s biggest predator…

  157. The Home Rental Program

    Massa sais I caint no longer live in de house what my pappy built. I gots to move on. He say I gets to rent from him fom now on. Still I has probem seein how what he awantin me to pay him went frum $200 to $2000. Cant figure dat out, no siree.

    Gessin Ill be strugglin til the grave seein as how they aint no mo work and wat dere is only pays enuf for da rent. Gots no health surans and achin all da time. Wrathful grapes they is, sure is a bad spot.

  158. @ usedkarguy & All

    I have no problem with getting sued – I turn into a turnup 🙂

  159. @ abdulla, +: I read something close to this somewhere as the basic definition of modern banks: “…one of the first shops which pop up in every new neighborhood is a bank branch which is to gobble up that community’s earnings and wealth and use it as it pleases…”

  160. @Nabdu,

    Welcome back!

  161. @ All


    Fraudulent transfer to transfer fraudulent transfer to transfer fraudulent transfer to transfer fraudulent transfer….

    WHEN are “they” (our “Government”) going to start arresting, prosecuting and locking these rat bastards up??????

  162. @ukg

    “That makes the servicer, the attorneys, the attorneys’ attorneys, all debt collectors. FDCPA here we come…”

    How come when I said that a year ago everybody told me to shut up? Haaaarrrrrrruuuuumph! Glad we agree now.;)

  163. @ENRAGED

    Thankyou for the reference–i will–im tited right now—and my stomach hurts—thats something people need to get used to—stomach churning incessantly

  164. @DCB,

    If you are able to check that Johnson case, what i liked about it is that scrib highlighted the key arguments. Very well laid out.

  165. @ENRAGED

    I remember it blow by blow—-AIG–I worry aout the PRU etc now—AIG was set up by its own people—the old man said so—-they should pull him out again –been silence—too many hotshots that have very limited perspectives and are not near as smart as they think they are—hank greenburg would never have allowed it because he was a builder–these guys are just there to gut and run

    your piece said
    . “It made it a lot easier for some people to get into trouble,” says Darrell Duffie, an economist at Stanford. Although he believes credit default swaps have been “dramatically misused,” Duffie says he still believes they’re a very effective tool and shouldn’t be done away with entirely. Besides, he says, “if you outlaw them, then the financial engineers will just come up with something else that gets around the regulation.”

    So this is a typical pointy headed economist–they simply sit there and count—and predict—and believe in predestination—the invisible hand that controls all——they all want to be monopolists –its easier that way

    what can you say about a lay down passiveist philosophy like that—why cure a diease today–tomorrow another will come along

    i used to argue till i was disgusted with these guys–pretending to be all seeing but not enough sense to know when to quit–kind of guys that order a frontal assault on a machine gun—just increase the numbers of attackers and the gun will melt——perfect analysis–tell you exactly how many bodies it will take to melt the gun

  166. @DCB,

    Here is something else that may help. What is important is that “[AIG’s fatal flaw appears to have been applying traditional insurance methods to the CDS market. There is no correlation between traditional insurance events; if your neighbor gets into a car wreck, it doesn’t necessarily increase your risk of getting into one. But with bonds, it’s a different story:]”

    The Monster That Ate Wall Street
    Sep 26, 2008 8:00 PM EDT
    How ‘credit default swaps’—an insurance against bad loans—turned from a smart bet into a killer.


    They’re called “Off-Site Weekends”—rituals of the high-finance world in which teams of bankers gather someplace sunny to blow off steam and celebrate their successes as Masters of the Universe. Think yacht parties, bikini models, $1,000 bottles of Cristal. One 1994 trip by a group of JPMorgan bankers to the tony Boca Raton Resort & Club in Florida has become the stuff of Wall Street legend—though not for the raucous partying (although there was plenty of that, too). Holed up for most of the weekend in a conference room at the pink, Spanish-style resort, the JPMorgan bankers were trying to get their heads around a question as old as banking itself: how do you mitigate your risk when you loan money to someone? By the mid-’90s, JPMorgan’s books were loaded with tens of billions of dollars in loans to corporations and foreign governments, and by federal law it had to keep huge amounts of capital in reserve in case any of them went bad. But what if JPMorgan could create a device that would protect it if those loans defaulted, and free up that capital?

    What the bankers hit on was a sort of insurance policy: a third party would assume the risk of the debt going sour, and in exchange would receive regular payments from the bank, similar to insurance premiums. JPMorgan would then get to remove the risk from its books and free up the reserves. The scheme was called a “credit default swap,” and it was a twist on something bankers had been doing for a while to hedge against fluctuations in interest rates and commodity prices. While the concept had been floating around the markets for a couple of years, JPMorgan was the first bank to make a big bet on credit default swaps. It built up a “swaps” desk in the mid-’90s and hired young math and science grads from schools like MIT and Cambridge to create a market for the complex instruments. Within a few years, the credit default swap (CDS) became the hot financial instrument, the safest way to parse out risk while maintaining a steady return. “I’ve known people who worked on the Manhattan Project,” says Mark Brickell, who at the time was a 40-year-old managing director at JPMorgan. “And for those of us on that trip, there was the same kind of feeling of being present at the creation of something incredibly important.”

    Like Robert Oppenheimer and his team of nuclear physicists in the 1940s, Brickell and his JPMorgan colleagues didn’t realize they were creating a monster. Today, the economy is teetering and Wall Street is in ruins, thanks in no small part to the beast they unleashed 14 years ago. The country’s biggest insurance company, AIG, had to be bailed out by American taxpayers after it defaulted on $14 billion worth of credit default swaps it had made to investment banks, insurance companies and scores of other entities. So much of what’s gone wrong with the financial system in the past year can be traced back to credit default swaps, which ballooned into a $62 trillion market before ratcheting down to $55 trillion last week—nearly four times the value of all stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange. There’s a reason Warren Buffett called these instruments “financial weapons of mass destruction.” Since credit default swaps are privately negotiated contracts between two parties and aren’t regulated by the government, there’s no central reporting mechanism to determine their value. That has clouded up the markets with billions of dollars’ worth of opaque “dark matter,” as some economists like to say. Like rogue nukes, they’ve proliferated around the world and now lie hiding, waiting to blow up the balance sheets of countless other financial institutions.

    It didn’t start out that way. One of the earliest CDS deals came out of JPMorgan in December 1997, when the firm put into place the idea hatched in Boca Raton. It essentially took 300 different loans, totaling $9.7 billion, that had been made to a variety of big companies like Ford, Wal-Mart and IBM, and cut them up into pieces known as “tranches” (that’s French for “slices”). The bank then identified the riskiest 10 percent tranche and sold it to investors in what was called the Broad Index Securitized Trust Offering, or Bistro for short. The Bistro was put together by Terri Duhon, at the time a 25-year-old MIT graduate working on JPMorgan’s credit swaps desk in New York—a division that would eventually earn the name the Morgan Mafia for the number of former members who went on to senior positions at global banks and hedge funds. “We made it possible for banks to get their credit risk off their books and into nonfinancial institutions like insurance companies and pension funds,” says Duhon, who now heads her own derivatives consulting business in London.

    The Monster That Ate Wall Street
    Sep 26, 2008 8:00 PM EDT


    (Page 2 of 2)

    Before long, credit default swaps were being used to encourage investors to buy into risky emerging markets such as Latin America and Russia by insuring the debt of developing countries. Later, after corporate blowouts like Enron and WorldCom, it became clear there was a big need for protection against company implosions, and credit default swaps proved just the tool. By then, the CDS market was more than doubling every year, surpassing $100 billion in 2000 and totaling $6.4 trillion by 2004.

    And then came the housing boom. As the Federal Reserve cut interest rates and Americans started buying homes in record numbers, mortgage-backed securities became the hot new investment. Mortgages were pooled together, and sliced and diced into bonds that were bought by just about every financial institution imaginable: investment banks, commercial banks, hedge funds, pension funds. For many of those mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps were taken out to protect against default. “These structures were such a great deal, everyone and their dog decided to jump in, which led to massive growth in the CDS market,” says Rohan Douglas, who ran Salomon Brothers and Citigroup’s global credit swaps research division through the 1990s.

    Soon, companies like AIG weren’t just insuring houses. They were also insuring the mortgages on those houses by issuing credit default swaps. By the time AIG was bailed out, it held $440 billion of credit default swaps. AIG’s fatal flaw appears to have been applying traditional insurance methods to the CDS market. There is no correlation between traditional insurance events; if your neighbor gets into a car wreck, it doesn’t necessarily increase your risk of getting into one. But with bonds, it’s a different story: when one defaults, it starts a chain reaction that increases the risk of others going bust. Investors get skittish, worrying that the issues plaguing one big player will affect another. So they start to bail, the markets freak out and lenders pull back credit.

    The problem was exacerbated by the fact that so many institutions were tethered to one another through these deals. For example, Lehman Brothers had itself made more than $700 billion worth of swaps, and many of them were backed by AIG. And when mortgage-backed securities started going bad, AIG had to make good on billions of dollars of credit default swaps. Soon it became clear it wasn’t going to be able to cover its losses. And since AIG’s stock was one of the components of the Dow Jones industrial average, the plunge in its share price pulled down the entire average, contributing to the panic.

    The reason the federal government stepped in and bailed out AIG was that the insurer was something of a last backstop in the CDS market. While banks and hedge funds were playing both sides of the CDS business—buying and trading them and thus offsetting whatever losses they took—AIG was simply providing the swaps and holding onto them. Had it been allowed to default, everyone who’d bought a CDS contract from the company would have suffered huge losses in the value of the insurance contracts they hadpurchased, causing them their own credit problems.

    Given the CDSs’ role in this mess, it’s likely that the federal government will start regulating them; New York state has already said it will begin doing so in January. “Sadly, they’ve been vilified,” says Duhon, who helped get the whole thing started with that Bistro deal a decade ago. “It’s like saying it’s the gun’s fault when someone gets shot.” But just as one might want to regulate street sales of AK-47s, there’s an argument to be made that credit default swaps can be dangerous in the wrong hands. “It made it a lot easier for some people to get into trouble,” says Darrell Duffie, an economist at Stanford. Although he believes credit default swaps have been “dramatically misused,” Duffie says he still believes they’re a very effective tool and shouldn’t be done away with entirely. Besides, he says, “if you outlaw them, then the financial engineers will just come up with something else that gets around the regulation.” As Wall Street and Washington wring their hands over how to prevent future financial crises, we can only hope they re-read Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein.”

  167. Sure does! They dont like Neil do they? That just means they are worried about his knowledge and teachings and they are worried. I hope they dont sleep at night. It wont be because of emotions it is because of getting caught.

  168. i looked at thesite–its the opinion makes no sense–at least the snippet–its old—i agree it looks like a bank plant

  169. That is all that was sent to me I will see if I can retrieve more from the party that sent it. It makes no sense to me.

  170. @MR
    This is common—too common—its why the AGs shoulv put tthe settlement money into legal aid instead of office furniture. or whatever they diverted it to—–its so sad—your out is bk and abandon right?

  171. @SAE You quote the following;
    “Trotter also mentions in his initial brief that summary judgment was not appropriate because his loan obligation may have been satisfied by insurance payments after it was securitized and placed in a mortgage loan trust. In support of this assertion of error, Trotter cites no legal authority, but instead refers the Court to the allegations in his original complaint. This is insufficient to satisfy I.A.R. 35(a)(6). Because he mentions this argument only in passing and without supporting argument or authority, the argument is waived and we decline to consider it.”

    The insurance argument has no legal merit whatsoever. Swindler Neil Garfield is a major proponent of this idiotic argument. He uses it to support his sales of forensic loan audits and mortgage securitization audits, as well as to profit from referral of distressed borrowers to other crooked attorneys in his syndicate.”

    I do not understand non-judicial–it seems to me to be a procedural mechanism ONLY——–the standing issue derives from the constitutional right of due process—with statutory and judicial rules of procedure and notice—the standing issue is an absolute right–cant be taken away by statute—might be formated by procedure so as to be raised in a complaint to halt the foreclosure—but i dont understand the process in those states

    i have a hard time following that case snippet ……doesnt make sense to me–i know why ownership of note is so very very critical—see the hawaiin case raised yesterday–or this am

    but frankly i wish somebody would provide some caselaw on that insurance recovery issue being a barrier to foreclosure–its been 35 years but my recollection of black letter insurance law was that double recovery is permissable absent contract limitations or statute—such that a person cant get 3 fire policies to pay and then burn his house down—or three health policies that overlap—- but i sure can have multiple life policies—–i understand the equity thing—but why is the homeowner the beneficiary—unless you can fashion an argument he paid for it–and you can overcome the policy issue —i borrow the money–take out credit insurance—then deliberately trigger default—seemingly this argument fails because the borrower still owes the debt—frankly i think public policy should limit the creditors ability to insure—-leads to the mess weve got—but how to do honest stuff thats reasonable—i dont know lets see the cases please

  172. If the bank’s foreclosure actions were even-handed and above board, the following would be a given in all 50 states. This should be mandatory, given the widespread criminality and abuse of the system:

    Moreover, in the case of original mortgages and promissory notes, they are not merely exhibits but instruments which must be surrendered prior to the issuance of a judgment. The judgment takes the place of the promissory note. Surrendering the note is essential so that it cannot thereafter be negotiated.

    See Perry v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 888 So.2d 725, 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The judgment cancels the note. The clerk cannot return these instruments to the parties.

  173. slightly off topic- read Matt tiabbi rolling stone mag dated july 5-19th
    the scam wallstreet learned from the mafia its inspiring the jury got it. the defense is priceless and scary.

  174. I really don’t see how any of this is all going to make a bit of difference, no person is ever going to come out ahead, and even if you modify, what?.. Your still in a house they strapped cement and chains to, and tossed off the Pier.

    If they forced you out, your better off then me. I can state this is the truth!

    I myself originally just wanted the truth, and of course my case is unique, and they just locked on like an alligator, and then when I finally got to the point of knowing the truth, even I could say, “Yes, your honor, no one should profit off the misfortune of another, and I am not trying to get a FREE HOUSE” but the fact is they preyed on me intentionally, and they did this to me to harm me, and they did it with maliciousness, so let them have the house, but….

    It’s been three years of hell.

    So now here, finally at a point when I could even begin to think about dealing with it, I am now divorcing my husband over it, so I can’t even modify anything!

    I am divorcing him as he is the one that led me into this danger, and he is the one that it still looks like was very involved. The Good Old Boys Club. So how could I possibly make any payments, here at this stage? On either house!

    All they had to do was give me some answers, and not destroy my marriage, and heck , the payments would be made, of some sort at least!
    I mean everyone has to live somewhere.

    No, instead of even an apology, they drag this out, make my life a hell, and literally force us to not make payments, due entirely to the situation.

    I mean I flat out told them I was not going to try and stop a foreclosure, and they still won’t do anything!
    Quit postponing that crap, just get it done, so I can deal with this, and get past it.

    I just want to know WHO exactly is getting paid with the money at the trustee sale, and what debt is still left?

    Just today, there is ANOTHER leak in the house, Five years old and this is the FOURTH leak. Just overwhelmed, and no where to turn.

    The yard needs help=$$$ the bills are too high for a single woman, and I feel like I have been under house arrest for Three years!

    BK seems better each day, but won’t do it until AFTER they take my property!,

    I have made 5 trips to the the thrift store, giving away all my crap, and am down to a suitcase of photos, (my families property, not mine) and a couple boxes of clothes and some family china (again, not mine) the rest? The five year old dog-peed couches and cracked mirrors, and my table?
    I might even drag it all in the yard and set it on fire!
    Maybe then the press will pick up my story!

  175. Speaking of “EVIL” this ridiculous post just came to me from a friend in Florida. It would be rediculous to allow someone that is not a party of interest whom has no standing to be allowed to take part in a lawsuit they have no authority to be in. Lack of standing statutes are called fraud upon the court, Whom ever wrote this must work for the banks.

    read this post..

    rotter v. BNY as trustee for the CWALT, Inc Alternative Loan Trust 2005-28CB, No. 38022 (Idaho 2012)

    Swindlers have been propagating the MYTH that a standing defense can be raised in non-judicial states. This myth helps support the sales of millions of dollars in scam forensic loan audits and mortgage securitization audits.

    The Idaho Supreme Court also briefly addresses and dismisses another argument that the swindlers are also using as a pretext for their debt elimination scams. This is the false argument that a borrower might be absolved of responsibility for the debt by the payment of some insurance claim or other default risk arbitrage technique.

    Here at the Forum, Mr. Roper and more recently others, including myself, have repeatedly challenged the swindlers to identify any statutory basis or case law supporting their absurd arguments. Of course, there is never any actual case law support. Proponents of this nonsense simply quote other swindlers, such as Neil Garfield, in support of these vacuous arguments.

    The reason to ask for support for their propositions, is that absent some statute or case law to support their argument, the argument simply fails.

    Here is what the Idaho Supreme Court had to say:

    “Trotter’s arguments that (a) MERS had no authority to assign the deed of trust to Bank of New York, and (b) his loan obligation may have been satisfied by an insurance policy, thereby precluding foreclosure, are not supported with relevant legal authority.

    The Idaho Appellate Rules require an appellant to support its contentions “with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the transcript and the record relied upon.” I.A.R. 35(a)(6). Thus, it is “well settled” that an issue on appeal will not be considered if it is “not supported by propositions of law, authority, or argument.” Bowles v. Pro Indiviso, Inc., 132 Idaho 371, 376, 973 P.2d 142, 147 (1999) (quoting State v. Zichko, 129 Idaho 259, 263, 923 P.2d 966, 970 (1996)). Even where an issue is “explicitly set forth in the party’s brief” as one of the bases for appeal, if it is “only mentioned in passing and not supported by any cogent argument or authority, it cannot be considered by this Court.” Dawson v. Cheyovich Family Trust, 149 Idaho 375, 382-83, 234 P.3d 699, 706-07 (2010) (citing Inama v. Boise Cnty. ex rel. Bd. of Comm’rs, 138 Idaho 324, 330, 63 P.3d 450, 456 (2003)).

    . . .

    Trotter also mentions in his initial brief that summary judgment was not appropriate because his loan obligation may have been satisfied by insurance payments after it was securitized and placed in a mortgage loan trust. In support of this assertion of error, Trotter cites no legal authority, but instead refers the Court to the allegations in his original complaint. This is insufficient to satisfy I.A.R. 35(a)(6). Because he mentions this argument only in passing and without supporting argument or authority, the argument is waived and we decline to consider it.”

    The insurance argument has no legal merit whatsoever. Swindler Neil Garfield is a major proponent of this idiotic argument. He uses it to support his sales of forensic loan audits and mortgage securitization audits, as well as to profit from referral of distressed borrowers to other crooked attorneys in his syndicate.

  176. Evil repeats itself History repeats itself. We just grew up in the illusion stage of the same game. Set up like ducks in a row to wipe out with manufactured defaults. Investors and the wealthy five percent being pre manufactured to be screwed by the 1percent. I wonder how many under the 1 percent including the very poor had their inheritance stolen in the 1980;s the 1930;s and all the bankster corruption for decades that could have made this a better world for everyone if the history of man was not power and greed by the 1 percent. I believe more have suffered than you can ever imagine. Not just in the now. Look at the Wizzard of OZ video. I hope man is strong enough to overcome this one as they did in the past.

  177. Auguast 9th 2012 Los Angeles , CA “Q” – “This is the controversy, non yielding discounted bonds, used to platform the European side the “common into preferred” Dutch interest scheme…”

    The mortgage is materially alerted under accounting rules and does not exist for reporting purposes.
    This allows the Fed to use the “bank steers” as their economic playground for floating the cost of its banks Borrowering requirements.
    This is at the cost and risk of the US consumer household.
    In the mean time, Fannie M and Freddie Mertz cash in their old business model to purchase common stock “after the fact” and allow the Fed to cash in warehouse lines used to fund loans. They GSE goes from pennies on the servicing dollar to a margin of over 10:1 cash on cash According to M.Soliman – he’s alive testifying in WA – Short-term credit consisting of widely traded 30 – 90 day coml. paper rates are offered from 30 year mortgages. It’s the new micro managed leverage scheme for Fed Funds alternative to old boring style banking.

    The mortgages are lost to the banks lines of credit “basis” in assets for which the controlling features of FAS 140 prohibit recalling the mortgage back. . It’s a novation anyway. More reported on the following site Http:\\foreclosurealternative\\\ . . . (is this oky?)

    You go figure where the REPO fits in. It’s all used to lever the households homes to pool bank debt owed the Fed into a waterfall of liquidity without the proper reporting of balance sheet liabilities

    The one, the only, the true way around the …..

  178. My loan was a jumbo loan. It was through BECU first twice when I financed it to enlarge my business two times from 700 square ft to 3000 to 7000 square foot. I had just purchase four acres of commercial property to puit a 21000 square foot building on when i ran into a corrupt mayor I am still fighting. BECU had done the first two loans. I unfortunately did not owe one dime on my house when I built it. I sold six rentals to pay cash for it. Then I stupidly financed it for this business. The Long Beach WAMU loan was the only loan outside of BECU, which were jumbo equity loans. Done in one day for a thousand cost to do it. They were electronically filed. I think it was MERS but the docs are all taken off the county records. I am sure MERS must have been involved before and during the Long Beach loan, but all MERS has been removed from county records before I knew enough to know to look on county records. All this fraud was new to me and a total shock.

  179. @DCB,

    Everyone, regardless of his intellectual achievements, got screwed. i don’t believe I am particularly dumb or naive but I grew up, as you did, at a time when someone’s word was what defined his character. Either he was trustworthy, in which case we knew to deal with him, or he wasn’t and we shunned him.

    When everyone involved in banking and money started lying all at once, we all got caught with our pants down. Remember that probate judge in Toledo or Akron or somewhere around there two years ago? Chase told him to stop paying his mortgage before he could obtain a modification. That guy never expected in his wildest dreams that he was being played by Chase.

    No one was spared. In fact, i was reading not too long ago how bankers screwed each others the exact same way. How can that be? Well, they all saw themselves as the predators and everyone else as game. it never occurred to them that what they were pulling on unsuspecting peons like us was also being pulled on them by their own kind. Some kind of a divine justice…

  180. @UKG Do you have any idea how the conveyance occurred? How did they cut off the investors? Did the srvicer side of Wels just buy out the investors when the trusts got to some low level of active loans?

  181. @CARIE

    I had a jumbo portfolio with old chase——-it was a little pricy and an arm—and one day got a call from the loan officer that had worked a chase–saying”i know you had a pricey loan –let me help you with a new refi because now there is competition in this market” —so like a fool i said ok—-expected a loan like all the others over my life and was shocked to go to closing and face a mountain of paper that was literally still printing off and hot to the touch—pompass was used–yes i thought that this guy id known for years would not do this–that the title company id used for years would not do that—i was a sucker plain and simple

    they put me in a 4 option arm with a teaser 1.25% for a year —-pmt on page one of the note same as teaser calc—-handed me a years coupons for that amount and i thought id saved enough on the teaser -and supposedly a lower later arm add on–to make the change—but fact was i was diving into an empty swimming pool

    my insurance was almost doubled in 60 days–and i was clueless–why i asked my insurance broker—because of that type loan he said—-i still clueless said what type loan?

    its essentially same amount and type as before—boy was i dumb

    i did not even know it was 4 option–i didnt what that was

    i called the servicer AHMSI [oldnow bankrupt] said–i want to set up auto pay so i cant miss my pmts—i traveled a lot—they said cant do that–again i was shocked—how odd –a bank that doesnt want autopay???

    anyway it was a few months along that i got a statement in the mail—and it was the now infamous 4 option—–and another wierd thing—the principal balance had actually gone up—which i could not fathom–computer error?–i paid every coupon on time—i did not figure our for a couple more years when i got a schedule of payments and applications that after the closing very 1st [pre] payment—my rate jumped to abour 6% —the teaser was truly a teaser–a disappearing teaser

    any way i pulled the securitization and i could see the distribution–there were a lot of jumbos in the shitty predatory group 1 loans—so i dont know about the split stuff you are taliking about—except to say there was very little about that securitization documentation that they actually follwed so it could very well have happened as you describe–i never heard that before–its a new idea–

    oh one interesting aspect—this former chase loan officer–then broker actualy tried to induce me to mistate my wifes employment status “to improve chances of getting the loan” —i refused—-i didnt desperately need the loan—-just was expecting a more competitive interest rate—–i shouldv known something was wrong at that point—
    —but when they hire out of reputable banks people youv dealt with for years–use the title offices–etc–its easy to fool you—it was mid 2004—this stuff had not become widely known–i did not ever think it could be a predatory loan—–that was something that happened to others–not a jumbo in a small town with a pillar of the community as broker????

    greed—i wasnt paying attention –i was focused on my job—i was helping draft the renewable fuels provisions—i was caught up doing good —fool

  182. @UKG,

    And yet… I had to BORROW from somewhere to buy my house (yes, the one I quit paying way back then ‘cuz i couldn’t figure out to whom…). So, I understand where DCB is coming from. At the same time, banks responsible for the insanity we live in, received money from my taxes to fix their screw ups and took advantage of me to go out and screw up some more.

    So, in my book, we paid forward with the first bailout, and the second and all the bribes government gave them so that they wouldn’t modify loans, would not lend to small business, would not invest in research taward alternative energy sources, wouldn’t invest in our kids education, and could stash away my money in some tropical paradise without my getting any benefit for it.

    Naw. I don’t owe anyone a cent. I already gave.

  183. DC and enraged: I enjoyed your discussion. So, the story goes like this…….all these Wells Fargo mortgage backed securities are paid off. Zero balances.The Form ABS-15G shows that. If the trust is paid off, it’s dead. Dead people (or corps) can’t sue. The debt is now proven to be a collection right. That makes the servicer, the attorneys, the attorneys’ attorneys, all debt collectors. FDCPA here we come……

  184. Actually i think that the problem is not 1% –which would include a lot of well off small business guys that maybe guilty of noting more than having 3 generations of family business behind them—or the typical specialist referred to by investment bankers as the “mark” supposedly sophisticate “DR Schmedlock”—more money than investment skills but can sign the statement saying hes got 1 million and can afford to lose it

    I think the problem is these guys that supposedly amass billions in one lifetime–or like the oligarchs in one good deal—–i personally do not believe it is possible to amass billions in one lifetime without bending, breaking or bribing———-and having already amassed enough to pay for attys to get away with it—and settle settle settle

    so i think we are talking about something more like .1%–.01% being the real rotten apples in the barrel———–and they simply must be rooted out——–i think that the 1% are now the prime target of the .o1%————but yes if Dr Schmedlock loaned me money at 6% in a fair deal—he should get the benefit of his bargain–as should I

  185. @DCB

    “…in terms of the Subprime market. A Jumbo loan was highly unusual in the subprime market — unless that loan was split in two, or already passed passed through the GSEs.

    When you refer to Jumbo, you are likely referring to a new purchase. This is because with subprime refinances, the loan likely already passed through the GSEs — (this is why all loans must be traced all the way back to the time you purchase the home).

    With Jumbo new purchases, if the loan exceeded GSE conforming guidelines — yes, that loan would have gone directly to the wolves, and it would not have first passed through the GSEs. BUT, we have found that many, many Jumbo new purchase loans were split into 2 loans at origination. One loan would appear to be conforming and this would pass through the GSEs and, the second loan would not…we have found that this was common place. As to subprime, the refinances and split new purchase jumbo market loans make up the bulk of the subprime fraud during the past decade.

    If one’s loan was a residential Jumbo new purchase that was not split into two loans, this loan would likely have not been securitized at all. This type of loan was likely “portfolioed” — that is, retained by the bank for its own portfolio. As compared to the bulk of subprime residential loan originations, these Jumbo new purchases were in the minority, because qualifying for the loan, and being labeled subprime, would have been extremely difficult There were, however, commercial loans that were likely jumbo — commercial loans are a completely different market.

    Although these jumbo loans did not pass through the GSEs, their path is just as difficult to trace, especially if refinances were involved. Charge-offs would have been by the bank that portfolioed — not the GSE.

    One of the first questions you must ask to distinguish the path is — what was the original purchase loan amount when you purchased the house? And, was this loan split in two? That is how you can tell it passed through GSE. If not, only the bank has all records — including any false default and charge off records. Remember, charge-off allowed insurance collection, in addition to “refinance/modification” of the collection rights. However, insurance on Jumbo would have been difficult — which is why the banks likely kept these loans on their own balance sheets…”

    @DCB—what type of Jumbo did you take out??

  186. I agree this is happening. From everything I have put together also. Manufactured machinery for defaults and stealing houses. n Like pushing base balls out of a machine, you take this one and knock into a homerun by alstar debt collector RECONTRUST, MERS, DEUTSCHE BANK AND ON AND ON. ALL UNDER THE MANUAFACTURED TO DEFRAUD VEIL OF MERS TO SHIRT AROUND REAL TITLE DOCUMENTS.

  187. DCB,

    We’ve just put the finger on the fundamental difference between you and me: I am an incorrigible optimist. I don’t have it in me to see the worse case scenario. Too old to change and it sustains me…

  188. add in nukes and global warming, antibiotic resistant disease–and the unprecedented population explosion and i think that the world is much more fragile than its ever been—–i keep looking for reports on the chinese crops this year–cant find them–rice is ok–but the rest??

  189. DCB,

    And i don’t necessarily agree that it would result in chaos. it would result, in my views, in a cohesive and homogenous situation, with everyone thinking alike and everyone thriving toward the Big Fix Up.

    Anarchy will only happen if some do certain things while others do others, opposed or contrary.

    Again, my views. Keep in mind that 99% of us did NOT create that mess. Do you really believe that we owe any honesty to the 1%?

  190. @ER
    Cycles—through European history this very thing has happened again and again–and when it tears up entire nations or the whole continent—as it apears headed now—-then there are nasty upheavals and they start burning people at the stake or otherwise [eg Guillotine] ——

    offhand i cannot recall a period in euro history of 60 years of consistent peace—–the hourglass has run out of sand—-overpopulation–large unhappy populations—large masses of youths with no stake in their political systems—–elders that have been screwed mightily—encouraging rather than restraining the youths—-its a tinderbox——–and the people responsible for it are identifiable as those on Madam Defarges quilt

    What amazes me is that these people have more money than any person can spend in a lifetime—but will stop at nothing to increase it to yet larger amounts–and thereby do the only thing that can cause them to lose it all—-destablize the systems that protect them from the masses that would jus prefer to light the fires in the best of times—but will fight for the chance when they get cold and hungrey—–

    if these people read their history books–they would be saying “Jamie Boy–I think youv gone too far”

  191. DCB,

    “Honest transactions should be dealt with honestly. Dishonest transactions should be made fair–I cant go beyond that. An across the board view that you have stated would result in chaos and is a form of anarchy.”

    True. Except that the line between honest and dishonest was blurred by the banks unbeknownst to us a long time ago. Most people who kept playing the “honest” card got screwed and lost everything, you included. If world economies are built on fluff and you call the fluff-bluff, are you being dishonest of are you preparing the field for the major clean-up this situation requires and which cannot be implemented the way things are currently?

    Hard question, isn’t it? That’s why you can’t let it consume you day in, day out. Life is the only thing you have. If it is made miserable by the actions of a few, they have won. That’s what i refuse: to give3 anyone that power over the only thing that is truly mine, to hold and enjoy. the rest is part of the fluff.

  192. @ENRAGED

    You said [not I] “stop paying your mortgage. If you play your cards well, your attorney will cost less than your mont5hly payment, you’ll have money at the end of the month and you’ll be able to take yourself on a well-deserved vacation”.

    Honest transactions should be dealt with honestly. Dishonest transactions should be made fair–I cant go beyond that. An across the board view that you have stated would result in chaos and is a form of anarchy—–this is the sort of thing that the collection agents hide behind as the reason why even the most crooked transaction should be glossed over—-“moral something”—hard for me to remember since i choke when i hear the crooks use the term

  193. @DCB,

    Yes BUT (and that’s huge!) the difference between 5 or 10 years ago and today is that today, we have the ability to KNOW what has been done to us, thanks to internet. We are in the-truth-shall-make-you-free times. We are living through that as we speak, learning more and more of that truth every single day.

    i don’t know about you but I’d rather live today, knowing where it all went wrong, than yesterday, when it was being done to me. Because now, we can start looking for solutions. is it going to trigger serious growing pains? Probably! Humans have been in existence for quite a few years… we’ve handle a lot. We can handle that too.

    Humans have the ability to create something new all the time. We will this time again. And it doesn’t have to be bad or worse than what we currently have, on the contrary. In fact, it can only be better.

  194. @ENRAGED
    I spent decades reading balance sheets, P&Ls, cash flows—–reconstructed them to determine buyout vales etc——for Fortune 100 and 500 ——-but industrials and extractive —there you could and did base multi-billion buyouts on balance sheets—after revaluing fixed stuff for appreciation—–tossing out goodwill and intangible plugs—–quite different from this godawful financial stuff—

    like trying to value the bet on a roll of dice at a casino before the dice cease moving

    in part its the problem with valuing conglomerates—-companies that have assembled diverse businesses wit no synergies—“diversification” all the rage in 1970’s and 1980’s——whem Mobil bought montgomery ward or some such—-stupid–the sr managements had no clue what the 2 divisions were doing —–anoil drilling engineer pretending he knows something about advertising and same store sales–hubris

    it flopped—the KKRs moved in and chopped em down to understandable single lines of business—–then these investment houses—formerly partnerships–restrained by practical economic limits—the amt of betting limited by partners’ capital—-and since was partner capital with recourse back against the partnership for crooked bets—-the partners exercised reasonable risk management —then in mid 90’s these two restraints were lost and these houses went public and the then they started with betting “other peoples’ money” .

    you dont need a PHD in economics to figure out what that will do to both the size and the riskiness of the bets—as the bets became less risk averse and the size increased–and they added leverage—the bets became more exotic–as Mabbitt stated complexity for complexity sake

    Then Sandy Weill –who now regrets his lack of basic foresight–gets the regulators/congress to allow the banks and investment corps to merge—back to conglomerates

    What rankles me among other things is that these very same investment bankers have preached dismantling of industustrials to make them more transparent–easier for the investment bankers to understand to the point that they have chopped up even verticaly integrated operations that were clearly synergistic –simply to enable investment bankers to “understand” the businessess

    simultaneously of course these samne guys made bundles tearing the companies that built america to pieces

    now it appears that only they with the most opaque businesses that can be contrived—are exempt from the basic business rule of simplifying to predict cash flows

    the basic problem is letting this incomprehensible gambling crap slip onto the statements of banks—-and magnify the risks both in terms of exotic complexity and in shere size

    This does no good for any legitimate company–union–or govt—–

    the complexity and numbers do help justify outlandisc compensation–thats all i see—and open up opportunities for enormous frauds—and we have these revolving door regulator-apologists defending this crap insted of stating the foregoing—-i dont need to know the lingo to recognize a shell game when i see it—the shell game can be run in any language and its still a shell game

  195. And DCB,

    When you take it all in stride, when you take a healthy step back from your completely destitute position (that same position we all share, banks included… Just because your pension plan or bank account shows mucho dinero on paper doesn’t mean that the money is real or exists), you realize that we’re all in this together. We’re all destitute and insolvent. including Jamie boy and the Stumpf.

    We’re going to have to really, really work together in fixing that thing and we can’t expect anything from our leaders. That’s why I get very irritated when people ramble with the same rants over and over while offering no solution and no new information or come to this site to treat each other like s*%$ or call each other names such as “shill”, “sold-out” or what not. It’s completely immature and it doesn’t help anything.

    What saddens me the most is that people commit suicide over it. they can’t see straight anymore, they’re overwhelmed and they give up, not realizing that their neighbors are in the same doodoo. When push comes to shove, what will make the difference is not government but our neighbors. Treat people well: you’ll need them eventually and they will need you. And in the end, we’ll still all die… and our kids will still have to pick up the pieces. If i can pick some of them today by helping people with resources that empowers them, it’s that much less my kid will have to fix.

  196. @DCB,

    So, anyway, the way I look at it is simple: when your accounting is in such disarray, no $1,450 monthly payment you receive every month will make a dent, right?

    As the expected payer of that $1,450, I no longer can justify making that payment. Nor can anyone else in this country. So, get that money, get an attorney, (go on to find one if necessary). Sue your servicer. Everyone has ample reasons: Respa, Tila, Fdcpa, Rico, whatever: it’s all valid.

    Then, stop paying your mortgage. If you play your cards well, your attorney will cost less than your mont5hly payment, you’ll have money at the end of the month and you’ll be able to take yourself on a well-deserved vacation. Because the way i see it, those 4, 5 or 10 years they stole from you, you never, ever get them back!

    Charity begins at home.

  197. @DCB,

    Honestly, balance sheets all over the place are phony.

    You don’t blow an $80 trillion world economy into a $400 trillion bubble (or more, since it all depends on who’s talking…) with clean, balanced accounting sheets. The reason every single member of Congress and our government has refused to act is that banks have made it a point to tell them and repeat over and over: “if we go down, we’ll take everything down with us”. They’re not kidding. They really do have that ability. Why do you think BRICS are scrambling so hard to come up with their own currency and have started trading out of the dollar?

    The problem is that they can ONLY go down. It’s not an eventuality or a potentiality. it is a certainty. No one, I mean NO ONE wants to be head of state when that happens. That’s what “kicking the can down the road” is all about. Obama’s been kicking away. Romney would be kicking away and even Ron Paul could do nothing but kick away. That’s why the elections are such a sad farce.

    It is not a question of “if” but a question of “when”.

  198. @ENRAGED—-no i have not—you are a fount of knowledge

  199. @ENRAGED
    RE JPM restatement in event of collapse——the extraordinary way they allow them to account for liabilities —–would they not be able to add to equity the reduction in the “value” of the bank’s outstanding bonds etc. Is that not how many are showing positive equity now–albeit it is an upside down world to suggest that equity benefits when debt is written down–when i heard that it left me speachless—their balance sheets are so phony–perhaps why they trade at a deep discount to net book value.

  200. @DCB,

    Have you ever consulted

    It is the site where I get most of my cases. On the top right hand, there is a box in which you can type any search. If you type, for example, the name of the bank and the state, you get everything they have on the subject.

    I check that site every single day. Allows me also to find who the regular players are, who capable attorneys are, how trends change by states, etc.

  201. By the way, the reason I posted the Chase “orderly liquidation plan” is the following: pages 7 and 9. Especially page 9…

    Go to page 9. Under the wipeout scenario JPM describes a $50 billion trading loss turning into a $200 billion loss as soon as the FDIC takes over. Why… ? Because JPM says they would expect the FDIC to immediately writedown JPM’s assets by an additional $150 billion.
    Holy mark to bullshit. Jamie Dimon just admitted to the world that JPM is mis-marking assets to the tune of $150 billion.

    It gets better. Go to page 10. The chart shows that they only have $184 billion in equity, minus the $50 billion loss, minus ‘the $150 billion fdic reality adjustment’, which leaves them in a negative equity position of (-$16 billion).

    So, we can extrapolate that without this phantom loss of $50 billion, JPM’s real equity position is just $34 billion currently, not the $184 billion on their books.

  202. @ ENRAGED

    Thankyou—-is there a list?

  203. DCB,

    Hawaii has quite a few of those cases. Kiernan is only the direct result of all the cases Deutesche Bank filed and which have been dismissed one after the other on the same/similar grounds.

  204. @ENRAGED

    It was very unclear to me Mergers between whom and whom—-mergers between trusts and forein banks for example? Under foreign law as NOMODS was stating there are all manner of different ways of looking at economic interests. the MBS as secured notes here might get some sort of loss of priority and be treated as equity in say Spain–as with the Cahas’ depositors——

    the NOMOD description was so fast and furious and the content was so complex –it was hard to figure what exactly was being said—i would love to hear a dubed down vesrion as a foundation piece.

  205. Very interesting: JPM Chase “orderly liquidation plan” as presented by Harvard a few months ago.

  206. @MARY AND ALL

    “expressly finding that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Note and Mortgage were transferred to Deutsche Bank (the claimed “trustee” of a securitized mortgage loan trust) before the original lender, Home 123 Corporation, filed for Bankruptcy, and that the record did not reflect that the assignment was done with the approval of the bankruptcy court”

    THAT IS A MAJOR MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENT. That fact pattern is so common among the private labels—more so its the rule rather than the exception—i would ask is the Hawaain circuit court the trial court–lowest level court? I would also ask you others spread around the country–Are you aware of other such cases? Im not.

  207. @Mary: Deutsh bribe-agents (Lobbyists) too slow to buy Hawaii judge???

  208. NOMODS,

    I was rereading what you posted and, all of a sudden, it hit me like a ton of bricks!

    If the entire system was built in anticipation of mergers (which, thank God, never took place as they should!) we probably had the closest call we ever had to that NWO with single currency, single, central bank and single, centralized government!!!

  209. FYI. Where are rulings like this from our courts…

    August 3, 2012

    We were just advised moments ago that a Hawai’i Circuit Court Judge has denied Deutsche Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment, expressly finding that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Note and Mortgage were transferred to Deutsche Bank (the claimed “trustee” of a securitized mortgage loan trust) before the original lender, Home 123 Corporation, filed for Bankruptcy, and that the record did not reflect that the assignment was done with the approval of the bankruptcy court. The homeowners are represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq. and local Hawai’i counsel Ronald Grant, Esq. Mr. Barnes prepared the briefs and personally argued the matter in Honolulu last November.

    This case (Deutsche Bank v. McKiernan, Case No. 09-1-000910, Hawai’i First Circuit, 21st Division) has many similarities, factually, to the Williams case from the Hawai’i Federal Court where the court permitted the homeowner to challenge Deutsche Bank’s compliance with the PSA in view of a purported assignment which was executed after the same original lender filed for bankruptcy, rejecting Deutsche Bank’s argument that the borrower did not have standing to lodge such an attack.

    These two decisions thus now support, in Hawai’i, (a) a homeowner’s challenge to a foreclosure based on defective assignments, and (b) that thse defects give rise to genuine issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment. Today’s earlier post as to the Naranjo decision further supports such a borrower challenge as well.

    Jeff Barnes, Esq.,

  210. @DW,

    You’re really a true Brit! “Total pompass ass”! Hilarious!

  211. DCB- we will die a good death then,

  212. Yeah–it doesnt realy matter—they can find out who posted what anytime they want–might be looking at you right now thru the camera on your computer–tracking your strokes–they have better ability than FBI—-and no legal boundaries

  213. @DW

    I warn you to take care you do not become caught up in this —I triggered things that have brought their wrath upon me and they will not allow me out—im in effect damned—-dont wrap yourself around it—i can see on this site obsessive compulsive types—-caught like the proverbial monkey that reaches into the trap and grasps the fruit till the hunter comes and collects him—in the realms of probability you will end up having to paty an atty not to save a house but to get you out of a contempt charge—that is the risk–they just cant allow a pro se to win–simple as that———you may win a battle here and there but dear —-a corporate atty or atty paid by one schedules out a case on a 5 plus year horizon——i spent from 1986 to 1994 on one case [plus other stuff during recesses]——are you truly prepared to spend that much time and agony—i got paid–the opposing counsel got paid—-the case never was rsolved in court–it was settled after 8 years of aggressive litigation—several millions per year—–this is their stock in trade–thats why I fear them —–but iv already accepted ill die before its over–have you?

  214. and yes one reason i blogg in my real name is i want them to read it- that my courage is all i have

  215. I am

  216. its ok, i do hear you, you think ive no chance.

  217. @CARIE

    I cant disagree with much of your analysis where rules are followed–or GSE’s —–ivolved–i dont know what crap they indulged–obviously they are integral to the scheming and therefore the way its portrayed in some securitizations does not apply there–presumably the high volume chicanery NOMOD describes went on although he/she is going to fast for me to untangle–i guess thats the point–slow it down and impress us with a tutorial-NOMOD please —because right now i dont know whether you are dazzling with brilliance or baffling with BS–i know the difference thankyou–after listening to the jargon on and off over 35 yrs—im sure i could talk about reverse triangular mergers–upreits and downreits until it made you sick as well—its no ecerise of brilliance to toos out jargon in incomprehensible shorthand–a poor witness–which is why there is crossexamination and practice direct—and i hate to tell you–but if you sit out the game for 5 yrs it will be jargon to you when you listen to the new set of hotshots

    but CARIE —take yourself out of the niche of GSE’s and think about it–imagine a securitization involving JUMBOs for example—

  218. DCB – i used to think you were a total pompass ass

  219. A mafioso is happy to be in jail as long as hes got a pile of cash offshore–hes happy if his family is dead –if he has money offshore—its a belief system that is incomprehensible –especially to us farmers

    On the other hand we livestock farmers are equally comfortble with another of his stocks in trade—death–we accept it a necessary element of maintaining the normal order of things—animals are raised for slaughter for food——-sick ones are dispatched as cheaply as possible—a wolf will certainly kill your sheep and must be summarily executed without a second thought if you want to keep live sheep

    that is where our society has failed–we are dealing with wolves and mad dogs that kill our sheep but do not have a typical farmers fortitude to dispatch those wolves and dogs–it is their nature to kill our sheep and as farmers it is our nature to kill the wolves–somewhere its gotten all tangled up and no farmers are left to protect the sheep

    that is why there is only one way

  220. @jg

    “…Subprime refinance was GSEs rejects. And, subprime was in great demand because of the higher interest rate it paid to security investors. Security investors, however, are not the creditor — they are not the creditor for prime debt, not the creditor for subprime, not the creditor for GSE loans. They are, in fact, never the creditor. And, they do not fund any loans. They fund the BANKs — who are the “investors” in the debt. If you were ever to name security investors for TILA violations, or request rescission, you would be immediately tossed out of court. This is NOT the way the market works — no matter how Neil tries to slice and dice it to “make-it” work. It does not work, will not work in court, and counterproductive to foreclosure defense. Neil has never quite understood the distinction between security investors and investors. Ask him to define this in terms of Freddie/Fannie. Freddie/Fannie is the INVESTOR, security investors invest in Freddie/Fannie pass-throughs. They are NOT the same. And, niether Freddie/Fannie, as investor, or security investors in Fannie/Freddie pass-throughs — are the lender/creditor under federal law.

    I also agree with Neil that the financial transaction occurred with a different party than stated at origination. But, Neil has the “trail of money” wrong. Subprime refinances were created by reporting default to the GSEs, prior to refinance, to make sure the GSE could not “invest” in the refinance. Banks wanted themselves to be the “investor.” .

    GSEs charge off the falsely reported debt, servicer or mortgagee collects insurance and pays GSE –and, simultaneously, purchases rights to the (false) default debt. And, the mortgagee “modifies” the default debt by calling it a refinance. Borrower remains in default with GSE.

    NO funding is necessary, unless borrower requests “cash-out.” These (false) default debts were, perhaps, modified several times. No problem for debt buyer “investor” — because, if borrowers did not pay the high rates — foreclosure was the option. Default is default to courts, they just do not know that the loan was a (false) default before actual default.”

  221. @ENRAGED

    Yes you have it right—-death before forbearance.

    A house is not worth dying over—

    the downside ultimately is jail for contempt—–that of course is their checkmate

    and i think you said it before im a foolish old man that believed in right—i wrote legislation and believed that there was law—but its pretyy much gone since 2007

  222. @DW
    Look at NOMODS—thats what you are up against—–quit while you are ahead—while you are alive–its only money—-for most of us money does not equal life—-that is the lifestyle that is adopted by a certain few born to it

  223. @DCB,

    From what I understand, you can’t claim damages until and unless the other servicer (the real one but no one knows who that is, right?) comes after you. And since SOL on contract in Ohio is… 15 years (I believe), they’re holding you by the short hair for 15 years!

    That’s why I sued first and then stop paying. I wanted to catch everyone first. I felt more comfortable going on the offensive than being on the defensive. Question of temperament, I suppose.

  224. @NOMODS
    Im trying to work thru these shorthands; below you stated;

    “This is the controversy, non yielding discounted bonds, used to platform the European side the “common into preferred” Dutch interest scheme…”

    Are you referring to a coupon stripped bond?

  225. @DW,

    I’m there with you. A couple of months ago, I (finally) got before the judge on a JDB lawsuit that i had fought pro se for 18 months. Not only did I fight but I counterclaimed for everything under the sun. the first judge didn’t know what to do about it and sat on it for a year while JDB filed motion after motion and and i answered everyone of them. JDB never was granted its motion to dismiss, motion on the pleadings and motion for summary judgment. 1st judge denied them all.

    2nd judge (1st one lost his seat in December) wanted to get rid of it but was pro JDB from the get go. I lost but with the immense satisfaction of having cost JDB everything that claim was worth by forcing him to have his attorney answer all my motions and to fly his employees come and testify. I made a fool of myself, i had a lot of fun in court. The judge had a couple of good laughs and I lost. I have nothing and I cleared my bank account right after losing. They ain’t getting a cent from me. Occasionally, there’s a guy snooping around in my driveway. Don’t know if it’s JDB trying to assess what he could go after or if it’s my mortgage servicer that I haven’t paid in over 2 years. It’s only money. Money that I don’t have. I’ll fight. For the shear hell of it!

    I just wanted to warn you that some arguments are dangerous to make as a pro se. But you knew that already, right?

  226. Enraged, thank you for the effort you put in here – i hear you i pay attention to all of you , and its all very worthwhile but im having to go my own way, you see,
    im a brit and i know how to fight, and re normal life, as someone else says “never Again” will life be the same.
    pray for me- briefs (not Pants) due 24th. and FYI i cant get an attorney because i have generally pissed them off because you are correct on all those issues and im not a safe bet because i complained about a judge. so im pro se – sorry dont like it one bit theres so much else i would so rather do but chose this path for some reason like an inate belief that good conquers evil. eventually. i see it i really do.

  227. @nomods

    “…I am telling you — every single subprime loan was done this way. Loan goes to GSEs — but, when ready to refinance — it gets bumped out — reported as false default to GSEs. Refinance is not really a refinance — it is a modification of a false default debt. And, many new purchases also passed through GSEs as false default.

    I know I am 100% on this. But, those in power will do everything possible to stop it from being publicized — if this got out — heads at top would roll….”

  228. 1) If loan was a subprime refinance, it was already in (false) default (with the GSE–i.e. Fannie/Freddie) before collection rights, therefore the securities were not valid mortgage-backed securities.

    Wrong … I mean to say , check where the securities offering is for the broker dealer capitalized accounts holding to MBS. This class of securities was formed according to a private placement 506 D registration criteria. The tax payer corporation formed the REIT and its subsidiary, the not-for-profit managed by the Taxable REIT Subsidiary was every bit valid. These structured financing deals are constructed on a classic purchase and sale-lease back deal structure as tax shelter schemes.

    For this purpose of creating dividends paid to preferred shareholders, the alleged servicing rights are fully disclosed in the PAS agreement. See where they are registered in each series (PPM) under the SEC guidelines which are in majority GAAP driven

    If you’re talking about the ABS piece of the deal, then it’s the commercial line of credit that was capitalized into bond financing. The bond structure was sold to Barclays, DBS or HSBC as a negative pledge. This is the controversy, non yielding discounted bonds, used to platform the European side the “common into preferred” Dutch interest scheme; the US Banking flip side counterpart.

    It was to access a spread of over 500 BPS at one point in time and there is the good will or overselling people talk about. What separates both and merges the two together is divestiture on the front end and recognition on the back. It’s done or was anticipated to be through a mergers and acquisition on the back end . . . that never came to fruition

    Embrace the deal structure and you realize they did everything legally, on the up and up, from a placement of the registration side of things. It appears a sham offering, but never the less binding under the TRS formed subsidiary, LLC managed REIT.

    If you embrace their deal structure and doors shall open for you les enfant

    The assets placed into trust are the deals paid in capital. The paid in capital is accrued debt service owed by party “A” to Party “B” affiliate and managed subsidiary. Party “A” does the deal and series by a “purchase and sale” under a “Transfer and sale lease back” for the purpose of washing out the servicing rights into a future event, the M&A.

    So the lease payments owed to the registrants share holders are for lease payments or other debt service to satisfy yield requirements for TPS holder. The payoff demand is to the yield requirements for the offshore enterprise accounts placed by foreign national investment firms.

    We played our games with the commercial paper rates and they did the same with LIBOR as Barclays was caught. It’s the “Bond” holder payment come due that is the heart of the controversy.

    That amount is senor to the amount the FED is trying t recapture for UPB outstanding.

    Now, the dilemma is the FDIC member bank never got to its point of destination – the M&A. The problem is IndyMac Bunk never merged with Lehman Bros Barnum and Bailout Circus . . . as the clowns were all fired by the FDIC. CWHL never merged with Bof A, Wachovia with GW, CitiFinancial, etc, etc

    The problem is the talent who got them into the mess is preparing for their defense anticipating doing the prep walk here soon. The matter chatter is heightened by the fact the deal structure “basis in the assets” held in the indentures corpus is the sole basis of valuating the deal and each transaction. It matters not that the Fed jumped in when they did. It’s problematic when the investor community is still spooked. In times like these Foo fighters and economist’s realize severe discrepancy in valuations exist for unknown reasons. In the cases I have seen, the note is one in the same with the title, and vice versa. Therein the estate or depositors account is valued in increments of $1,000 measured at 4:1 ratio of common stock to the household.

    So Carrie – Assume they did everything right and agree there is nothing to fight for here, especially not in a government backed securities registration. Then you now can embrace their problems and not yours, you see –

    So in a reversal, you’re left with 4 shares of stock for every $1,000 value in home price. This is the tender back into a right of foreclosure. Now let’s see what that stocks trading for at the moment….

    $25.00 a share.

    That’s $100.00 per $1,000 in home value. The barriers to foreclosure are a gap of 90% (credit bid) or $900.00 in the hole for every $1,000 in home value.

    Here is where you begin to really upset a debt collector under SEC scrutiny for proper compliance in a highly monitored re-capitalization effort under a government sponsored tax payer guarantees

    I persoanlly tell attorneys not to get to heavy in the REAL ESTATE arguments as the legal title is the support for the failed valuations requirment needed to foreclose.

    It seems to me this is not what a Homeowner bargained for. . . legality set aside !

    The path


  229. @ENRAGEd
    after i settled my case–i recvd a thing looked like an original note—except i then found out the loan file and note was not signed out of a bankruptcy ct for my trust—–and then opposing counsel in motion practice claimed right to provide a copy rather than original–and now says in motion practivce i habve no damages until another claimant shows up——-

    as i continued to search in increasing anxiety–to say least—i call nominal trustee trust dept—-who is the servicer on this loan # on this address for my name—–answer “BoA”—-im aghast–i just signed over house to another servicer—-i call BoA –they say weve no record of that loan—-as you say total confusion–and who loses when they gt confused–should i just say–oh yeah theyll forget all about it

    people this is why the standing issue and original note up front —or a real solid surety bond are necessary–or no matter what you think its not over

  230. @DCB,

    Here is Justia’s info.

    Miller et al v. Homecomings Financial LLC et al
    Has Decisions
    Filed: December 15, 2011 as 4:2011cv04416
    Plaintiffs: Joan Miller and David Miller
    Defendants: Homecomings Financial LLC , GMAC Mortgage LLC , Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company NA , Don Ledbetter, Patricia Poston and others
    Cause Of Action: Notice of Removal
    Court: Fifth Circuit > Texas > Southern District Court
    Type: Real Property > Foreclosure

  231. I know–i wanted to stick it in an amended complaint—i know –not necessary to do cites in complaints but the judge looks at em anyway—i dont follow rules–i try to make it easy aand iv seen top firms do it—not supposed to argue the case but a cite here and there helps –rather than making em wade through mtds

  232. @DCB,

    That’s exactly why I refuse to settle my 2nd I defaulted on 4 years ago. When i did default, it was with one servicer. Since then, I’ve received 4 letters transferring it (without recordation) to different servicers and a JDB and when I QWR’d all of them, 4 said “Nope, not ours”. MERS records are a mess. the only one going for the jugular is the JDB but even then, JDB can’t seem too eager to file. I guess JDB realizes that i have everything and they won’t be able to prove standing in court.

    What a royal pain!!! Honestly, life was supposed to be fun!

  233. @DCB,

    The link I posted allows you to get the PDF excerpts from the judge’s opinion. it refers to the link below. it is a district court case. You might be able to find in Justia. I’m too broke for Justia just now so I can’t promise it.

    Case 4:11-cv-04416 Document 16 Filed in TXSD on 08/08/12 Page 12 of 14

    Hope that helps.

  234. @ENRAGED


    I keep having lawyers tell me ill suffer no damages until the 2nd claimant shows up?????

    I am nonplussed–i dont get it ——how can they say its not a problem to wonder when somebody is gonna knock on your door and say–“see this original note—-im gonna destroy whats left of your life–have a nice day”.

  235. “Not the battles others wish they had fought but found every reason in the book not to engage in.”

    I have absolutely no regrets whatsoever for the decisions I have made with regards to all of this—I would have done nothing differently, so I really don’t know why you keep harping on that…you really need to just LET IT GO.

  236. I’m not “picking a battle”…I’m just revealing truth…take or leave it.

  237. DW

    “Carie- who coaches you. I’m curious. Not being facetious it’s good stuff. The real talent is getting to discovery and have admissible evidence And survive motions to dismiss before they crush us in procedure and the unlevel playing Feild
    compare it to chess. Lateral moves may get you to check mate.”

    “@DCB and DW

    It’s not MY “thoughts” or MY ‘theories” that I posted…it’s from someone who is in the thick of it and has done the research and found things out, and has worked in the industry and for other reasons that I can’t go into detail about has more knowledge about this stuff than you or I…”


    I’m going to answer your question a little more clearly: it is from someone who has personally been dealing with the situation for years, has been represented by counsel and still is, has been advancing those arguments all along and hasn’t yet been able to get the judge to listen to them, let alone grasp them. Intellectually, those arguments may hold a lot of validity and it takes courage and tenacity to advance them in court as this person has done and keeps doing. However, they have not played well even though that person is in a judicial state. If anything, that person would be the first one to tell you that they have been detrimental to his/her case.

    Without representation, they mean instant dismissal and scorn from the court. With representation, they mean contempt and fines for the attorney. Those arguments can be -and have been- a dangerous thing for many who followed them without any idea whatsoever of court proceedings and procedures. The fact that one or two state courts have listened to them (Alabama comes to mind) does not give them the weight that some on this site would like to give them. Listening is one thing. Finding them admissible is another. That person makes a compelling case and it is definitely worth listening to it. It opens new horizons on the extent of the fraud and how deep it went. It doesn’t mean that everyone can successfully use those arguments.

    It is said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. That would be a classic example. My advice to anyone right now is to stick to what works and never, ever, take any advice from someone who never retained an attorney, never fought in court and simply opted to walk away from foreclosure after sending QWR after QWR of what courts qualify as “nonsense”. if it didn’t work for them, it obviously isn’t the way to go.

    There is such a thing as intellectual dishonesty. Any pro se attempting to use those arguments is putting himself at great risk not just of losing the house but of being assessed serious fines. Anyone with half a brain should ask the question: “If those arguments are so valid, why aren’t seasoned attorneys jumping on them and arguing them all the time?” The answer is simple: very few understand them and fewer even can adequately present them. Worse yet: it goes way past any judge’s head. Judges don’t like that. They will nail you every time.

    If your idea is to break new grounds, use those arguments. if, on the other hand, it is to save your house and return to a semblance of a normal life, don’t. The person we are talking about has not had a normal life for the greater part of the last ten years and has had to deal with serious health problems as a result of the ordeal.

    Once again, that person has my deepest admiration and respect. It takes guts and a lot of resilience to go through it. It is not for everyone. Pick your own battles. Not the battles others wish they had fought but found every reason in the book not to engage in. Not the battles others are currently fighting without a clear understanding of what’s in store for you.

    That, Debbie, is only a piece of advice from one European to another.

  238. @UKG…….the defaulted debt of the DEPOSITOR (Wells Fargo originated and deposited those loans. How can they bring a foreclosure in the name of a trust that no longer exists

    Then the note receivable is wells’?

    it would be interesting to see what they say—-if i were them –id say ok we’ll amend the pleadings to add wells as an added plaintiff based on the evidence presented by defendant——-unless youv got a big counterclaim….???? what would your response be?

    the plan would be tougher if the depositor was bankrupt—or the note was not signed out of bankrupt estate——

    there are so many twists and turns


  240. They need to do this so the corrupt lawyers have to sue them for their payments. Do they get paid in bankruptcy? so sad!!!!

  241. y Shelton, on August 10, 2012 at 3:51 pm said:

    Ok People, Re: A very brilliant Attorney, Jeff Barnes. Like the guy above I was duped by other attorneys too. They bragged about how many clients they had just to get us to sign up but once signed they just avoided us like we had a death wish. Just try to get one of your past attorneys to send your file to a new attorney, that’s impossible. Our Florida bar will go after them but will they slap the hand that feeds them? Yea right, good luck with that complaint. Then one day as I started to give up hope I found a fighting Pit Bull needed to do battle against the big boys, and he is wining Federal Cases all across our great country. It took some time to get this man on board because he doesn’t want long winded stories or clients who truly have no case. He is also very tough on the money issues. After 6 months of saving and borrowing every penny to hire him, I headed out from Florida to meet him in person in Beverly Hills, California. Turns out that I was very lucky to meet him because he spends most of his time at 40.000 feet traveling to his next case or conducting seminars for other attorneys on how to win their foreclosure cases . I called as soon as I arrived, he said come over. I entered a plain office on the corner of Wilsher Blvd and Rodeo Dr and I found Jeff to be a very warm and personalble man. He was not all lawyer talk but he did have a clear understanding of the law and how Americans have been raped by the banksters and servicers. He did give me a mouth full of all the technical and legal issues that pertained to our case and for the first time I really believe that we were going to win this battle. Now after several months of him being on board I have come to really appreciate who I have as a defense team. I do think Jeff Barnes including his nationwide defense team are going to be a hero to many families who have been victimized by the banks. I also feel that they are going to make a big different in all the courts across this land, Just read about his wins on the Internet.
    We always believed that the banksters had no standing, because of the securitization issues, the mortgage companies and servicers bankruptcy’s, but at this point I can only have faith in Jeff and my own case because we are just now realizing that all the documents that were submitted by Golson’s firm were possibly fake and forged by some very complex machinery that forged our names. We are going to find out who did this. But we have the proof now and Jeff has presented it to the court, will our Judge rule on the truth now?
    If not Jeff will appeal imidiatlely. My biggest consern now is that some judges still dont get it and many peoplel feel that some judges are acting like collectors for the big banks.
    If we are right about the fraud on the court then when will these people go to jail? I believe that the board of directors of US Bank and SN Servicing may be Criminals involved in Racketeering and Corruption at its highest level but are they being shielded by the system to prevent the truth from coming out and the collapse of their profits?
    US Bank and SN Servicing has hired new attorneys now, then they too dropped out, begging the court to let them out of any liability ( we said no way and won that motion ) Did they probably realized that the doc’s were fraud on the court and wanted no part of it? Now a new law firm has been hired but guess what? These guys have a background in Criminal Defense. Is this to provide legal advice to keep the banksters and servicers out of jail as they continue to try and foreclose on us with possibly forged documents? Who really knows for sure. Soooo If you can, hire Jeff Barnes do it no matter what it takes because he is the best you are going to find when it comes to fighting the banksters. He trains other attornies on how to fight with the right tools in court and now many of them are winning too. Good Luck People and May God Bless You, Yours and Jeff Barnes.
    Thanks, Ray Shelton

  242. Hi David. We are making assertions in the court that the trust is dead, empty, paid off, extinguished, and all that remains is…….the defaulted debt of the DEPOSITOR (Wells Fargo originated and deposited those loans. How can they bring a foreclosure in the name of a trust that no longer exists, yerrronnnnnerrr?

  243. Morgan Stanley & Co. was accused in a lawsuit by Hong Leong Finance Ltd. of Singapore of deceptively selling investments it had designed to fail.

    Hong Leong said in a complaint filed today in federal court in Manhattan that it entered into a distribution agreement with the investment bank to sell about $72.4 million worth of the so- called Pinnacle notes created from August 2006 to December 2007. The notes later failed and the Singapore-based company was required to compensate customers for at least $32 million in losses, according to the filing.

    Morgan Stanley sold the notes as relatively safe investments while rigging them to fail for its own benefit, Hong Leong claimed. Hong Leong describes itself as a local retail financial firm similar to a savings and loan association.

    “Morgan Stanley secretly, deceptively and wrongfully invested the investors’ principal in very risky underlying assets,” according to the complaint, filed by David S. Stellings, a lawyer for Hong Leong.

    Mary Claire Delaney, a spokeswoman for New York-based Morgan Stanley, declined to comment on the suit.

    The investments at issue were described to the Singapore banking firm as synthetic collateralized debt obligations based on the performance of major corporations and sovereign nations with high credit ratings, according to the complaint.

    Riskier Investments

    Morgan Stanley instead tied the notes to much riskier investments in real estate-related companies and troubled Icelandic banks, including Glitnir Bank HF and Kaupthing Bank HF, the Singapore firm claimed.

    Morgan Stanley issued the notes through a special-purpose entity it controlled called Pinnacle Performance Ltd., according to the complaint. The investment bank was also positioned to profit when the notes failed because it had entered into swap transactions with the noteholders through another affiliated entity, Morgan Stanley Capital Services Inc., the plaintiff claimed.

    “When Morgan Stanley’s ‘rigged’ underlying assets failed, money from customers was transferred to MS Capital,” Hong Leong said in the complaint.

    The suit asserts claims against Morgan Stanley including fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

    In December, U.S. District Judge Leonard Sand ruled that the investment bank couldn’t ask a court in Singapore to block investors from suing outside the country over losses in Pinnacle notes.

    The case is Hong Leong Finance Ltd. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., 12-cv-6010, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

    The earlier case is Dandong v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., 10-cv-08086, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

  244. @DCB and DW

    It’s not MY “thoughts” or MY ‘theories” that I posted…it’s from someone who is in the thick of it and has done the research and found things out, and has worked in the industry and for other reasons that I can’t go into detail about has more knowledge about this stuff than you or I…

  245. @UKG

    Im not a wells fargo aficinado —–is this an SEC filing you refere to—would you state in simlest terms what the possible implications are?

  246. Carie- who coaches you. I’m curious. Not being facetious it’s good stuff. The real talent is getting to discovery and have admissible evidence And survive motions to dismiss before they crush us in procedure and the unlevel playing Feild
    compare it to chess. Lateral moves may get you to check mate.
    Telling the truth is always the right thing to do but the whole story Is one thing relating it to what you have to show the judge what his take will be and what will stick is another choice if case law is a skill too. We need to decide
    what is realistic ( i do believe law and facts are reslistic by the way) in the oppressive environment i find myself and who the f is my freind – i mean my real freind and how much time money and stress exposure can i take .
    Hope Neil answers you

  247. @CARIE

    I carefully followed your piece. Line by line i agreed with your evaluation. You stated the following: ” Loan number cannot be a bond cusip number. Security investors CANNOT be your creditor.”
    It should not be—the mortgage-backed security tha was registered with SEC or a tranche of those securities actually should carry the CUSIP #. That is how it worked on the particular example that I dissected. I obtained the CUSIP # for the particular CLASS of MBS that was backed by the particular GROUP of loans that mine should have been included within–as determined by the description of the characteristics of the loans in that GROUP. I obtained the actual CUSIP # from Moody’s or a broker–cant remember which—–then put the CUSIP on the google search and up came Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation tax return which disclosed the holdings. A 2nd “hit” came up in a Far Eastern language –Korean, Chinese or Japanese characters–I dont know whic.

    However the wild card underlying your evaluation is the foundation concept that the securitizer-depositor etc actually followed the steps laid out in the laws, the GAAP pronouncements, the REMIC standards and did not make outright misrepresentations of fact in the SEC filings.

    I have substantial misgivings that these assuptions are well-founded. Now the big banks that were very much concerned about meeting the conditions to make the mortgage loan notes and related securities off-balnce sheet had a very much greater interest in dotting the i’s etc.

    These entities wanted to be sure that their balance sheets were reasonably defensible upon audit. They had capital requirements, debt ratios etc to worry about–as well as desiring distance when the bad loans were found to be crap. If the mess was not off-balnce sheet they would show losses on the write-downs even if the MBS were non-recourse. There would at least have been footnote disclosures required–capital impairment issues–and tax issues in every direction.

    These considerations did not exist for the private labels. Those guys were typical burn companies. They expected to pull all sorts of shenanigans—deceptions of every conceivable sort—knowing that the house of cards would fall in in about 4 years from the inception of the schemes. For most the schemes took off when they brought in the Galopagos software and the related spreadsheets which literally backed them into the number and character of the underlying notes–some predatory groups–some conventional. The nature of the notes depended on the amount and character of the investors targeted for each type of loan—the nature of the deceptions needed.

    US pension trust managers wanted to see conventional fixed rate 30 year loans. They understood those–although they did not completely grasp the complexity of the supposed trust structures which actually allowed these cash flows to be subordinated to classes directly backed by predatory loans designed to fail. The Far Eastern guys and the in the know types like Gates’ Foundation and apparently the Iranians did not care to delve into the intricies of the loan types—-and simply wanted to know they had a senior claim on the entire trust’s cash flows –CLASS I -type MBS.

    Now the private label marketers would determine what the “appetite” was for each CLASS of MBS. Thus they would call up the teachers pension trust mgr and say:

    “Im assembling a CLASS of conventional 30yr fixed rate product–plain vanilla—widely dispersed geographically—easily insured—fits your portfolio risk needs nicely priced like this___ How much can I put you down for?”

    Same day another guy at another desk would contact a NYC banker who had freshly laundered money from Syria, Libya, Iraq, drug cartels etc and say ” Im putting together some senior notes which will be on top of a trust with ten times the value of these seniors—whole thing likely to pay out over 5-7 years and yield ___—no risk—-how much can I put you down for?”

    Now the rub is that as we are finding out in recent weeks, the low risk senior CLASS buyers are some pretty nasty people—when the fly-by-nite made promises to their reps—-everybody knew that what was insuring the seller’s credibility was that these buyers would simply shoot them if they lied. The pension managers could not rely on this enforecement technique and had a vague sort of reliance on the SEC and DOJ—misplaced as it turns out with benefit of hindsight.

    So CARIE—your simple expectations and thoughts about the laws and people operating as you would expect are naive. Im not intending to belittle you—im just stating the truth with growing amount of background context.

    These guys assembling these securities and marketing them were driven by dollars and fear of real world bad guys–not laws, nor rules. So they routinely disregarded the rules: they doble sold the loans in the nasty predatory loan groups because the CLASS I MBS buyers–the Iranians, drug cartels, Gates etc—were relying on the seniority of the CLASS for repayment–not the loan quality. The pension guys either id not understand their junior status–or how crappy the the actual security was in the senior tranches. And the failure to file the loan lists with SEC impaired their ability to perform due diligence.

    So you have to look at all those rules and implications through a dark prism. What is the effect on a borrower and on an investor if the securitizer totally flouts the rules necessary to put the loans and securities off-balance sheet? If no trust was created at all–if nothing was deposited in fact–although the recitals were there the referenced schedules and lists and implementation steps were ignored? What is the legal effect in the wake of complete securities fraud?

    Well the senior guys got paid—just like Jon Corzine paid his bookies–steal from the law-abiding investor-customers to pay the gambling debts to the guys who would shoot him. Reality overcomes law. This is the only rational way to understand the otherwise inexplicable behavior. If Im a crooked securities manipulator who am I gonna pay —-some Grandmother who taught scholl for 50 years and believes in govt to protect her —or a Mexican drug cartel–or Iranian terrorist who promises to take care of his own interests?

    This is what happens when the rule of law breaks down.

  248. Let’s have a big show of hands for Judge Stephen Smith!

    @Leah, try to find if the Millers are represented and by whom. Then, contact the attorney.

    TEXAS JUDGE: “Defendants’ final (and weakest) argument is that homeowners like plaintiffs “will not be prejudiced” if the chain of assignments from original lender to foreclosing entity were immune to debtor challenge. After all, the argument apparently goes, the Millers owe the money to somebody. In truth, the potential prejudice is both plain and severe – foreclosure by the wrong entity does not discharge the homeowner’s debt, and leaves them vulnerable to another action on the same note by the true creditor. Banks are neither private attorneys general nor bounty hunters, armed with a roving commission to seek out defaulting homeowners and take away their homes in satisfaction of some other bank’s deed of trust.”

    Miller v. Homecomings, GMAC, BONY

  249. @Eule,

    Not suffering enough for my taste. I’ll be happier when I know that Jamie boy gets up every single morning with a full size bangaroo, that he keeps it all day long regardless what he takes and that it prevents him from sleeping at night, for four years in a row. Then, I’ll feel (somewhat) vindicated.

    Call me petty…

  250. Niel, a brilliant writeup.

  251. I wish you would use the name Parallel Foreclosure. Dual Tracking is harder to google because Dual Tracking applies to racing and other none foreclosure industries. Parallel Foreclose says what it is.

  252. I can’t post he links. Don’t want to get sued.

  253. All you Wells Fargo types: get these documents and print them down. It will be the best $20 you ever spent. It shows all the loan trusts with $0 balances.
    Have a nice day.

    Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp [ formerly Norwest Asset Securities Corp ]

    released on Friday, 8/10/12, a 3-document, 62-page ‘ABS-15G’

    Asset-Backed Securities Report — Section 15G

    for the period ended Saturday, 6/30/12

    filed as of Friday, 8/10/12

  254. what if the party was lehman brothers lets say with cwabs 2007-12 mellon bank and countrywide as the “lenders” and we all know that Lehman brothers “cooked their books”. I have evidence of a blank note and one endorsed by a robosigner. so they have two notes, hopefully my case will not get dismissed. It is Lorayne Souders vs Bank of America, Merscorp, Mellon bank. Tracing the money is the key and these crooks all conspired to commit fraud much like a Ponzi scheme.


    1) if loan was a subprime refinance, it was already in (false) default (with the GSE–ie. Fannie/Freddie) before collection rights, therefore the securities were not valid mortgage-backed securities. The Securities and Exchange Act of 1933/1934, is very clear as to securities/corporate bonds/pass-throughs, that they must be backed by corporate assets that provide CURRENT cash flows — i.e. asset receivables. There are no asset receivables for collection rights as it was already charged off (by GSE) assets. Charged-off assets cannot be “revived” for valid corporate bonds/mortgage backed securities. While anything with a cash flow can be securitized for pass-through, in the case of subprime, it was not valid mortgages that provided the cash flows.

    2) It does not matter whether or not the security/bond created was derived from a valid “asset”, because security investors are not the homeowners creditor. This is clearly stated in the Fed Res Opinion to the TILA Amendment. Security investors do not acquire legal title to the property or loan, they are only entitled to pass-through of the cash flows related to the underlying asset. Neither is the trustee to trust a creditor — as trustee only “holds” bare legal title — they do not own or acquire. Securities are traded every day. To state that security investors are the creditor (or that the your loan has a BOND cusip number), is absurd. This would mean your creditor could change every day — and this would defeat your legal right to certain consumer protection laws such as the TILA. You would continually have to amend your TILA violations in a court. Fed Res was well aware of this when they wrote their opinion. Fed states: “Accordingly, an investor who purchases on interest in a pool of loans (such as mortgage-backed securities, pass-through certificates, participation interests, or real estate mortgage investment conduits) but does directly acquire legal title in the underlying mortgage loan, is not covered by Section 226.39” (covered person is the creditor). The Fed also states “the date that the covered person acquires the loan is deemed to be the acquisition date that is recognized in the books and records of the acquiring party.” (meaning balance sheets)

    3) So, all the investors that have a fractional “interest” in the “pool” of loans, can only acquire title by purchasing the WHOLE individual loan — cannot have a “fractional” interest to be creditor or foreclose. In addition, conveyance of loans to the trust itself is in huge doubt, as conveyance was never perfected during the required REMIC time period for inclusion. And, REMICs do not have balance sheets.

    4) This brings us to the trust itself. While you cannot have a “fractional interest in a pool of loans” to be a creditor, there can be multiple creditors. Depositor purchases all loans, deposits them in trust. Security underwriters arrange the “pool” into certificates, and they purchase the certificates. At most, one may consider the certificate holders to the trust (and they are very finite in number ) parent corporation the creditor. And, the security underwriter’s parent owning the largest percentage of the limited, but multiple certificates, must identify itself. Thus, the “parent’ of the security underwriter with the largest percentage of ownership of your loan, must identify itself to you, under the TILA Amendment. That party is the party that ACCOUNTS for largest (from multiple ownership) ownership of your loan —ON IT’S BALANCE SHEET. FASB 166 and 167 have demanded that all off-balance sheet conduits be brought back on parent’s balance sheet. Most of the process as been completed by now.

    Loan number cannot be a bond cusip number. Security investors CANNOT be your creditor. If you believe this, you will lose — you are giving them what they want. You lose you consumer protection laws immediately.

  256. What’s up with BofAM sending a “now your debt is due in 10 days” notice on a HELOC/2nd mortgage form letter??? This is a mortgage in Florida which requires a 30 day notice and acceleration (which they never did). Seems like they are admitting it is a credit card loan.

    Find it amazing really.

  257. Interesting thing coming up out of ChartBank moneylaundering probe. Where actually did the laundered money go?

    According to Financial Times today 8/10/12—–it looks like the money went to some big NYC banks such as the ultra-clean JPM-Chase which we all know and love.

    ChatBank appears to have been a front——and its was known to be moneylaundering IRAN money since 2004 –agreed to stop in 2006—–so these others that received the laundered money should have known???

    And where did it go——invested in cherry-picked MBS selected by Chase for this favored investor client?
    Invested in state/local munis by another? So is it possible that state/local services are cut–layoffs occurring—-pensions cut—-in order to make sure Iranian illegal investments are promptly repaid in full? How do they get the money back to Iran—-$250 billion smuggled into the US via ChartBank—where did it go? How is it being paid back?

    Are they siezing our homes to pay this dirty money back?
    Banks wouldnt do that would they?

    They might not but the private label non-bank servicers would—get extra fees for hiding the repayments. Offshore so exempt from US law.

    BOSTON: Fallout from Standard Chartered PLC’s alleged transactions with Iran could quickly become a liability to top US custody banks, Bernstein Research analyst Brad Hintz said on Tuesday.

    Hintz said British-based Standard Chartered is an important agent bank for US custody banks such as Bank of New York Mellon Corp, JPMorgan Chase Co Inc and State Street Corp. Standard Chartered provides the banks important access to central securities depositories in mainland Asia and Africa.

    Hintz, in a research note, said the US custody banks relyon extensive sub-custodian networks to pass on economies of scale and scope to big institutional clients.

    “If a sub-custodian were to be found guilty of an internal conspiracy to hide prohibited transactions from US regulators, US global custodial banks exposed to that sub-custodian may fall under increased scrutiny from their fiduciary clients,” Hintz said in his note.

    “Among the more severe consequences, exposure to Standard Chartered could result in reputational damage and potentially negatively impact the ability of a US global custodian to win new mandates from public funds and other fiduciary clients.”

    The New York State Department of Financial Services on Monday said Standard Chartered “schemed” with the Iranian government, which is subject to US sanctions over its nuclear program, and hid 60,000 secret transactions to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in fees over nearly 10 years.

    The regulator has threatened to tear up Standard Chartered’s state banking license for allegedly hiding $250 billion in transactions tied to Iran.

    Hintz said JPMorgan and State Street each have extensive operating reliance on Standard Chartered as a sub-custodian in a number of markets, such as India, Hong Kong, Thailand, Ghana and Zambia. BNY Mellon has exposure in Bangladesh and Taiwan, Hintz said.

  258. Mr Editor

    We all understand these “Truths,” but the courts DONT CARE. Harry Homeowner owes somebody and the courts figure it will all be settled among the banks or in a suit down the road.

    Right now the issue is foreclosure, not who made the loan. The banksters went to considerable trouble with their scheme to trap Harry. Now it’s time, Harry, to get out of the way and go buy your tent. The courts know Big Brother will eventually sort out “ownership” among its minions, the banks, later on when the homeowners are no longer irritants It’s just numbers. What the hay….

    And right now they’re “foaming the runways” with our equity as Barofsky put it so colorfully and the courts are happy, nay, relieved, to go along.

    Mr editor, your wonderful truths are overcome by bigger lies. Dont you understand? Truth is NOT required in our society any longer. Watch Obama in action. Lies is all he tells

Contribute to the discussion!