FDIC ($677.4 Billion) Charges Banks With Fraud, Illegal Underwriting Practices

Has Obama Awakened?

Appraisal Fraud Alleged by this Blog

is found to be Centerpiece of this Action

Editor’s Note: The FDIC claims it studied a rough sampling of the securitized loans and alleges more than 60% of the loans packed into each deal contain material untrue or misleading statements.

In a resounding acceptance of the principles enunciated first on this blog, the FDIC, being the best regulator to file the charges, has moved against the big banks and servicers in the false scheme of securitization resulting in trillions in losses to the government, investors and homeowners.

Central to the allegations are that “defendants made untrue statements or omitted important information about such material facts as the loan-to-value ratios of the mortgage loans, the extent to which appraisals of the properties that secured the loans were performed in compliance with professional appraisal standards, the number of borrowers who did not live in the houses that secured their loans (that is, the number of properties that were not primary residences), and the extent to which the entities that made the loans disregarded their own standards in doing so.”

The allegations are so serious that it is unlikely that there will be any slap on the wrist coming out of this. The result of this lawsuit will have a profound impact on the housing market, the financial community and best of all, homeowners who have been using these allegations as defenses for years. It is apparent that the false premises upon which the bogus mortgage bonds were sold, combined with the complete avoidance of the supposed securitization scheme that was “in place,” has prompted this huge lawsuit. It is the tip of an iceberg where the administration is finally bringing the war to the door of the banks and will most likely lead to criminal charges as the cases progress.


The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. filed three lawsuits against big banks, alleging the lenders misrepresented the quality of securitized loans sold to the now defunct Texas firm, Guaranty Bank.

The FDIC took Austin, Texas-based Guaranty Bank into receivership back in Aug. 2009.

This week, the regulator filed multiple lawsuits in Austin, Texas, suggesting Guaranty suffered major losses from toxic RMBS loans sold and packaged by mega banks and other financial institutions.

Defendants named in the multibillion-dollar lawsuits includeCountrywideJPMorgan Chase ($38.04 0%)Ally Financial,Deutsche Bank Securities ($34.07 0%)Bank of America ($8.190%) and Goldman Sachs ($105.32 0%) among others.

FDIC, on behalf of Guaranty, claims the banks misrepresented loan-to-value ratios, underwriting criteria and appraisal amounts when selling, packaging and underwriting home loans that became collateral for mortgage securities sold to Guaranty.

Specifically, the FDIC alleges the financial firms violated federal and Texas securities laws by failing to fully disclose or truthfully represent the quality of mortgages backing the security certificates.

In the first case, the FDIC accuses Countrywide Securities, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs of playing a role in the packaging, selling or securitization of mortgages sold off to Guaranty Bank for $1.5 billion. The suit says Guaranty Bank acquired 8 certificates in the transaction.

The FDIC claims it studied a rough sampling of the securitized loans and alleges more than 60% of the loans packed into each deal contain material untrue or misleading statements.

The FDIC is suing for an undetermined amount that is no less than $559.7 million in damages.

The bank regulator also sued Ally Securities, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank Securities and JPMorgan Securities among others. In that suit, the regulator claims, the firms were involved in the packaging, underwriting and sale of eight RMBS certificates valued at $1.8 billion.

The FDIC alleged in court records that the “defendants made untrue statements or omitted important information about such material facts as the loan-to-value ratios of the mortgage loans, the extent to which appraisals of the properties that secured the loans were performed in compliance with professional appraisal standards, the number of borrowers who did not live in the houses that secured their loans (that is, the number of properties that were not primary residences), and the extent to which the entities that made the loans disregarded their own standards in doing so.”

In that complaint, the FDIC is asking for at least $900.6 million in damages.

The regulator also sued JPMorgan Securities, Merrill Lynch, RBS Securities and WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., making similar claims about 20 RMBS certificates that Guaranty paid $2.1 billion to acquire. The FDIC is requesting at least $677.4 billion in damages.

59 Responses








    “A man with terminal brain cancer is among those being told they are ‘fit for work’ under the government’s work capability assessment programme, new research has discovered.
    Other figures told they would lose their disability benefit included someone with no short-term memory mechanism and an incontinent disabled man who is both blind and deaf.” http://politics.co.uk/news/2012/11/12/man-with-terminal-brain-cancer-told-he-s-fit-for-work

    8) DEUTSCHE BANK ABOLISHES THE POSSIBILITY OF SICK AND DISABLED PEOPLE TO APPEAL THE DECISIONS THAT CUT THEIR BENEFITS CONDEMNING THEM TO DEATH http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/08/29/draft-deregulation-bill-government-moves-to-shut-down-judicial-supervision-and-criticism-of-dwp-atos-decision-making-by-abolition-of-duty-by-tribunals-president-to-publish-annual-report/





  2. Great beat ! I wish to apprentice at the same time as you
    amend your website, how can i subscribe for a blog website?
    The account aided me a acceptable deal. I have been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered vivid clear concept Marian

  3. All….

    “in those days, there were whole loans”

    Tom Brokaw interviewed Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson concerning the financial stress facing our county.

    Excerpts from MEET THE PRESS transcript – statements made by SECRETARY PAULSON on September 21, 2008…

    “What has gone on here is terrible, it’s unexcusable, and we need to deal with it. …–we have a problem in our capital markets that’s urgent to deal with”…….“a lot of people talk about the RTC. The RTC was set up after a broad group of savings and loans failed. And, in those days, there were whole loans, and the government owned the real estate, and you needed an agency to work out of the real estate. Here, we’re preventing failure. We–the financial institutions are clogged with illiquid loans, so what we need to do is quickly buy those loans. They won’t be giving us control of real estate, but this–we need to manage these assets and manage them quickly, and that, that is what we have in front of us today.”

  4. i agree.

  5. […] Illegal Underwriting Practices « Livinglies’s Weblog Aug26 by nootkabear http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/fdic-677-4-billion-charges-banks-with-fraud-illegal-under… FDIC ($677.4 Billion) Charges Banks With Fraud, Illegal Underwriting […]

  6. BANKING FRAUD SPECIAL 8/25/12: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2012/08/25

  7. linda – that’s interesting – to think the fdic could get a priority claim.
    I don’t know much about the fdic x that they insure deposits in certain institutions up to X amt of money. Kicker is I’m not sure there’s a finite time in which to pay that X. Most of us have known of the fdic insurance regarding our bank accounts because the banks are quick to let us know it’s there, but what we don’t in fact know, least I don’t, is the time frame for the insurance pay out. The fdic also insures pensions or some pensions, is my understanding, to 40%. When a company goes bk and bk’s pensions as they are disgracefully (often a reward for poor management) allowed to do (the pensioner loses 60% and the taxpayer picks up the 40%), the fdic insurance kicks in and it has to pay out the 40% to the messed over pensioners and I believe that’s in the same time frame the pensioners would otherwise have gotten their pensions – month by month. I don’t know anything about the fdic taking over failed institutions other than that it does, and about now, wish I did.

  8. This legal move sounds like another money laundering scheme. Either that or a last ditch publicity stunt to appease the people and to make the FDIC look like the innocent victim. Or, could it be a part of the move to take down the banks by ensuring the FDIC has their claims put in during the banks’ liquidation phase? (living wills)

    Money was paid to the banks in the form of insurance claims (loss share agreements with the FDIC) and government bailouts. Now the FDIC sues the banks and tries to get their money back. Meanwhile, the economy collapses and no one gets anything…unless a homeowner is still in their home when the major debt forgiveness event occurs.

    Basically, the FDIC will get liens against the banks. All meaningless in the end if there is still no value to the dollar. So beware now, because the FDIC will be first in line to get paid if there is a payout. They won’t get paid back but the books will all balance because there is no more debt.
    And everyone starts over.

  9. by corruption of “Fools on the Hill” http://presstv.com/Program/257046.html

  10. Hell, Guaranty Bank was just as sleazy a lender as all the rest of them. No doubt in my mind they were willing participants. Guaranty attempted a false foreclosure on my house and I got the OTS to slap them with a Cease & Desist Order back in ’04. Look it up on line.

  11. Sorry for the typo…abolishnonjudicialforeclosures.com/

  12. @ johngault…
    BTW… Your handle is astute, intellectual, and knowledgable as to the underlying Truth.
    Be steadfast.

  13. @ John gault

    It just took me a little time to connect those dots..

    I even have copy of a letter sent by USB, allegedly acting in the capacity of the duly appointed Indentured Trustee to bonds issued by a governmental authority, to counsel for the Authority —- instructing the Authority’s counsel NOT to provide any information to the bond holders – or the guarantor without a Court Order to do so. ( Guarantor set up a fund set up to pay $$$ in the event of default). Moreover …there was no default….just “DEEMED” by the Fox in the chicken house…which “Fox”…used $$$ held in a public trust to litigate and intimidate….any atty who even considers to engage in the litigation.

  14. steve, I wonder if while the fight is on for amdmt of the poc and the bar date comes and goes, isn’t the bankster out of luck to actually amend the poc? (If I remember correctly, sometimes they’ll even get the leave and then not follow thru and skip actually filing the amdd poc; they just rely on the leave to do so. Oops. Even if leave is granted past the bar date, I think it’s too bad, too sad for the bankster. As I recall, it either takes an act of a very high power to get in a poc past the bar date or it’s that it can’t be done. Period. Strategy, if so.

  15. @steve who ref’d and linked NG from 0803 re US Bank
    That was a good post and I had missed it, so thanks.

    “U.S. Bank shows up in many foreclosure cases and many cases that go into litigation. I believe they are allowing the use of their
    name for a fee and that they have little or nothing to do with
    most of the cases where their name is used.”

    Just like Mers, altho the mechanics with MERS are probably easier
    to articulate. NG said mol that by filing an adv proceeding in bk instead of an objection to the poc

    “You are taking on the burden of proof for facts that are exclusively
    in the possession of either the people you are dealing with, or some other third parties.”**

    When one objects to a poc, the bankster will often assert that the
    form of objection used requires an AP. It probably doesn’t and I have a couple cases on point if only I can find them. It may well depend on what / how the objection challenges the poc. I’m too far removed to try to say further. One mistake I’ve seen made is that a debtor will file an obj to the relief from stay without filing an obj to the poc first. Once an objection to a poc has been lodged, the claimant may not amend it without leave of court or stipulation. I’ve seen this overlooked, too, and because amendment may be necessary to a bankster, it’s pretty important to fight amendment. A homeowner is not likely to stipulate, but the court is likely to grant leave. That granting of leave becomes the fight, so one has to be prepared to challenge leave on good grounds or if that battle gets lost, then some form of estoppel or ? when the amdd poc is inconsistant with the original. Is it actually a new claim and it’s now past the bar date? Just a shot, that one.
    I am hunting high and low for case law regarding evidence which is
    singularly in the possesson of the other (or third) party. Had at least
    one case, somewhere. But my case law now has case law and my notes have notes. I think finding case law in support is critical. Obviously, we need to be able to get at that singularly held evidence to support our assertions and or so that the court may make an informed decision in the absence of which it cannot, so that battle becomes how to argue that such singularly possessed evidence is in fact critical to adjudication. And in that regard, our big enemy right now is the alleged note endorsed in blank which courts are finding pretty much singularly dispositive. So I have suggested a mtn for a more definitive statement: is the claimant claiming as a holder or a holder in due course as relevant to the homeowner’s defenses.
    I may have opined that a claimant of such a note is not entitled
    to presumption of hdc status, but that may well be errant and if it is,
    then obviously while one still has a right imo to a more definitive
    statement, have to bear that in mind and then watch for all the
    bankster’s ensuing red herrings when mtn’g for a more def statement.
    **That’s one reason I have mentioned that courts have ruled an act of f/c makes the forecloser the plaintiff, regardless of the posture in court when the homeowner is the one to bring litigation after a NOD. (and if you think about it, it makes sense) Don’t have enough to do, so have to dredge up that case law, also, when helpful to posit the homeowner is actually the defendant for the “onus” factor.
    That WAS a good post and NG is right on to encourage all to
    take the time to learn the rules of competency of witnesses and
    pay attention to everything else he sagaciously stated in that post.

  16. FDIC. What is it really? does anyone know? does anyone know anyone else who knows what FDIC is? I don’t mean the nonsense fraud FDIC claims itself to be. Does anyone cares to know? if yes, then I can summarize it in a few lines. But first study this: http://www.ovaloffice.org/bwa.htm

  17. FDIC: Richard Cordray is one of the directors (CFPB is part of FDIC)
    and there are no notorious bankers sitting on it, as far as i can tell.

    The problem though is that FDIC has no money… Completely insolvent. Couldn’t pay its obligations under Fannie and Freddie and can’t pay under Sallie either. And it can’t investigate much: no manpower.

    Speaking of which: all those big settlements, where does that money go? Who pocke4ts it?

  18. The FDIC might have more going on than we know. I found this recently and I keep thinking about it. Can someone help me understand how this affects the first transfer of the note, and thus affects each subsequent transfer?

    It seems to me that since the PSA requires all transfers of the note to be by “true sales” (to achieve the REMIC tax advantage), then if the first transfer was not by true sale, then only title to the instrument passed to the purchaser.

    I found that the originating lender received a small-percentage interest for its participation in originating the loan. My lender also received a broker fee from me, but I think receiving money from both violates federal regs.

    June 4 2012

    In recent examinations, the FDIC has focused on the existence of “optionality” provisions in participation agreements that provide the originating lender with the option of repurchasing the participated portion of the loan upon a borrower default. Such “optionality” provisions have been determined to cause the interest sold by the originating lender to be classified by the FDIC as a “secured borrowing” rather than constituting a “true sale” of the participation interest under applicable accounting guidance. Accountants and auditors may well react likewise in recommending restatements with respect to the institution’s previously issued financial statements and call reports, and categorization of the participation interests as “secured borrowings” in future financial statements and call report filings subject to amendment of participation documents discussed below.

    In these circumstances, the FDIC has also required participation originators to file restated call reports to reflect the change in classification. Call report restatements can, in turn, lead to the determination that the financial statements included in filings made by publicly traded financial institutions and financial holding companies with the Securities and Exchange Commission and/or state securities regulators, or in pending registration statements or made available to potential investors in connection with pending offerings, must be restated and the related securities filings amended.

    Reclassifying the participation interest as “secured borrowing” by the originating lender can also result in “loan to one borrower” issues as well as, in some instances, Reg O issues depending on the nature of the credit, the impact of aggregation rules, and nature of the borrower.

  19. JG,

    Yep. It is there, for good. I wasn’t dreaming about those block, armored vehicles traveling in Ohio…

    Economic collapse fears lead Govts. to remove civilian protections from military

    On Aug. 17, Germany became the latest country to remove longstanding protections for civilian populations from military intervention in domestic conflicts. In a new court ruling, which repealed laws created out of the Nazi era in Germany, the government can now use the military against citizens in extreme cases, joining the U.S. and other nation states who have removed the dividing line between civilian and military policing.

    The German military will in future be able to use its weapons on German streets in an extreme situation, the Federal Constitutional Court says.

    The ruling says the armed forces can be deployed only if Germany faces an assault of “catastrophic proportions”, but not to control demonstrations. – BBC

    Economic collapse fears lead Govts. to remove civilian protections from military
    Video: Economic collapse fears lead Govts. to remove civilian protections from military

    In the United States, Northcom was created shortly after 911 to be an military command dedicated to threats within the homeland, and instituted a discontinuation of Posse Comitatus, which had separated civilian police from military use on citizens since the end of the Civil War. Since its inception in 2002, the Federal government has expanded its sphere of influence over Americans with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and the militarization of many bureaucratic agencies. In fact, the majority of these increases have taken effect since the credit crisis of 2008.

    In 2010, the Federal Reserve secretly ordered five major U.S. banks to develop plans in case of an economic and banking collapse, even while telling the American people that the banking crisis was over. Revelations of this order coincided with several well respected economists declaring that a major economic collapse was inevitable, and could come within months.

    Europe’s financial system remains in turmoil, and is increasingly growing insolvent. New estimates show that European banks are holding more than one trillion Euros worth of toxic assets, which is a 9% increase from just last year. Impotency by the Troika over how to fund the growing debt issues in many Euro states is already leading to civil unrest in Spain, Italy, Greece, and Ireland. It is inevitable that governments know that civilian revolts and rioting will escalate, especially with growing shortages in energy and food due to war and global drought.

    In the past six months, the U.S. government has been purchasing nearly a billion rounds of ammunition for agencies that do not even carry a military or policing purpose. This growing stockpile of bullets, to include hollow point rounds for the Social Security Administration, brings into question the overall purpose and plan for militarizing domestic economic agencies outside their scope and mission.

    Since 911, the Federal government in the U.S., along with Britain, and now Germany, have increased their military and surveillance presence on their own civilian populations, even as potential and actual terror plots have decreased in these nations. However, if one looks at when the primary growth in the militarization of domestic policing activities took off, the ground zero event was the 2008 credit crisis, and not due an increase in terror events. Unrest since that time has been primarily economic, with several nation states like Egypt and Libya, succumbing to political turnover.

    The potential for economic collapse, civil unrest, revolution, and societal collapse are increasing exponentially across the West, and in other global economies. Since the credit crisis of 2008, several nations have removed longstanding civilian protections from military policing of domestic events, with Germany now being the newest country to overrule decades long legislation that assured protections for their citizens in domestic disputes.

  20. Great work Dr. JC, & good case Enrage: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06191202lmb.pdf

  21. @ Frank….FYI….material comments and info below is verbatim from the Affidavit.


    RE: U.S. BANK

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1 :02-CV -1244-JOF


    ******** I am Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association…

    * On or about December 17, 1998, U.S. Bank and Reliance [Trust Company] entered into a Purchase and Assumption Agreement pursuant to which U.S. Bank agreed to purchase the corporate trust business of Reliance effective on a future “Closing Date….

    * The Purchase Agreement identified over ….”2500 BOND ISSUE”… Appointments…. for which U.S. Bank would become successor trustee……..[ maybe kinda like a “MERS” entity for municipal bonds…but subject to only this one (1) agreement worth maybe $ 7,500,000,000?…(are there more) [emphasis added]

    * Although the sale of Reliance’s corporate trust business to U.S. Bank closed on March 16, 1999, ….
    ….U.S. Bank did NOT at that time become successor trustee. …

    * To govern the administration of the trusts during the time between the closing date and the completion of succession, U.S. Bank and Reliance entered into a ……..”Sub-servicing Agreement”


    [Question: A “subservicer” rather than the party who is actually appointed by the municipality as the real party in interest for the governmental entity per the Trust Indenture….????]


    For additional information initially check PACER for ——-


    Also see a very astute post:……….


  22. I don’t know how to think anything about AZ other than that there’s something rotten down there and in other parts of the 9th – maybe depends of the state of the underlying case. But that’s weird. I just read a case wherein they granted a mtd in favor of the bankster. The homeowner alleged the bankster didn’t own the note. Without comment 1 about the note, the court found that it was none of the homeowner’s business who claimed to be the beneficiary because if the claimant isn’t the beneficiary, it’s between the pretender and the true beneficiary. I bought that for all of a nanosecond. A true ben would have a cause of action, but how does that preclude a homeowner’s cause of action? The theory is that she signed a note and dot, she’s in default, and as to her, that’s that. That’s what the court said. In other words, don’t know how to see it any differently, she lost her rights including due process the minute she signed the docs. I’m not making this up! The court also said recordation of assgt is only to protect the interests of the assignee against subsequent parties and that that, also, has nothing to do with the homeowner, who by inference is not entitled to notice of nothin’. They ignore their own statutes, like 44-101 which mandates a writing for an assignment regarding real property. If the assgt is not recorded, how is one to know it was “put in writing”? Should AZ homeowners all demand certified copies? That would 86 the constructive notice of recordation and puts “actual notice by demand” in its place? That’s an absurd proposition. Enforcement requires notice and to say it should not be in public record is nuts. The homeowner is not the only one entitled to notice, I would hazard. Who owns CA and AZ? In another dumb decision, one we all heard of but of course I forget the name, AZ said if the claimant has to come up with the note, that means it’s judicial foreclosure, which dots were meant to avoid! Well, fer one thang, yer honor, we are in court, r’nt we? Enraged had it right about the gray cloud, but sometimes it isn’t just a gray cloud. It’s black, ominous,
    oppressive, and threatening.

  23. Pool & Service US BanGsters here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=Z99IjOUj7x4

  24. Never one to ignore what looks like a good idea, I went looking for
    18 USC section 1341 and here it is:


    In addition to taking chappell’s suggestion, maybe we should all
    print this out and send a copy to MERS.
    There is a ton of case law, I see.

  25. johngault don’t you have anything better to do than attack others on this blog. You seem to be unemployed full time. They said before: Idle mind is a d____’s workshop. You have an opinion so do others. All right!!

  26. Yes, enraged, you got me. Okay I read it now and I have trouble with a couple things.
    “The investors would take their place in line as unsecured creditors with claims in equity for actual damages. In most cases, they would be protected by credit default swaps and could recover from those arrangements”.

    Surely the author jests! 1) claims in equity against whom? 2) they would be protected by cds’s – since when? They should be, but since when has this happened? Has it, and I got stoned and missed it?
    I don’t want to see anyone whose funds were used for loans in any regard (read investors) get the shaft, at least not a total shaft. Everyone who got the shaft should get some kind of satisfaction even if it’s less than desireable. I don’t really like the states benefitting if it comes at the expense of others who can be identified. That’s a hornet’s nest, the identification, but just because I can’t id a solution doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Next I don’t like the state benefitting at the expense of homeowners, but in acknowledgement
    of the torment, long and short, saved homeowners, the states should benefit to some extent. That may be a ratio being worked on for all I know. I don’t like the private party business in the act, not one bit, but maybe it’s a necessary evil or just necessary. I think they need A-list talent right now, not later. They have no moolah. Here’s my 10 bucks. Someone in that area, set up a legit non-profit with patriots not carpetbaggers, etc. and with a bona fide escrow / trust account and give me the mailing address. Think that’s what it will take.

  27. @Dr. James Chappell

    You said:
    “I fought OneWest Bank and IndyMac. I won a MSJ for my x-wife against Fannie Mae in Burbank Superior Court. I had her foreclosure and unlawful detainer reversed under Carpenter v. Longan. As of this date, she now lives in her house debt free.”

    My “players” are also OneWest and IndyMac in California. I would like to ask you about some things if you don’t mind—can you email me: cariemac9@gmail.com
    Thanks so much.

  28. re the article’s ref to Mers and Bain: Mers as ‘not a beneficiary’ has nothing to convey, so that got scratched. Apparently, MERS begged to be allowed to yet convey to the noteowner. First of all, “MERS” doesn’t convey anything, even if it could. Its members with apparent carte blanche do in its name. Rico, I tell you. What else could it be called?
    Mers ‘as nominee’ elsewhere (outside WA) has nothing to convey but its nominal status, not any interest. This could probably be done by quit claim or some instrument expressing relinquishment of the nominal status, as necessary. Any decisions which have held otherwise need to be revisited, including a new look at the language in the dot. I know I made that sound like a walk in the park. I know it isn’t. It takes a very large effort and a lot of work. I’d even say it takes
    a village. Bring in the third year law students, counselor(?) “Starving Students Research” – why not? Make them incorporate and pay the business.
    Listen, if I may. MERS does not even stand behind the info in its computer base as demonstrated by its disclaimer, which I have linked more than once. A disclaimer: what does a disclaimer do and what does this one do? A disclaimer is a caveat of sorts, a reservation. This one says MERS does not know and does not guarantee the accuracy of the computer database. (Mers first of all does not make the entries.) Since MERS does not ‘stand’ itself on the ‘info’ in the computer base, how could it possibly execute an assignment of a deed of trust to anyone? Guess work? On reliance of WHAT would MERS be executing an assgt if MERS actually executed assignments and didn’t in fact give its members carte blanche?
    The disclaimer should be justicially noticeable. Submit it, get it in whatever it takes. Ask an attorney. right after you research justicial notice if you like. That leaves MERS’ sole reliance for allegedly executing an assgt on the possession of a bearer note by a bankster. Is this reason to execute an assignment? No, it isn’t, for starters because the order for the exec of an assignment does not come from the assignEE. It must come from the assignOR. The current owner of a note may demand an assgt, but the order for its execution and delivery if made to an agent or poa of another (as relevant here, the last noteowner) must come from the last noteowner (when the last noteowner is not executing the assgt itself, which it could, but is relying on a LEGITIMATE agent or poa to do so on its behalf ). IMO it means everything to understand and demand this: the assignEE may not order the (alleged) agent or poa or nominee, or pick a title, of another (here the assignOR) to execute an assignment. Even if MERS is the common agent for all its members, which I have denied in writings repeatedly based on what I consider sound legal principles, the order for execution of an assignment belongs to and may only be followed if given by the last noteowner, not the current noteowner. If it proved, maybe it will be believed. No, I am not saying I have anything all figure out. But I have a clue about what bushes to look under.
    as always, not an attorney – these are lay opinions and no more

  29. Dear Guest,
    In response to your comment “Where have {you} been since 2008, obviously not in the US”. I have been studying Neil’s website along with Timothy McCandless and others. From 2010 until April of this year, I fought OneWest Bank and IndyMac. I won a MSJ for my x-wife against Fannie Mae in Burbank Superior Court. I had her foreclosure and unlawful detainer reversed under Carpenter v. Longan. As of this date, she now lives in her house debt free.
    My suggestion was to stimulate thought concerning 18 USC section 1341. Until, if and when We the People take our country back, we need all the suggestions we can get.

  30. It’s better than the movie! It’s going to blow. Got your mask yet?

    Anonymous launches DDOS attacks in the name of Julian Assange
    August 21, 2012 by legitgov

    Anonymous launches DDOS attacks in the name of Julian Assange –@AnonIRC: ‘The website of the UK Ministry of Justice is down.’ 20 Aug 2012 Anonymous targeted United Kingdom government websites today in a show of solidarity with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who is fleeing London to Ecuador for fear of being extradited to the United States. The hacker collective famous for using distributed denial of service attacks to make a political point allegedly attacked the U.K. Justice Department website, along with British Prime Minister’s website “Number 10.” Other reports included attacks on the Department of Work and Pensions. Anonymous used the hash tag “#OpFreeAssange,” referencing the founder of Wikileaks who was taken into custody in the U.K. for sex-crime allegations in Sweden.

  31. JG,

    You didn’t click on the link, did you? Because here is the rest of Ellen Brown’s article.

    “Bain is binding precedent only in Washington State, but it is well reasoned and is expected to be followed elsewhere.

    If MERS has no rights that it can assign, the parties are back to square one: the original holder of the promissory note must be found. The problem is that many of these mortgage companies are no longer in business; and even if they could be located, it is too late in most cases to assign the note to the trusts that are being tossed this hot potato.

    Mortgage-backed securities are sold to investors in packages representing interests in trusts called REMICs (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits), which are designed as tax shelters. To qualify for that status, however, they must be “static.” Mortgages can’t be transferred in and out once the closing date has occurred. The REMIC Pooling and Servicing Agreement typically states that any transfer after the closing date is invalid. Yet few, if any, properties in foreclosure seem to have been assigned to these REMICs before the closing date, in blatant disregard of legal requirements.

    The whole business is quite complicated, but the bottom line is that title has been clouded not only by MERS, but because the trusts purporting to foreclose do not own the properties by the terms of their own documents. Legally, the latter defect may be even more fatal than filing in the name of MERS in establishing a break in the chain of title to securitized properties.

    What This Means for Eminent Domain Plans: Focus on San Bernardino

    Under the plans that the San Bernardino County board of supervisors voted to explore, the county would take underwater mortgages by eminent domain and then help the borrowers into mortgages with significantly lower monthly payments.

    Objections voiced at the August 16 hearing included suspicions concerning the role of Mortgage Resolution Partners, the private venture capital firm bringing the proposal: would it make off with the profits and leave the county footing the bills? And where would the county get the money for the purchases? Lawsuits were anticipated from banks and other claimants.

    A way around these objections might be to eliminate the private middleman and proceed through a county land bank of the sort set up in other states. If the land bank focused on properties with MERS in the chain of title, including not just underwater properties, but those that were already foreclosed or abandoned, it might obtain a significant inventory of properties free and clear.

    The county would simply need to give notice in the local newspaper of intent to exercise its right of eminent domain. The burden of proof would then transfer to the claimant to establish title in a court proceeding. If the court followed Bain, title typically could not be proved and would pass free and clear to the county land bank, which could then sell or rent the property and work out a fair settlement with the parties.

    That would resolve not only the funding question, but also the issue of whether using eminent domain to cure mortgage problems constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property. In these cases, there would be no one to take from, since no one would be able to prove title. The investors would take their place in line as unsecured creditors with claims in equity for actual damages. In most cases, they would be protected by credit default swaps and could recover from those arrangements.

    The investors, banks and servicers all profited from the smokescreen of MERS, which shielded them from liability. As noted in Bain:

    Critics of the MERS system point out that after bundling many loans together, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify the current holder of any particular loan, or to negotiate with that holder…. Under the MERS system, questions of authority and accountability arise and determining who has authority to negotiate loan modifications and who is accountable for misrepresentation and fraud becomes extraordinarily difficult.

    Like MERS itself, the investors must deal with the consequences of an anonymity so remote that they removed themselves from the chain of title.

    On August 15, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) threatened to take action against municipalities condemning federal property. But to establish its claim, the FHFA would have to establish that the mortgages were federal property; and under the Bain ruling, this could prove difficult for them as well.

    Setting Things Right

    While banks and investors were busy counting their profits behind the curtain of MERS, homeowners and counties have been made to bear the losses. The city of San Bernardino is in such dire straits that, on August 1, it filed for bankruptcy.

    San Bernardino and other counties are drowning in debt from a crisis created when Wall Street’s real estate securitization bubble burst. By using eminent domain, they can clean up the destruction of their land title records and 400 years of real property law. And by setting up their own banks, counties and other municipalities can become self-sufficient, using the deposit balances from their own revenues to generate credit for local purposes.

    Homeowners who paid much more for a home than it was worth as a result of the securitization bubble have little chance of challenging the legitimacy of their underwater mortgages on their own. Insisting that their state and local governments follow the lead of Washington State and San Bernardino County may be their best shot at escaping debt peonage to their mortgage lenders.”

  32. from Ellen Brown’s article from enraged (re: eminent domain):
    “A major snag in these proposals has been that to make them economically feasible, the mortgages would have to be PURCHASED ……..”
    That’s why HAMP was foisted on us as ‘remedy’, but thru the banksters. Since the banksters probably don’t even know whom IF
    anyone owns these loans, the gov sure wasn’t going to even take a stab. From WHOM would the gov have bought the loans? From WHOM could a county buy loans with any type of certainty? Cripes.
    The counties, and I’m mostly in the dark on this area, cannot
    possibly even entertain such an idea without a cast-in-concrete
    indemnification including legal fees.
    (Not to mention other known HAMP foibles, including the premise that
    money is still owed on the debts when it may well not be at all or a what the heck on that if it gets the investors some money, because again, the homeowner is seen to have benefitted from the alleged bargain. quelle blage).
    They don’t need eminent domain to “purchase” loans. They may need it for something else, but not that. IF a county were determined to go that course, it can tell the flipping banksters they’ll give them X on the (alleged) dollar or they’ll see them in hell. To back up such a statement, the counties would just have to hire a blankload of A-list talent, and here’s my 10 bucks.

  33. @enraged – at he social security office where you will be under guard.

  34. @dr jc – yes, seems like a good idea, and while one is at it, one should include the UCC provision regarding endorsing a note without disclosure of any (alleged) agency or poa (as agent for, as poa for) which makes such a miscreant liable on the note (so I read). There’s another one which might be worth noting to the bankster, but I forget tho I mentioned it a couple days ago. sigh.

  35. Oops! Posted twice…

  36. Click on the link for the actual court decision. Now we’re really talking about emotional damages. It’s getting good!


    Indiana pro se Homeowner Wins Reversal

    The trial court erroneously entered summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo on its foreclosure claim because Wells Fargo failed to establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the allegation that McEntee had defaulted on the note. The trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo on McEntee’s counterclaims was also in error because Wells Fargo did not establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to McEntee’s affirmative defense, and because McEntee’s counterclaim concerning emotional distress was not properly before the trial court at summary judgment.

  37. Some pro se do win. Pretty good!


    Indiana pro se Homeowner Wins Reversal

    The trial court erroneously entered summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo on its foreclosure claim because Wells Fargo failed to establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the allegation that McEntee had defaulted on the note. The trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo on McEntee’s counterclaims was also in error because Wells Fargo did not establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to McEntee’s affirmative defense, and because McEntee’s counterclaim concerning emotional distress was not properly before the trial court at summary judgment.

  38. JG, Music to your ears…

    Entire article at

    Real Remedies for the Foreclosure Crisis Exist: The Game-Changing Implications of Bain v. MERS

    Wednesday, 22 August 2012 11:22 By Ellen Brown, Truthout | News Analysis

    font size decrease font size increase font size

    House underwater(Image: House underwater via Shutterstock)Support Truthout’s work by making a tax-deductible donation: click here to contribute.

    Two landmark developments on August 16 give momentum to the growing interest of cities and counties in addressing the mortgage mess using eminent domain:

    The Washington State Supreme Court held in Bain v. MERS, et al., that an electronic database called Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is not a “beneficiary” entitled to foreclose under a deed of trust; and
    San Bernardino County, California, passed a resolution to consider plans to use eminent domain to address the glut of underwater borrowers by purchasing and refinancing their loans.

    MERS is the electronic smokescreen that allowed banks to build their securitization Ponzi scheme without worrying about details like ownership and chain of title. According to property law attorney Neil Garfield, properties were sold to multiple investors or conveyed to empty trusts, subprime securities were endorsed as triple A and banks earned up to 40 times what they could earn on a paying loan, using credit default swaps in which they bet the loan would go into default. As the dust settles from the collapse of the scheme, homeowners are left with underwater mortgages with no legitimate owners to negotiate with. The solution now being considered is for municipalities to simply take ownership of the mortgages through eminent domain. This would allow them to clear title and start fresh, along with some other lucrative dividends.

    A major snag in these proposals has been that to make them economically feasible, the mortgages would have to be purchased at less than fair market value, in violation of eminent domain laws. But for troubled properties with MERS in the title – which now seems to be the majority of them – this may no longer be a problem. If MERS is not a beneficiary entitled to foreclose, as held in Bain, it is not entitled to assign that right or to assign title. Title remains with the original note holder; and in the typical case, the note holder can no longer be located or established, since the property has been used as collateral for multiple investors. In these cases, counties or cities may be able to obtain the mortgages free and clear. The county or city would then be in a position to “do the fair thing,” settling with stakeholders in proportion to their legitimate claims and refinancing or reselling the properties, with proceeds accruing to the city or county.

    Bain v. MERS: No Rights Without the Original Note

    The underlying question, said the Bain panel, was “whether MERS and its associated business partners and institutions can both replace the existing recording system established by Washington statutes and still take advantage of legal procedures established in those same statutes.” The court held that they could not have it both ways:

    Simply put, if MERS does not hold the note, it is not a lawful beneficiary….

    MERS suggests that, if we find a violation of the act, “MERS should be required to assign its interest in any deed of trust to the holder of the promissory note and have that assignment recorded in the land title records, before any non-judicial foreclosure could take place.” But if MERS is not the beneficiary as contemplated by Washington law, it is unclear what rights, if any, it has to convey. Other courts have rejected similar suggestions. [Citations omitted.]

    Bain is binding precedent only in Washington State, but it is well reasoned and is expected to be followed elsewhere.

  39. @Sheddy,

    Are you a peddler? Robert Wagner is a peddler. Caused thousands of elderly to lose their homes. So did James Garner. I, myself, got conned by a peddler. I didn’t lose my home but it was pretty close.

    National Center For Consumer Protection & Assistance Inc.

    (818) 340-7600

    20631 Ventura Blvd Ste 201

    Woodland Hills, CA 91364

  40. Dr. Chapel,

    My attorney and i looked into it, since all those players, indeed, operate across the borders. We decided against it. In order to have a powerful case, you need to be very, very specific and condensed. The more fraud you throw in and the less judges will listen. It has to do with that very, very short attention span of theirs.

    People are better off sticking to what (still) works. “Respa, Tila, Finger food and Filaaaaaa (as quoted from ToLLe’s hit song. That guy has been cracking me up all along.)”.

  41. JG,

    I love how you start letting your imagination run wild! That’s what hope and progress are made of. That’s why I keep checking those (sometimes-frankly-weird) fringe sites. In occasions, they have had a newsflash a month ahead and, sure enough, it became MSM news!

    Where do I apply for a shadow employee job? Do we get paid while waiting for the whole thing to be set up and start running? Does it come with benefits?

    Now, now. Running unrestrained with that new ball…

  42. @ Neil: do you have links, case #, court, etc. of these lawsuits??

  43. Dr. JC: where’v you been since 2008? obviously not in US? http://www.mbaa.org/files/FBIMortgageFraudWarningFinal.pdf

  44. shetty – what’s your claim to fame? what are you hawking here, pray do tell.

  45. Looks like 18 USC Section 1341 – Frauds and swindles comes into play. “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,…..places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Post Service,…..shall be fined under this title or imprisoned nor more that 20 years, or both.” Maybe a Pro Se or their attorney can slow down or stop foreclosure by Noticing the pretend lender and their “team” of this remedy?

  46. Seems it is just more propaganda…the only time this stuff gets in the general news is when it is a set up for a “settlement” to come…which won’t really settle anything—just like the last “big settlement”. Same BS, different day—so they can pretend like they are really “doing something”…

  47. Yesterday I shied away from something I call “shadow employees”, but after seeing this post, maybe it isn’t so crazy.
    The govt might quietly amass shadow employees who will take over
    when they commandeer the banks. If the gov wants to prosecute those who should be prosecuted without their fear of failure of the
    institution, they need to be able to send in qualified people to
    hold down the fort as the criminals are led out in handcuffs. Yes?
    No? Not crazy, really, is it? They could then dismantle and try to
    fix what can be fixed in as orderly a fashion as possible. Some panic would be unavoidable, no doubt.
    Well, with everything connected globally, maybe it’s crazy or just
    crazy for reasons I don’t know for my lack of acumen and that’s being kind to myself. Could they stop trading for a bit and make assurances, like an ‘it’s all good, cool your jets’ campaign? Damage surely, but would it be fatal?
    If shutting them down is not going to happen, is there really no
    alternative, even if mine stinks?
    I keep remembering that 500 pt stock market dive in one day last
    year allegedly caused by a wrong key stroke. The story died quickly. That’s a very powerful weapon, that ability. Am I the only one this occurred to? And as a side note, can you imagine if it were planned how much dough some made? But the gov could suspend trading first, actually, to preclude some of the damage from panic by its seizures. Unprecedented, maybe, but also maybe necessary. If the shadow employee plan has any merit, it’s been on the table, so… Some here bash Obama for his apparent deference to the banks and many have suffered losses for this apparent deference even if the deference turns out not to be the case, not the end of
    the story. No getting around that. (comparatively, I would never vote for a candidate who has removed money from his country, anyway). But I still hold out hope that Obama has a plan. Such a plan would have to be very carefully thought out as well as coordinated in order to minimize damage, would it not?
    Some will think I’m making excuses, but I don’t see it that way. This suit might be a good start, but that’s all. Bet the market’s
    in an uproar today. It’s a civil suit and I see no criminal charges.
    A settlement, as so often happens, would probably deter if not 86
    any warranted criminal charges. Some kid got arrested for catching
    a ball at a baseball game the other day…he apparently didn’t have
    the appropriate get out of jail card. The gov has had four solid years to figure out what’s hit us. Time to 86 the get out of jail cards
    which were given – regardless of ANY reason they were given.
    Four years is enough time to fashion a cure for the situation which
    allegedly gave rise to the passes. If not, we need some new talent and unfortunately, I don’t see any on the horizon. Maybe those WA guys didn’t see the extent of criminal behavior when they set out on the “prop-up” course. Or maybe they did but legitimately felt the prop-up still had to be done, and then the banksters influence took hold and / or the gov’s initial act precipated throwing good money after bad. Whatever. Four years is long enough.

    MERS’ (oh excuse me, MERSCorp’s) computer program needs to be commandeered, tout suite. I still shudder to think of what they are doing with Genpact (the seven year contract to be implemented off shore) and at least I, don’t know about others, am acutely irritated that we hear nothing of it. Skip the lawsuit and go right to seizure. Then freeze assets and go at them.
    I saw what ivent and e. tolle agreed on. Maybe a moratorium of foreclosures would be in order while legitimate options are legitimately explored. Anybody legitimately hurt by a moratorium
    could be made whole out of the confiscated cash.
    Money which should lawfully be in this country needs to be returned
    to this country. We can’t run on empty nor continue to print dollar
    after dollar. I’m actually worried, with my very limited understanding
    of the issue, about the value of the dollar.
    Glad to see this suit, but it better be a beginning. It better not
    represent the best the gov can do after four years.

  48. Just found the info. Filed in state court. Won’t make a dent until each and every state follows suit. And then, it will be a make-believe settlement all over again.

    Why not in federal court? All the players operate across state lines…

    Too early for me to jump up and down.

  49. Congrats on getting through to the FDIC. Its important to note, though, the FDIC is not affiliated with the Obama Administration.

    The FDIC has been the only indepemdent agency that acts independent.
    Obama and his cronies should get no
    for FDIC aggressive actions.

  50. Is this a federal lawsuit or is it limited to TX? One state acting alone can’t make such a big dent in this monumental problem.

  51. I am not impressed by this FDIC action. This is all about money. Once they pay without admitting any wroingdoing all is over. So I do not believe these actions will create any dent to what is going on. It will continue as long as those rexponsible are not held criminally liable and punished for their participation in any wrong doing. So stay put. Nothing has changed and nothing will change until the citizens of this country wake up and act. Act now! There is a way. Do it legally and do it right. Study this web blog. it contains information tremendously useful to all. Hats off to Neil, Max Gardner, Charles Cox, Dan Edstorm, jeff barnes, Steve vondran, Weidner, April Charney, Timothy M. and so many others involved in this awareness. Good luck! More to come. The best is not here yet!! (818)340-7600.
    Satish Shetty

  52. hopefully, it will lead to criminal indictment for those who are responsible for this fraud. however, i am very skeptical about the timing of the lawsuit. i hope FDIC and the Guaranty Bank will not settle for penny for this lawsuit. the same thing with other lawsuit who just settled for merely a dollar like the Missouri states who filed criminal charges against LPS then settled for less.

    if lawsuit will only filed as a propaganda by the government, then we still have the housing problem . e.i. the 25 billion settlement by state attorney general for improper foreclosure did not deter the too big to fail bank to continue their fraudulent behavior. we have more foreclosure filing now than 4 years ago. so what does it mean? who would stop them? filing a lawsuit is not effective way because the govt. will settled for a penny then will announce , no admittance of any wrong doing and no criminal charges will be filed. i’m tired of this kind of propaganda by the government.

  53. Why is Bank of New York Mellon not included in this lawsuit is my question? They also need to be a part of this lawsuit.

  54. THey Need to Add Wells Fargo to the list!

  55. So, if the servicer says to you: “Your loan was securitized” and it was a “false scheme of securitization” (as in—it never happened)—and the servicer/debt collectors sell your property based on bogus docs which are based on the bogus “securitization”—why in hell isn’t there a lawyer who can figure out how to win with all this information? Is it just the judges blocking everything?

  56. No kidding. About time

  57. Nice!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: