No Loan Receivable Account Exists

Everyone seems to be having trouble with winning these cases outright. I think I have discovered the problem.

Most attorneys start in the middle of things because that is how it comes to them. Basic Contracts Law, first day of law school. For an agreement to be enforceable it must have all three of the these components: offer, acceptance and consideration. You can’t have just an offer, you can’t have just an acceptance, there must be some act that the law recognizes as consideration if the offer is accepted. Absent all three there is no way for a party to enforce an agreement for which there was either no acceptance nor any consideration.

If I loan you $100, you owe me $100 whether you sign a piece of paper or not. I offered to make the loan, you agreed to accept it and pay it back. That is true and presumed to be the reasonable interpretation of any exchange of money or property — that it isn’t a gift. And ALL of that is true whether there is documentation or not.

It is equally true that if I induce you to sign the note under the promise that I will loan you the $100, we have offer and acceptance and evidence of both the offer and the acceptance. But if I don’t give you the $100, there is no consideration and the agreement is not enforceable regardless of whether it is in writing or not. In the real world, I might survive a motion to dismiss or even a motion for summary judgment, but I could never win at trial because I don’t have any evidence that the money was delivered to you in cash, check or wire transfer.

But you are still going to lose and have a judgment entered against you for the $100 if you don’t deny that you ever got the money and you probably should add for good measure that you were fraudulently induced to sign a note when I knew I wasn’t going to give you the money.

The deal signed by most borrowers lacked consideration because the money did NOT come from the party representing itself to be the lender. The offer to the borrower was not the deal that the investor-lender or even the nonexistent trust pool was promised so if could not have been offered that way — with all the securitization parties involved and all their compensation contrary to the requirements of TILA for disclosure, whose purpose is to give the borrower an opportunity to exercise choice and seek a better competing deal in the marketplace. The borrower accepted an offer that was not backed by consideration nor the intent to provide it.

Hence there was no meeting of the minds in the first instance.

If you reverse the analysis and say that it was the borrower who made the offer it gets even worse. 99% of the real applications if they contained the true facts would never have been accepted by any investor or even a bank looking for subprime profits.

Hence the basics of contracts law have not been met – — you might have the argument to say there was an offer, but there are not grounds to say there was or even would have been acceptance if the true facts were known, and the documents signed do not reflect either the offer or the acceptance by the actual investor-lender or even the pool, whose documents were routinely ignored.

The real problem of Wall Street lies in the facts not in theory. They took the money in with complete disregard to the wishes and intent and agreement of the investor lenders and then funded loans from their own accounts that were based upon false premises made both to the investor-lenders and the borrowers. It is the fact that the money came from a Wall Street account rather than an investor account that causes the confusion.

That funding was the consideration — but that was separate from the documentary chain used by the securitizers. You can’t point to consideration “over there” and say that was the consideration you gave in exchange for the note and mortgage unless you can show that “over there” was connected to the documents that were presented to the borrower and signed under false pretenses, creating fraud in the inducement and even fraud in the execution of those documents.

They were “borrowing” the consideration from “over there” and borrowing the identity of the investor-lenders and borrowers to create a monumental shrine to Ponzi schemes in which the total nominal value of the scheme exceed world fiat money by 12 times the actual supply of money. The ONLY was to combat this is to dismantle the fraudulent scheme so that the threat posed by “shadow banking” no longer exists, seizure of the assets illegally obtained, and making whatever restitution is possible to investor-lenders and homeowners, past, present and future.

They did the illegal deals and then had their own people “approve”them and even accept them into non-existing pools without bank accounts. They claimed the loans as their own when it was convenient for them to do so — getting the money for plunging values of the mortgage bonds at 100 cents on the dollar.

Then they dumped what was left of the paperwork over the fence and told the investor NOW the loan is yours and you have a loss. But at all times these banks were merely depository institutions and they were accepting deposits from investor-lenders more or less in the same form as a CD. Their balance sheet did not show a loan receivable. It would have shown a liability for the deposit that was due back to the investor-lender but for them inserting fictitious entities that would take the liability and the loss borrower. In other words a shell game supporting the usual Ponzi scheme scenario.

In a word, they merely substituted the mortgage bond owed by a non-existent entity with no assets for a normal loan receivable account. Thus no loan receivable accounts exists.

133 Responses

  1. Oops..I goofed. Please allow me to repost that important link….This is how they do it…..

  2. Just caught the end of an interview on Lou Dobbs tonight on FOX Business. Lou’s guest said these plans have been over a century in the making and Obama is the vehicle they used to carry out this plan. That tells me that it does not matter who is elected, only the people can restore this Nation by a referendum on the 2012 ballot to restore the U.S. CONSTITUTION, ISSUE OUR OWN CURRENCY VIA STATE BANKS, Vote the traitors out from the local level on up and replace them with all of us. Sue the FED…That’s just for starters.

  3. dc…I am not inventing anything and I can’t help but crack up at you. . The real estate attorney from my house closing back in 1992 told me last year that the Owners Policy is more valuable than the deed. There are many covered title risks. I will name a few….My title insurer is Chicago Title Insurance Co….1.) A document is not properly signed, sealed and delivered…2.) Forgery, fraud, duress, incompetancy, incapacity or impersonation, 3.) Defective recording of any document, 4.) Other defects, liens or encumberances. The title to my home is a nightmare and Chicago Title and Trust was the Escrowee, the Trustee and the Notary. Can you say illegal conflict of interest? Now as far as the DEED goes, the crooks have desecrated our land records, However, it is up to all of us as individuals to fight for our property rights to be upheld. I have spoken to every legal entity imaginable and then some. The bottom line, this was the biggest Ponzi Scheme swindle and heist of our wealth and property in history….and it is still going on. The FBI told me early on in my investigation, it is the Origination Fraud. What is that? I found out it is the fact, the crooks never paid back the Treasury for their Original Loans.

  4. @INVENT
    In referring to a title insurance policy, you said;
    “That policy protects that Deed from fraud”

    1st —-title insurance causes the insurer to defend against someone asserting that your tile is defective and you should be evicted. It is no guarantee that the insurer will be successful in that defense–the insurer instead will pay off the mortgage note and pay you your downpayment. Maybe incidental costs like your motel bill while you look for a new place. Most people will not be getting title insurance in future—the insurance now generally excludes title defects which occurred prior to the time that the seller provides a deed–thus if you buy a home from a flipper —the insurance covers any title defect that occurred ater the flipper acquired the property pursuant to a foreclosure sale etc

    Ie the purchaser is paying a lot to get very little—-in about 21 years the title will begin t be insurable again.

    However a more lasting problem will be the end of the Warranty Deed. In the past a seller generally had received a warrantee deed from his seller—-and provided a warrantee deed to his buyer—back to 1800 in the Northwest territory—-

    However–if you purchase a foreclosed property which no title insurer will insure—you will not be able to grant a Warrantee Deed–because your warrantees will live on as long as you do——so if a noteholder pops up in 10 years—and asserts that the mortgage should not have been released –that the party that claimed to release it was a forger and thief—–then the mortgage is restored along with the note—-and the current resident will sue you on your warrantee.

    Therefore as a buyer you must accept a “limited warrantee deed” which means thats the best you can pass along–the title has been irreparably damaged into eternity—at the end of 21 years you will still have only a limited warrantee deed—it wouls seem that 15 years after a note was supposedly terminated by foreclosure [maybe real –maybe not] the homeowner could file a quiet title action to cleanse the title without fear that a valid note will turn up—its soft ground–not much law–since for most of our history thieves were not permitted to run loose committing fraud on a massive scale

    The mortgage companies and securitizers that destroyed the chains of title and made problems for all future owners came very close to simply burning the homes to the ground—people simply will not pay as much for a limited uninsurable title as for another property with warranty deed and insurable title

    homes that were foreclosed using the mills and securitized notes have essentiall all become permanent rentals –and will trade at steep discounts forever—people will be afraid to improve—-etc–its really very sad

    having said that–its a lawyers paradise re prospective real estate litigation–and absolutely the taxable value for real estae purposes should be greatly reduced–thus local prosecutors that sit on their hands while the recording statutes were ignored will preside over a community of homes that have lesser values because of the defects in title—–auditors offices and recorders offices that tolerated it will similarly be aflicted

    in an interesting turn–lets assume that a 2000 ft house at 200 cherry st—exactly the same as the one at 201 Cherry may be 40% less valuable if it has an uninsurable title and the owner has a limited warrantee deed—-with the neighbor across the street having a warrantee deed and inurable title

    Im waiting for the govt agencies to begin refusing FHA etc insurance on loans on the limited warrantee–uninsurable title homes–that will lock in the discount–only cash buyers?

    thats where we are today.

    Everything the securitizers touched has wilted and will continue to decline until the bulldozer gets there in about 10 yrs—there was a reason for all that old property law—-in the old days the king

    wouldv burned people at the stake for less

    Now im done INVENT–no more responses no more reads of your hairbrained stuff—no more fees for you to tie up peoples time—bye bye–unless you want to give us your name—otherwise i must assume you are just a shill

  5. RE; THE DEED…When the Treasury loans the money to the FED,bank the deed is issued.

  6. @dc…of course I am talking about the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION…THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. How do I define a commie? Those who want complete control of everything and everyone. I hope you are not arguing that China is not a Totalitarian regime. That is what the commies want to do to America with their Big Corp Gov. that has hijacked the free markets. They used Marxist socialist policies and progressive taxation and the FED to hijack and rob our wealth and property.Time to storm the Bastille and restore the rule of law and the issuance of our own currency. Vote the traitors out starting at the local level and replace them with all of us.

  7. @IVENT

    “you would not have the deed issued to you by the U.S. TREASURY DEPT”

    Iv never seen a deed “issued” or “granted” by the treasury dept—-have you–or are you speaking figuratively somehow

    this is the problem with your statements–i cant tell fact from allegation—-from what you know –to what you are hypothesizing—or are you just paid to take up someones here’s time?

    if so its close to the end

  8. @IVENT

    As a staunch believer in the “rule of law” how can you say:
    “We need a referendum on the 2012 ballot to restore the U.S.C. and issue our own currency via State Banks ..”

    I assume you refer to the Constitution of the United States when you say USC–in fact USC referes to US Code–statutes–not Constitution –but sure you dont know that detail and few laymen would–its not a big defect —-but under your rule of law theory—you are implementing procedures that the Constitution does not provide—–

    such stuff is provided in some instances in some states–and in some foreign counties—–but not the United States——you really need to do your homework before spoutng off—not to say that its not an interesting concept—but are you 1st proposing that a general takes control of the government–throws out the constitution and puts in the German or Russian one in instead–then does a referendum?

    Also you keep tossing around splashy terms like commie—-China full of commies —-sort of i guess—but also full of billionaires that steal money from people—like siezure of farms from peasants to resell to the billionaires——-

    what exactly is a commie these days?

  9. @TH
    “and if the foreclosing bank hold the original note by endorsement or alonge? what’s the defense then?”

    There is no defense except fraud in the origination—but do not admit its original absent authentication and QDE —due diligence

    There is no defense today for todays plaintiff holding an ORIGINAL NOTe—and worse—there will be no defense in 10 years when another comes along—-only the documentation received from the 1st claimant will be of help to prove there was an ORIGINAL note satisfied years ago——or if no ORIGINAL note–then call upon the bond to pay the new claimant and the bonding surety pursues the false claimant

    the surety agreement/bond must provide that the surety will defend for the homeowner in this instance–not the homeowner

    same as an auto wreck insurer would

  10. I understand. I almost said it myself—-but ….I am at a loss why this site seems to disregard the simple aspect of proof of note—ability to enforce the note—-

    The legal issue is on its face fairly simple. Do they have the note or not–if not then get a surety to do the investigation–if surety wont bond a missing note–then the plaintiff is out.

    The securitization and complex analysis is only of interest to establish a rebuttal to the prima facie rebuatable presumtion that a document which purports to be an original note is fully self-authenticating.

    The authenticity of the negotiable instrument is presumptive absent evidence that it is in doubt—can be issues in securitization or an expert statement that it is not certain that its authentic—–then pile on the relevant securitization stuff—the person that presents the document had no access–it was supposed to be someplace else—-and authenticity is a question of fact—–but if people dont shove this to the front in pleading–or if the plaintiff hides the note until after settlement—then it must be raised by a motion to enforce settlement–ie to put the burden on the purported holder to prove the note is the original

    there is some basic evidence and procedural law necessary—and to me the securitization stuff is a red herring–unless the conclusion is that the trust failed and the plaintiff trust has no capacity–much less standing.

    But whether a note went from here to there before passing to the ct to establish standing—-seems to be focusing on the wrong thing to me—misleading people to spend theitr money in a way which will be useless absent a clever atty using rules of procedure and evidence to force the plaintiff to show the note—an authenticated note—-my sense is that many private label trusts will not be able to authenticate and will not be able to establish proof to a surety–so this would end the claim—albeit i dont accept the free house hypothesis–but rather conclude that a lost or missing intangible claim [note] should escheat to the state–its not novel

    the problem is that these people are making money from securitization reports of some sort—–which looks impressive—–and will simply not admit that a lost claim on note automatically passes to the state not the homeowner-borrower–the title is clouded at best—–who will buy it? knocking down a claim on a lost note will leave the property encumbered–they must join the state as an escheat and get a waiver–or release—-no free houses by default—but who will pay a ton of money to get that answer?

  11. Time to storm the Bastille. We need a referendum on the 2012 ballot to restore the U.S.C. and issue our own currency….U.S. BANK NOTES via State Banks. We the People need to sue the FED and abolish them forever..

  12. It was meant to be a satire however, it is more logical than what has been occurring with the economy. The truth is, WE THE PEOPLE are TBTF. None of them would exist without us. I like this suggestion as well. Financial experts agree this is needed…Jubilee 2012- !

  13. you have the read the whole article – it states “Yes, former Chair Bair is speaking very satirically…” are you often confused by news you read at The Onion as well?

  14. I like Sheila Bair’s idea to get the economy rolling….Sheila Bair’s Fabulous Idea: $10 Million Loans for Everyone!

  15. tn…..We the people own the Treasury. However, the trustees for the country are traitors.

  16. Heres on for you…When I received my Warranty Deed not long after the closing, my attorney reccomended I put that in a Deed of Trust. Now why do you suppose that he reccomended that if it was a meaningless document?

  17. congrats Ivent, I think you may have introduced a whole new brand of crazy to the site, and that’s fairly hard to do. you still haven’t addressed my two hypos to you, but i suppose the foundation that the Treasury owns all the real property and we own nothing probably covers them adequately.

  18. How deceptive you are…It is the intent of the Corp confuse the masses. Because of the fraud they were allowed to commit in our names, the owners title insurance policy is more valuable than that Deed. That policy protects that Deed from fraud..It is a travesty what has been allowed to occur in the United States of America in the names of the American people. .

  19. The Deed of Trust is a complete work of fiction if they never paid the original loan off to the Treasury. Recording a mortgage is not a legal lien. The recording of the Legal Assignment is the only proof of legal lien. That is if it is the PROPER legal assignment. They are fraudclosing and doing short sales and loan mods and pocketing the payments instead of paying off the original loan to the Treasury. There is no legal fix for what they did not do. Which is pay off the original loan to the Treasury. They do not deserve another dime from us. They are the reason the economy is horrible. The FED owes US gazillions in Orignation Fraud and Usury fraud. The FED are that big sucking sound, and the politicians are allowing it..

  20. again – where are you getting this stuff? without the warranty deed you have no interest in the property at all, and have nothing to convey in the deed of trust to secure the loan. and the Treasury doesn’t convey title to real property. they don’t own all of the real property.

    are you posting all of this stuff just to deceive and confuse the masses? it’s beginning to look that way.

  21. @Ivent – where are you getting this stuff? Is the assignment you speak of different from the assignment of the deed of trust? Or are you referring to the transfer into a loan pool? I’m not following the meaning you’re trying to convey. And what about the two hypotheticals I provided? what do you say about them?

  22. The Warranty Deed. You should not have that deed unless the property is paid in full. They intended to deceive by doing everything the opposite of the way they should be done by law.. Their liens are a complete work of fiction.

  23. The Legal Assignment is the Legal Transfer. It is the receipt that proves the Original Loan was paid off to the Treasury Dept. If you borrowed a few million from the Treasury Dept in my name and never paid back the Original Loan to the Treasury Dept and chopped up that original investment in order to hide and oversell investments in that loan and pocketed the payments and kept passing the original loan on to other entities to hide the non payment of the original loan, you would go to prison in a heartbeat.

  24. @Ivent – I have no idea what this means “deed issued to you by the U.S. TREASURY DEPT”. What deed is issued by the Treasury? My deed, and yours, was issued to you by the prior owner of the property. And the prevailing caselaw says that the mortgage follows the note. So are you saying that if I am a bank holding a Note properly endorsed to me I don’t have the power of sale to enforce the note?

    Let’s make it easier : you sign a note in favor of BoA, you execute a deed of trust to secure the note, the note is never transferred, would you dispute that BoA has the power of sale when the note goes into default?

  25. I have yet to see an endorsed note, though they did cash the check, otherwise you would not have the deed issued to you by the U.S. TREASURY DEPT. Endorsed means they got paid by the Treasury Dept. The note is not a legal transfer of property, it is a check. The note transfers nothing.. The allonge transfers nothing without the Legal Assignment… Even a Collateral Assignment of Beneficial Interest is fraud without the Original Legal Assignment of Beneficial Interest…. the ABI..

  26. and if the foreclosing bank hold the original note by endorsement or alonge? what’s the defense then?

  27. Just want to add that the producing the original trust agreement, AKA as the legal assignment is proof of a legal lien. It is the proof of legal transfer by physical delivery and acceptance of the loan file to a trust.. It is the receipt that proves the Original Loan was repaid to the Treasury Dept. If that did not occur, that means securities fraud and other frauds were committed in your name, without your knowledge…Uttering copies of notes and mortgages without a legal assignment to be granted a fraudclosure is counterfeiting of securities and uttering forged instruments. It is illegal to cash a copy of security instrument last I checked…

  28. sorry Ivent – I’ve just had more personal experience with male members of the lunatic fringe than female ones.

  29. It is she, and it is no freeman theory. It is the rule of law.Bloomberg news reporting President of Iran saying Capitalism is on the verge of collapse and is recommending non use of the dollar. Those who know the truth know that the Krony Kapitalists set US up to fail. We need a referendum on the 2012 ballot to restore the U.S.C. and issue our own currency via State Banks …WE NEED TO ISSUE U.S. BANK NOTES…SUE THE FED…Eliot Spitzer for President 2012..

  30. @dcb – callous yes, but was trying to make a point that he needs a new strategy or to make alternate plans. this site seems cyclical – every few months the money/credit/freemen theories come back. it’s never worked, and he clearly didn’t seem interested when you tried to steer him back around to alternatives that have had occasional success.

  31. @IVENT
    Hard to disagree; the on the street comment was pretty callous—and the street waits impatiently for all of us—the higher up—the more it hurts when one hits bottom——

    Dont forget the transition points: friends garages, RVSs —mobile home parks and tenements—-especially for a family of 4 or 5. As a lawyer, you should not be so certain —there are 100 indians waiting to do your job for 15% of what you get—-they even appear in courtrooms now as conduits back to india—i just love that strange indian brit accent in smalltown indiana

  32. What kind of person tells another person they will be living in the street? The same kind of evil that caused this..

  33. The truth is undeniable. I have obviously struck a chord with you two. .If none of this is news and it is just a wild conspiracy you two are awfully worried and defensive..These crooks have swindled the American people out of their wealth, livelihoods and millions of properties. The next thing to go is the complete loss of everything and that is when they will usher in complete communism. Therefore, there is no,chance that,I will shut up and go away..

  34. Im having a hard time believing this one [INVENT] is real—-if somebody is paying for this service–they are getting ripped off

  35. better start looking for a good cardboard box or a tent Ivent

  36. @IVENT

    GIVE US A BREAK PLEASE FROM ALL THIS CONSPIRACY STUFF—-NOT THAT THERE ARE NOT SOME RICO deals going on out there—–but this stuff you are citing is old and cold –ie NOT NEWS—it may be new to you–but not to others and its at best squishy—-there is no way to deal with these things except by legions of skilled investigators—-its just not relevant here

    the things that are relevant are
    how to plead a complaint 101
    how to answer a foreclosure complaint
    how to respond to DOT sale
    how to settle a fight and actually get released from the debt
    how to make a mod stick

    if you want to rant about these internatl conspiracies–go to some conspracy site and post to your hearts content–you are just wasting everybody’s time here—this is for serious legal isues discussion –there are sincere people that are losing their homes and dont know why or what to do–that cant find attys to represent them–much less afford a downpayment of $25k—etc

    i sincerely doubt that if you had rhe clock ticking on you–you would be wasting time venting on these matters—stick with the content and dont fill up my inbox with your rants please

  37. If the link is blocked, Google or you tube search the link or the title.

  38. Here is a good explanation of how the FED scam works from Dylan Ratigan and Eliot Spitzer…What’s In The Bag?

  39. I said they print 10 times the value they borrow but in reality, they print as much money as they want. The FED has the control of the money printing machine. However, there is no collateral on their books that backs up that money printing.

  40. No…… the FED does not loan to Treasury. The FED borrows the American peoples money and they issue US credit. They monetize their debt they borrow from the Treasury and they create 10 times the value of their loan by money printing. The FED buys treasuries back with our stolen wealth to prop up the ponzi scheme. Bloomberg news reported the FED collects trillions of dollars a month in mortgage payments. Bernanke said they use that money to buy treasuries with. It is a credit scam.

  41. @IVENT
    “I put down almost half of the money on my home up front. The FED however, borrowed the rest of the funds from the Treasury in my name”

    IVENT—the ranting about fed –treasury undermines your credibility–if you expect to be taken seriously —forget about global politics and internal govt fund flows—as a matter of fact fed loans to treasury –not the other way around—and i do not think if you knew the intricacies of this that you would be posting 24 hours a day—pls stop and get serious—-might be helpful to describe your background —or do you just feel more comfortable being secretive—thats how you show how brave and daring you are–hiding? .

  42. good luck with all of that. you’re delusional. congrats on putting down 1/2 of your purchase price. you borrowed the other half, right? or was it the FED in your name? or maybe someone lent your their credit in violation of the constitution? it hasn’t worked before and it won’t work for you. you either need another strategy or a tent

  43. When the original loans do not get repaid by the original borrower who is,, the FED, and they are allowed to oversell investments in debt they never repaid, that destroyed the U.S. economy. Wall Street oversold investments in anything with a revenue flow as was admitted by an ex-Wall Street stockbroker in the CNBC documentary House Of Cards. They also oversold investments in things without a money flow as well, such as, credit aps…. Read about the banking scam from a former attorney and legal officer for the legal departments of the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Cleveland here and all related links:..

  44. Nice try tnharry…The truth is, I put down almost half of the money on my home up front. The FED however, borrowed the rest of the funds from the Treasury in my name. They never paid back the original loan to the Treasury and pocketed all of the payments I made over 18 years in the form of usury. That does not include the overselling of every aspect imaginable of their Original Debt to investors. They have quintiillions in ill gotten gains they created from derivatives fraud yet the robbery of the wealth and property of the American people for all of their unsustainable debt continues. That is why they economy stinks. Because the FED does not pay their bills. If that were not the case, the economy would not be awful. I was told by a very reputable attorney that this is simply a plan to clean America out and create Complete Communism.

  45. The entire FED monetary system is based on the “labor for value theory.” Banks don’t lend the people any money. They borrow from the Treasury in our names. What they did was set US up to fail by being allowed to oversell investments in their debt exponentionally. They have rendered all of the debt they have created by overselling investments in their massive debts, insolvent and unsustainable. Their debt is estimated at around $1.2 quadrillion. They have quintillions in ill gotten gains hidden overseas. Tell them to pay their own debts starting with the the Origination Fraud to the Treasury and the Usury they pocketed in the form of mortgage payments back to the American people.. The FED are hoarding the bailout money, our stolen wealth. They never lent US a dime yet, they have trillions of our stolen wealth sitting on their balance sheets. The FED are the biggest deadbeat borrowers on the planet.

  46. @ivent – ok, i’ll bite. what specifically is your wild-assed theory as to why you don’t owe anyone? when you bought your house did you have all of the purchase price in cash, or did you sign a note and deed of trust/mortgage for the purchase? why do you now not owe that to anyone?

  47. @tnharry…I am not new to this site and I have heard all of the lies before. I for one am sick and tired of the disinfo campaign being waged against the American people. Such as Jordana Lipscombs comment …. can”t the crooks get around these arguments by saying the consideration was paid by and agent? Yes they were paid by an agent….., the U.S. TAXPAYERS. Now, I want to see the receipts that say they paid the Treasury back the ORIGINAL LOANS they took out in OUR NAMES as well as the bailouts they have been stealing from US……You can’t fool those who know the truth. .

  48. @ivent – very amusing indeed. you come out of nowhere with no prior history on this site and spout lovely rhetoric without any indication of having actually “been there and done it”. good luck to you. I suspect you’re in for a rude awakening.

  49. @dc. I stand by my statements as they are RULE OF LAW in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA….. However, it seems as though you are making a declaration that America is under Complete Communist rule,.

  50. Here is where your money is going America..Bloomberg reporting Ford CEO over in Commie China sucking up to the Commies. Ford CEO is bragging about how they are planning on opening 5 Ford factories in Commie China. When will America wake up and boycott these Globalist Corporate scum who are spreading OUR WEALTH around in Communist countries?

  51. @IVENT
    When you look pure evil in the face–up close and personal–you better have fear in your heart–for fools rush in where angels and wise men fear to tread…….

    all this stuff you are spouting is pure noise and BS—-who are you trying to kid?

  52. @dc,….That’s what they are counting on, the people to be scared of them.

  53. I agree with the consideration part. They gave no lawful money in exhange for receiving lawful money from us. As far as the so called “lawful” contract, there never was one. If there is no physical delivery and acceptance, LEGAL PROOF of a receipt, in the form of a legal trust aggreement (legal assignment),, their contracts regarding SECURITIES LAWS and TRUST LAWS were never upheld. They never paid the ORIGINAL LOAN back to the TREASURY and they unlawfully converted the notes into stocks and kept flipping them and oversold investments in them exponentionally, all over the world, they structured the Mortgages as bonds and the biggest shareholders/bondholders in FANNIE MAE are the IMF.If they never paid the ORIGINAL LOAN back to the Treasury, all subsequent sales and transfers were unlawful and therefore, null and void. Because of the quadrillion in debt created by Wall Street with copies of our signatures, the mortgages and notes are insolvent, the banks debt is massive, unsustainable and can never be repaid. That is why the economy is terrible, and will remain teribble until the handouts to the FED stop and the crooks pay us back. All payments are being collected as usury and are going in the pockets of the very criminal who robbed the American people, not into the U.S. ECONOMY.

  54. into the valley of death road the 600

  55. @dc….your funny, haha. I forgot to add …..ask them for All records relevant to any assignment(s) with respect to the original transactions.BTW..dc.. At the end of this war, they are going to be lucky if they don’t have to pay me 3x the value of the note+++. for violating The Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practice Act which reads in pertinent part: Unfair method of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretenses, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact, or the use or employment of any practice described in Section 2 of the “Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act,”: approved August 5, 1965, in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. Whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.

  56. you havent been in this long have you ivent——actual commercial litigators that do this sort of discovery have complex programs that allow recordation en masses with word search capapbility—and about 500 indian semi-lawyers —–

    by the end of the day—or yars you will be pleading–perhaps literally perhaps figuratively simply to not have to pay on the note twice

  57. Anyone see the movie Tower Heist yet? It’s a hoot, and it pertains to a very important part of discovery, Ask them for all relevant _LEDGER_ records, all records relating to any relevant CDS Certificates, all records relevant to any money transactions with repect to the original transaction, aggregator, pool, Special Purpose Vehicle,CDO;s,insurance records with respect to the original transaction,,, All documents relied upon to establish the validity of the claim, all records relevant to any guarantors,,all records relevant to the present holder of the original writings with repect to the original transaction, All records relevant to any entity ever having physical possession of the original writings with respect to the original transaction, all records relevant to any entity ever having physical possession of the original writings with repect to the original transaction.,..The scratching of the signature is only one part of the signing of a legal contract. The second part is the disclosure. No disclosure about pertinent aspects of the financial transaction means you never swore or attested to the validity of that contract. That means you NEVER SIGNED IT.

  58. Come on now if bankruptcy went the way you say then how does the fdic have the right to sell assets free and clear. How was the fdic able to void dbntc rights as trustee of the indymac trusts and it was upheld in dbntc vs fdic by judge Fees.

  59. @th
    i was referring to unduly complicated solutions and torturous run-arounds when the black letter law answers the matter–and if people on both sides of this conflict simply apply the standards–there would be no problem:

    The best example in my estimation is the seemingly incomprehensible complexity surrounding the claimants to foreclosure demonstrating authority.

    The promissory note expresses the obligation–and to a certain extent constitutes a cash equivalent–eg bearer bond

    the mortgage or DOT is simply a means of securing that debt such that the lien survives bk—-the difference between DOT and mortgage is merely procedural–see the recent Washington state case

    there can be no mortgage w/o note—-there can be a note w/o mortgage

    Then—these property and debtor/creditor law rules being such as they are—the claimant must allege breach of duty under the note–then proceed to enforce via foreclosure

    The claimant must be the holder of the note or a person authorized by that holder—and can be a bearer—

    bottom line UCC states the holder or rep must present either the ORIGINAL NOTE—–marked “paid in full” if no deficiency to be available—-or “cancelled” if a deficiency judgment is involved—in either case the maker is supposed to get that note back—-and if there is any doubt about the authenticity of the note–then the holder must authenticate it—-???? am i missing some deeper truth here?

    if the note cannot be found the holder must present a lost note affidavit–and a surety bond

    if i were a judge id make the complaint in foreclosure allege these facts or refuse to act on it—–the homeowner should not have to worry whether she gave her house to the wrong person—-the next title owner should not–the title company should not

    the issue that everybody is dancing around is that the collection agencies do not want to pay for the surety bonds that UCC requires–its that simple

    if i am missing something here–please tell me TH–you are a fount of knowledge on this matter

  60. @TH
    Isnt that the essence of the ongoing cram down legislative change thats been kicking around for last 4 years? ie it would be nice if bk had jursidiction to alter security agreements–but thats the essence of a security agreement—that the secured party has priority vis the particular asset–its not magic—i continue to be shocked by the layers of complexity that are supposedly laid upon some pretty basic 101 type black letter law

    the most shocking example that seems to entangle everybody is

  61. @dcb – i think Tony and I went further down a rabbit hole started by Soliman/masterservicer/nomods/nancydrewe. It’s a point of dispute that Tony and I have had going back many months. i agree that it’s not immediately relevant, but it merited a response merely because someone could read the comment and believe that a Ch7 discharge = free house. it’s just not the case, and if it were people would be lined up for blocks outside bankruptcy courts across the nation. the fact that they aren’t, especially coupled with the supreme court saying it isn’t so, demonstrates the fallacy of that argument.

  62. @TH and other
    “The Court specifically recognizes that discharge of personal liability does not extinguish the creditor’s lien rights. “A surviving mortgage interest corresponds to an “enforceable obligation” of the debtor. Even after the debtor’s personal obligations have been extinguished, the creditor still retains a “right to payment” in the form of its right to the proceeds from the sale of the debtor’s property.” It doesn’t get any clearer than that.”

    Iv been reading this discussion with growing confusion. Although the intricacies of bankruptcy detail are outside my scope, the basic debtor creditor 101 embraces the foregoing statement quoted.

    As a general matter of law—the points made by TH are absolutely accurate——antique caselaw is frequently affected by subsequent legislation—-which may either codify it—overrule it—or put a spin on it——–rarely does an antique case stand on its own

    they are very useful in laying down a legislative or case history if one is writing a treatise—basically putting a recent case in context—this is usually a very helpful way to approach a line of cases–which is why law school texts follow the practice routinely—thus in property law—-one starts with caselaw from 1400s re fee teil —etc ec

    in order to get up to current–otherwise some things start to look superficial——–for example the statute of frauds—-why land cannot be transferred without a writing signed by the party to be bound—–what is the fraud that is sought to be prevented? Subornation of perjury—-not stealing the land—–but paying witnesses to lie when very valuable issues are in question—and in old days land [and wives] was only valuable thing people had–but as centuries passed — they added long term sales of lots of goods etc. context is important–because if you see a statute of frauds issue arise–best be on lookout for conspiracy to commit perjury

    as far as the two writers–im impressed by the array of citation–but im missing the substantive point in issue–is there any difference here–or are you two just engaged in an academic discussion???

  63. c’mon Tony – I’m citing a Supreme Court case from 1991. You’re quoting from cases that predate the current Bankruptcy Code. isn’t it possible your theories have been preempted by statute and later case law?

    From Johnson : “While foreclosure proceedings were pending, Johnson filed for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the Bankruptcy Court discharged him from personal liability on the notes. However, because the Bank’s right to proceed against him in rem survived the bankruptcy, see 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2); Long v. Bullard, 117 U. S. 617, the Bank reinitiated the foreclosure proceedings once the automatic stay protecting his estate was lifted.”

    The Court specifically recognizes that discharge of personal liability does not extinguish the creditor’s lien rights.

    “A surviving mortgage interest corresponds to an “enforceable obligation” of the debtor. Even after the debtor’s personal obligations have been extinguished, the creditor still retains a “right to payment” in the form of its right to the proceeds from the sale of the debtor’s property.” It doesn’t get any clearer than that. Supreme Court, 1991, no later cases nullifying or modifying.

    From Dewsnup : “This result appears to have been clearly established before the passage of the 1978 Act. Under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, a lien on real property passed through bankruptcy unaffected. This Court recently acknowledged that this was so. See Farrey v. Sanderfoot, 500 U.S. 291, 297, 114 L. Ed. 2d 337, 111 S. Ct. 1825 (1991) (“Ordinarily, liens and other secured interests survive bankruptcy; Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 84, 115 L. Ed. 2d 66, 111 S. Ct. 2150 (1991) (“Rather, a bankruptcy discharge extinguishes only one mode of enforcing a claim — namely, an action against the debtor in personam — while leaving intact another — namely, an action against the debtor in rem”).

    And also from Desnup : “In Long v. Bullard, 117 U.S. 617, 620-621, 29 L. Ed. 1004, 6 S. Ct. 917 (1886), the Court held that a discharge in bankruptcy does not release real estate of the debtor from the lien of a mortgage created by him before the bankruptcy.”

  64. tnharry,

    Johnson v Home State Bank, 501 US 78 (1991) was a case about could you file what is called chapter 20, and if so can something discharged become a claim.

    Also listen to the oral arguments of this case you can hear it on Just type in this case and hear it for yourself it will tell you a lot. This is a great site for those who can not get the transcripts to the oral arguments. You can understand more since now you can hear it out the judges mouth instead of what people or google tell you what they said.

    Please stop with this get out the 1800’s or early case law. You for one know that case law is just that case law. Didn’t we go through this before? You said this already once you were beat in case law…. “this might work in judicial states, but not non judicial states.” That’s when I was using Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U.S. 185 (1888).

    Explain with case law how a lien right survive without a judgement given to the creditor. Just as you have written Long v Bullard was quoted in Johnson v Home State Bank for using that liens survive bankruptcy. Judge Gray gave the bullard ruling with using his earlier case of bradford vs rice as the reason for why liens survived bankruptcy. The reason again was because creditor received a judgment in state court before debtor received a certificate of discharge. Key point was creditor received a judgment.

    Again without receiving a judgment how does the lien survive? For without due process you can not take ones property Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 32 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1972). Voluntary bankruptcy is the debtor filing against the creditor and them having to come in to state there claim. This is not involuntary bankruptcy when the creditors files and the debtor has to come in to stop the creditor from taking any assets.

    Please quote this case law where you can claim you have “in rem” without a judgment. For you even need a signed order from the judge to even raid a criminal’s home. You trying to tell me that you can just say “in rem” and everyone will just say ok? For Johnson v Home State Bank is even based on saying you have a claim to get a in rem judgment in state court. If you have pleaded your certificate of discharge, before one can get a judgment, the creditor has nothing to stand on because the court lacks subject matter. As judge Gray states in his reason in bradford v rice that explains long v bullard. Which is the case law that has been used all the way to the present day.

    Without bullard you have no legs to stand on. You can’t use Dewsnup v. Timm – 502 U.S. 410 (1992) or any other case because it is based off bullard.

    As Sturges v. Crowninshield 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 122 (1819) states congress has the right to alter contracts not the states. History has shown this to be the case from legal tender cases to the 1933 great depression, when congress altered contracts to help farmers.

    Stop acting like I am some conspiracy theorist that puts up out dated case law, you just try to play on words. Back your points up with case law and make sense for once.

  65. @Tony – leave those cases from the 1800s behind and read something a little more up to date. I would suggest Johnson v Home State Bank, 501 US 78 (1991). The personal liability of the debtor is discharged but the creditors’ lien rights survive in a Ch7. It even cites your favorite case – Long v Bullard.

  66. @ER

    Yeah—makes sense—-that writing is his style—convoluted doublespeak and more arrogant than i am

  67. DCB,

    Don’t waste your time with Masterservicer. The real name is Maher Soliman and if you google him, you will see numerous complaints against him for failure to deliver, pocketing clients money, failing to show up in court, etc. He seems to be writing here under two names: masterservicer and nomods. And he is… weird!

    To top it off, when you check his profiles on linkedln, there are some serious inconsistencies.

    Did I understand you to say you “testified at Cal Ct of Appeals”?
    I know nothing about Cal. law–obviously because on a true/false test question , i foolishly wouldv answered people dont testify at appeallate ct—-must be an unusual circumstance–but i know little of appellate procedure anywhere except ….admin law

    how is it that you can testify at an appeals ct—-some sort of amici ?

  69. DP: U-left out Jesus!!! & may be this famous & free book shed some light:

  70. @GUEST

    Im not sure about the comments accuracy—-it would be nice to know how one could raise enough money to buy a farm with a house on it–everything else is basically a short term arrangement no matter how you frame it–its a lease.

    In England prior to 18th century–everything was a lease—–KING owned every bit of realty—which is the general rule globally—-nations own real estate—people have leases—-

    The land contract is the primary means by which farms wre conveyed–farms being only real property which is expected to be “owned” long term—such that the powner makes improvements –builds it up for his descendants———-so even rich Dr Schmedlock with a million dollar house on a lot is really much closer to a tenant if he owes any money—everybodyt knows the docs kids are not gonna live in that house–much less grandkids—–its a single family tenement—–if they want to put a road thru or build a factory or park—schmedlock is on the curb

    so the only true real estate ownership is of farms —and you cant finance them thru this crap securitization—which is just another way to describe a net net lease—–the mortgage document is basically the lease agreement—-the laundry list of dos and donts—-can you tear down a section of the house w/o landlord permission? No–

    can you pay your own insurance and real estate taxes NO

    Can you let it deteriorate NO

    Can you change its use from one family to two–or to a rental? NO

    Can you give an easement? NO

    You must get permission to do almost everything not expressly spelled out in the mortgage/lease———and as we all know in a securitization scenraio———–that aint happening.

    A securitized mortgage is a net net lease for 5-10 years with options to renew—thats all there is to it. If you die—can your children go on paying the mortgage loan [ lease pmts]—hmmmm?—the estate cant sell the house and lot

    the question i have is who foots the bill for big-ticket repairs–this is active business—im sure the wholsale landlords will not be fronting repair costs—so the tenant/mortgagor will lose the lese when a big ticket item of repair cmes up—–

    and with the new trusts being formed the trustee/via servicer is your landlord literally and the house is rented to you—the illusion of home ownership is completely abandoned–gone with the wind

    within 20 years

  71. The Jewish vs Muslim issue in regards to debt. Both have the partial answer. Jewish practices seem to produce capitalism and and an economy, the Muslim way seems to protect people from usury.

    Neither system is better than the other, a mixture of both is idea.

  72. @ Martha: looks like Jews invented foreclosure 3000 years ago and made it into law in recent history…

  73. Some definitions of: “LEGAL ADVICE” & “PRACTICE OF LAW”: things written on this blog is either legal information, or plain crap, or mixture of both.

  74. The sharks are really hungry. Flat out attacking Neil. Are the attacking you because your Jewish? I have to wonder as they hide it by claiming the opposite. Hate is hate.

    KC is with the Club. KC is part of MasterServicer. A collective voice, as one can see the convoluted personality in the writing. Her idioms come through.

    Very interesting point that zurenarrh, made, that I will expound on, Only the very rich have a right to own property, as the 99%er, he must get a loan, and if the bank even does not have the ACTUAL cash to make the loan, then no one can in effect buy a home.

    Not much has changes the last 1000 years.

    As for practicing law? What is that exactly? I personally, would never give advice about legal matters, as I do not even know what that means. What exactly is legal advice?

  75. Furthermore, Bank of America is a trustee in the case, and does not and cannot own the mortgage, , as they are acting on behalf of the investment trust. Bank of America has claimed they are the owner and holder of the note, which is a fraudulent statement.

    JPMorgan vs. Julme CACE09-21933-05

    I have this same situation in my case. Can someone elaborate.


  76. stuff kind of blunderbuss–maybe citing to the legal treatise would be helpful—-generally its a liitle attenuated tomraise cases that are really old cause there are many ebbs and flows—–and im a bit too ill and tired to read these cases “real good” before taking up your time

  77. thanks for that, Tony. I get a little pie-eyed and start thinking I’m a lawyer. I have more reading to do.

  78. masterservicer,

    Please stop this lie about “in rem”. This word has been used so wrong in so many ways its crazy. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 32 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1972) tells how in rem is used. Quasi- in rem is the only option a bank has, for the contract is against a person not the home. There is a reason why DBNTC was denied and dismissed with prejudice of there claim that FDIC took there “property” ( the indymac trusts) without due process. They never had any right to any property. Once the bank was deemed insolvent all property of Indymac was taken “in rem”, because it was deemed important to the general public. As in Fuentes states in rem can be used in this matter.

    anybody else on living lies,

    If a loan was discharged in bankruptcy, or insolvency then Sturges v. Crowninshield 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 122 (1819) applies. No bank can run into state court asking for a “state right” when the contract has been legally broken. Deemed a bankrupt, is very different than being deemed insolvent. Insolvent laws operate at the instance of a debtor; bankrupt laws at the instance of a creditor. Voluntary bankruptcy you are bringing the creditors in. This is adjudication of the facts so if the creditor does not come in they know what the end result means. No contract enforcement. Involuntary bankruptcy mean you are being forced into and if you do not show up you know what the court can do. Force sell your assets to pay creditors. Insolvency is the same as involuntary bankruptcy.

    In the early stages of the republic, voluntary bankruptcy was made for only traders and merchants. Just like the British form of bankruptcy. Non traders and non merchants could only get bankruptcy if your creditor filed it (involuntary) Then they would lock up debtors in prison and sell your assets. Later congress passed a law making it able for the debtor to file bankruptcy voluntarily and use the certificate of discharge against the creditor. Therefore no debtors could be sent to prison or property be taken from them if the received there certificate of discharge and plead it. As the united states was taken the bankruptcy form from the bible perspective.

    Later supreme court judge Gray while still only a judge in Massachusetts ruled in Bradford vs Rice 102 Mass. 472 (1869) that the personal right of action to sue the debtor never left, because the debtor did not ask the state court for an continuance until the debtor received there discharge. This was also judge Gray’s ruling in the long standing supreme court rule in Long vs Bullard 117 U.S. 617 (1886). These rulings still show that in voluntary bankruptcy if you get a certificate of discharge, and the creditor does nothing they are barred from taking any action against any property of the debtor.

    Bankruptcy has many ways for the “secured” investor to protect itself before the gavel drops and grants discharge. You just can not go in state court and say you have a “in rem” right, when no in rem judgement has not been given. You can not seize the res without due process. If banks or any secured creditor had in rem rights, why don’t they just file a writ to take the property? Why do they instead file a state court action of foreclosure and include your name on the summons? The answer is they need you for they have no property accept the promissory note, and that was deemed not enforceable against you when you were granted a certificate of discharge.

    Congress has the right to change contracts the Constitution takes away the states power to do this not congress, if the constitution did not give congress this power then the legal tender cases need to be reversed. The legal tender cases was all about congress changing contracts. Contracts back then made gold the only payment in some contracts, but congress said you accept paper currency instead of gold since it has been deemed legal tender for all debts public and private. Bankers know that you could file voluntary bankruptcy to discharge your debts if you couldn’t afford to pay anymore. This is why they sell the debt in the secondary market.

    READ both of these cases real good to understand. Please do this BEFORE any person reply’s to my writing. To many people on here start typing away with no real case law to back what they say, and only try to use play of words.

  79. once the debt is discharged in bankruptcy (the SPV), the proceeding must be “in rem”. debt follows the person, i.e. “in personam”. the liability being foreclosed upon is the banks’, not yours. therefore, the argument of “derecognition” arises as your note is gone. all that is left is the property, the “res”.

  80. and I have a newfound respect for lawyers, Harry.

  81. masterservicer, you are much more handsome than that woman in the picture. And I know we are blockheads sometimes. What’s worse is that this site has degraded to what appears to be a tool for selling a service with little value.
    The SPE was funded with STOCK, not LOANS. Your loans were deposited and exchanged for CASH, which was used to buy MORE STOCK. The investor money was taken “off shore”. Now the trusts are devoid of any loans, only stock certs that are paying interest. The loans have been paid for by TARP. The money is now expatriated, and in the hands of the rentiers. The civil forfeiture is being pursued by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. These judges have their marching orders.

    do I have it now?

  82. @masterservicer

    Regarding IndyMac and “uncovered loans”—how can that info help millions of people get ther homes back?

  83. I know that, and we appreciate your info, but morons is still unnecessary.

    Our whole life is monitored. I am suprised NG didn’t block your message then.


  85. Mary its the attacks aginst my messages from people who have other motivations – you are being monitored

  86. I have to say masterservicer: You are pretty rude, regardless.

    Morons is unnecessary.

  87. @masterservicer

    I meant no offense, but the link did direct me to a phishing warning.

    Thank you everyone for your imput, but I am done with all of this. I don’t care what it is called or why they did or whatever. I don’t want to know any more law than how can I resolve this.

  88. @Mary: “… why does someone who had been subjected to fraud, owe anyone???” Mary must be right according to this country’s laws of “FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING” cited in this nuclear attack on drug funded mortgages:

  89. How am I legit- read fool …read and verify it yourself . Your property was granted and conveyed unencumbered and subject only to all liens of record . This calls out for In Rem Proceeding in state of formation. The liens of record are a UCC filing for a warehouseline converted into a five year bond. Your beingforeclosed on subejct to conversion into a commerical ine used to create a five year bond damn it. This site is stealing money from millions of people …fraud

  90. ..You Garfiled disciples who keep people interested by bantering amongst one another about everything that have nothing to do with nothing. I testified before the CA appeals court and they remanded. This is a civil forfeiture brought under seal in a claim against title you surrendered at the time you signed the docs. The instrument you executed say’s point blank “…for national use with limited jurisdiction for recording purposes. Your property was seized at time of settlement. It changed over in 1996 the same time Mers Corp was adopted and the first SP bonds were rolled out by Wells Fargo. My testimony in the CA appellate decision was against Mers Corp …wake up Jack A$$.

  91. If the loans are uncovered and there is no investor they need a thrid party to act as the successors and assigns – Mers Corp. This nominee is the benficary for billions of bad loans that were never sold. Want a Mers Lawsuit -there it is …and moron wants to talkabout phishing (Jacka$$)

  92. Listen to me… I am on the same web this guy is on. Phishing . Look IndyMac who funds billions in uncovered loans . Uncovered means there is no investor take out. Do you least understand this fraudulant effort to decieve the fed regulators (Forget my site) – don’t go to it. I publish here ..

  93. Not only is he a phisher of men (and women), have you read the drivel at his site? Come on now Maher, you really need to fork over some of that ill-gotten booty taken from borrowers in need of someone expert in something besides decoding Dr. Bronner labels and buy the services of a good copy editor. It’s easier to understand cuneiform than one of your paragraphs.

    At least include some pictographs or stick drawings…anything to shed some light on what comes across as a swirling sucking black hole where the glow of simple reason can’t escape. Derecognize that.

  94. BTW
    “masterservicer” is M.Soliman…or Nancy Drewe…they just put up a pic of some woman…

  95. @nieder

    Well, I still don’t think it helps the cause of the homeowners to keep saying “investor-lenders”…or does Neil only want to help the “muppets”? I just think it’s very confusing for people to come to this site and get mixed messages. We don’t need more confusion.

  96. @masterservicer

    you link has a phishing site warning, so do tell, you’re legit?

  97. How can you call economic good will at 20:1 the value of the wh lines held by banks – -an IOU – NG you are a threat to the sector your stealing fees from …cease and desist … stop these theories as they are out of control…used to sell seats and booklets or drew
    The lender is a tax payer corporation formed as a REIT. The FDIC Bank is the tax payer insured principal in the deal. The sponsor is a ratable REIT subsidiary and the vehicle is a not for profit corporation. The registrants are broker dealers that formed off shore enterprise accounts with the Caymans, Geneva, Bermuda and other tax havens to park cash, lots of cash. It’s one cluster Funk of a tax shelter that caught the world sleeping while US banks raped the homeowners and dumped as much toxicity (bad capital) on the world with the promise the US tax payer would pay it back …. And it worked.
    And these morons are talking about Robo signatures and Mers Corp – the truth is at

  98. What kind of old fool ATM saleman and attorney would call economic good will at 20:1 the value of the whlines held by banks – -an IOU – NG you are a threat to the sector your stealing fees from …cease and decist … stop these theories as they are out of control…used to sell seats and booklets or drek

    the lender is a tax payer corpration formed as a REit. The FDIC Bank is the tax payer insured principal in hte deal. The sponsir is a raxable REIT subsidiary and the vehicle is a not for profit coporation. The registrants are broker dealers that formed off shore enterpirse accounts with the caymans, genevea, Bermuda and other tax havens to park cash, lots of cash. Its one cluster Funk of a tax shelter that caught the worl sleeping while US banks raped the homeowners and dumped as much toxicity (bad capital) on the world with the promise the US tax payer would pay it back …. and it worked .

    And these morons are talking about Robo signitures and Mers Corp – the truth is at

  99. When a Partys most efficiet asset is to bait homeowners (usually via brokers) offering a to good to be true refi offer, or loan mod, there is usually a liability release and waiver they want signed ..hmmm? Why is that? In my book we call them Master Baiters NOT Master Servicers. .. Just Sayin..

  100. You morons
    Mers Corp is an intervening assignement that is all J Gault – stop guessing . NG go steal money …the Bar knows what is happening here and morons continue to philosophy One share , iou idiots S*T*O*P!

  101. @galt – finally, some sense! And a very good way to attack MERs. It seems MERs is hoping nobody will catch on to the fact that the homeowner, not the bank is the ‘issuer.’

    The entire chain falls apart. If JNJ issues 100 shares of stock to you and you then sell those shares to Bob giving him an IOU on a napkin instead of delivering the shares, Bob cannot present the napkin to JNJ demanding shares be issued in his name.

    Only the issuer can authorize MERs.

  102. Theft by inducement is so easy to understand. No matter how much time passes since the origination it still smells. I don’t really care anymore what they did with the funds ( real or imagined), because if it was fraud from the get go, the rest really doesn’t matter, unless of course we are talking RICO.

    @masterservicer- just feel like teasing all of us with your inside knowledge? If you KNOW what happened, why not write whole sentences and tell us.

  103. @neidermeyer, Well Said! @Carie, … The Truth is the Truth. You must learn to accept it. @masterservicer … “sticks my tounge out at you” …. hahaha! @ tnharry, do I need to get my switch out again? Play Nice Kids!

  104. we have all been asset stripped they knew exactly how when and in contrivance by and through one another, realise we are talking a pretty big ring of corruption where right or wrong those involved took the bribe.
    i hope they are very happy in their world.

  105. @ masterservicer ,

    troll baiting?

    If you want to proffer info then please spill the beans … so you’re the smartest person in the room? The bottom line is that my 83 year old mother has been driving for half a century and all she knows is where to put the gas and the keys .. in other words ,, you don’t need to know everything ,, just enough… the knowledge level in the public has been rising over the last 5 years or so … Don’t be so smug.

  106. @carie ,

    Love You … but you know exactly what Neil means ,,, the “investor lenders” are what Goldman Sachs internally refer to as “muppets” ,, they are the stooges that put up real hard cash money (pension funds , etc.) to buy the worthless certificates .. they were screwed by the creators of the certificates and the bundlers .. the entire sell side mechanism. They have no clear ownership of anything prior to securitization and no security (they were promised security)…

    Please give Neil a break , he’s writing for a wider audience than just the hard-core…

  107. Google: BOA vs. Julme, Florida case

  108. Thanks A.M.

  109. Your guessing Garfiled , Just Guessng. Where does the Goodwill fit in Bubba. Where does the bond sold to DBS fit in .? Where does the short term commerical paper fit in …Clue less dude .

    You never spent a minute on the street have you?

    Now why are you and the attorneys taking money from clients . . .when they and you know this is a civil forefieture claim ?

    You argue what you need to keep the Bar happy (tell those attorneys how to take your readers money big daddy …tell them we only do modifications )

    but the Bar knows and so do you …so why you taking their money Big Neil ….The Accountants

  110. Neil—please explain why you keep saying “investor-lenders” over and over…I counted 8 times in this post.

    The investors you speak of never lent anything.

    Why the spin? What are you trying to achieve by trying to get the term “investor-lender” ingrained in our vocabulary? As if it has some weight or truth?

    Does anyone know Neil motives for doing this? How is it helpful to keep saying this?

  111. I need a diagram to understand this–im slow

  112. So what happems if Fannie or Freddie claim to have / hold the mortgage and the loan ?

  113. This is rich. From Mers propraganda:

    “When the originator has not recorded an original MERS as mortgagee security instrument (MOM) , the ISSUER saves the cost of assigning to the Trust by having the originator assign to MERS”.

    Oh, really? MERS is telling its members they need not assign to the trust (but is the “issuer” even a mers member?) Bad kids. 1) Avoidance of assignment to the trusts in violation of the psa’s (you know those written agreements on which reliance was induced) 2) MERS is actively promoting this violation, 3) MERS own rules call for recordation of an assgt when the beneficial interest goes to a non-member. The investors, the parties with the beneficial interests, are non-members. If they were or are members (which they aren’t), then MERS is breaching whatever relationship it has with the investors as its principal and also aiding and abetting someone else’s breach of the psa. It might be a struggle for a homeowner to make use of
    this intent and aiding of violation of the psa, but it might be tried when fighting about whether or not a loan was or was not assigned to
    the trust by a cut-off date on the basis that by design with MERS, there was no intent to do so. One might ask the court to take judicial notice for even a limited purpose. I am working on the source (found it in a case with no source – dang). Or heck, when I get the source, or you beat me to it, just print it out and mail it to every judge in your area. Sooner or later with enough ‘stuff’ in their faces, courts are going to have to get the picture like it or not. Investors or their counsel might be interested in this little tidbit.

  114. What about other “loan schedules” existences from other servicers/banks? IndyMac FSB to OneWest, for example? ‘Course that was an “FDIC receivership” situation, so I guess that’s different…

  115. Neil and all:
    Google JPMCHASE v. Waisome in Florida where jpm admits in deposition that no loan shedule has ever existed by which they claim ownership of failed wamu loans. Please zero in on it’s impact, thanks

  116. The real problem is that the promissory notes ARE the payment to the bank. The bank then monetizes the promissory note. No bank in this country has enough money to honor its demand deposits or to lend out. It may be true that we borrowers don’t have enough money to buy a house outright, but it’s equally true that banks don’t have enough money to lend to us. It’s a giant scam from top to bottom, and it’s not even secret. Wright Patman, Modern Money Mechanics, etc.

  117. Unsecured debt, possible lien or judgment. So the people cannot move forward with their lives and held captive with a property until they die. Well that is not what the average Joe thought about when they bought, refinanced…Not to mention the pounding the people’s credit are taking.

    We are being punished for crimes and fraud committed by parties, in which those crimes and frauds were not made known to people, trying to make a fair contract.

    And then there are some who purchase these notes, not secured by nothing and just keep pushing them around, knowing, they bought them for pennies on the dollar, and they should be made whole??

  118. Please explain, why does someone who had been subjected to fraud, owe anyone???

    Just saying.

  119. Once again point missed. It means the debt is unsecured, no mortgage or deed of trust.

    You owe somebody.

  120. Ok… Let’s see what happens when banking collapses in a small country and big UK banks have serious interests at stake. Might we be staring imminent collapse in the face…? In which case foreclosure will be the least of our problems… at least for a while.

    Tycoon’s arrest sparks bank run in Vietnam
    August 23, 2012

    Nguyen Duc Kien is a shareholder in some of Vietnam Nguyen Duc Kien is a shareholder in some of Vietnam’s largest financial institutions

    Nervous Vietnamese have pulled hundreds of millions of dollars from the banking system after a flamboyant financier was arrested for fraud, state media reported Thursday.

    The benchmark VN Index plunged 4.24 percent on Thursday as bank shares continued to slide, raising losses at the bourse to nearly 10 percent since news of Nguyen Duc Kien’s detention for “illegal business activities” broke three days ago.

    Multi-millionaire Kien, 48, a shareholder in some of Vietnam’s largest financial institutions and a founder of Asia Commercial Bank (ACB), was taken into custody late Monday after police raided his Hanoi home.

    ACB’s stocks have tanked nearly 20 percent since Kien’s arrest as jittery customers line up to withdraw deposits, forcing the central bank to pump cash into the institution, state media reported.

    More than $240 million was withdrawn from the bank on Tuesday, the Tuoi Tre newspaper said, while the price of gold has surged as savers scramble for a safe haven.

    At ACB branches in Hanoi on Thursday, customers queued to withdraw their savings forcing the central bank to send truckloads of cash to ensure liquidity, an AFP reporter said.

    “Thanks to advance preparation we still ensured good repayment,” ACB Deputy Chief Executive Officer Do Minh Toan told Tuoi Tre.

    The central bank pumped more than $600 million into the banking system Wednesday — double the sum of Tuesday’s intervention — according to official data.

    Its governor Nguyen Van Binh has issued rare public assurances that depositors’ funds are safe, pledging to “ensure liquidity for ACB and other banks if there is a mass withdrawal.”

    ACB has denied reports that the bank’s general director Ly Xuan Hai has also been arrested, but confirmed that Toan was “temporarily” in charge while Hai assisted police with the investigation into Kien.

    The central bank has said Kien’s arrest is not related to the ACB — where he holds a less than five percent stake — but concerned accusations of wrongdoing at three smaller financial companies where he is chairman.

    Kien is said to hold shares in ACB — which counts global banking giant Standard Chartered as one of its “strategic partners” — as well as Sacombank, Eximbank, VietBank and others.

    He was reportedly involved in drafting the country’s new bank reforms.


  121. And would that hold true for a modification of the note & mortgage, done by the servicer, whereby it was only a rate change of the note & mortgage that was signed at closing (with the alleged lender/originator)?

    Would that be considered more non-disclosure? Aiding and abetting, etc., so that the servicer could continue to collect from the alleged borrower??

    And would that be considered a fraud in the inducement (at closing) as well as fraud in covering that up for as long as they can??

  122. @tnharry,

    … which, as i understand it, would be to return to the homeowner everything he paid into the house (down payment, closing costs, monthly payments, repairs, etc.) and return the house to… whom? The seller? The bank? And how far back do you go? Because oftentimes, the seller himself was in the midst of purchasing another house and what happened is a transfer from one loan obligation to another with no actual money changing hands.

    Hair-pulling stuff.

  123. it seems there is more crazy here than when i was last visiting…

  124. Neil Wrote “but there are not grounds to say there was or even would have been acceptance if the true facts were known,” -endquote.

    It’s interesting that you came to write that because I am working on a defense project and that is the exact same conclusion I have come to in regards to a credit card lawsuit.

    If the defendant had known that there would be no exceptions, that the credit card debt in essence would be considered by the debt holder to be of more importance than any other debt or moral obligation the debtor may have, the debtor may not have entered into an agreement in the first case.

    Is there any case study where that argument has been used in credit card cases in the past? It’s almost such a logical argument I fear a judge would not allow it because it could open the floodgates for many to use that defense.

  125. Ahhh and the light brightens, yes theft by deception as usual for the financial institutions. Yes we (out nation of people)should go forth and make a return to the people (this will not happen), people have been stomped to the ground and would not even be able to pay a lawyer…a decent lawyer would do well to step up with mass claims, take a part of the restitution as there should be a lot to repayment to take place!! will any lawyer touch it, probably not. But yes fraud it is and has been from day one. Thank you Neil for putting the light Back on the real issue Fraud.

  126. tnharry, that does sound reasonable. But, the properties are valued lower than before this all started. Remember how we got here.

    In my opinion, if they offered people fair market value, with additional reduction for the abuses, frauds, etc., they have experienced, would not be a bad idea to get this economy going again. And they must also guarantee good title for resale, (should the owners want to sell down the line). As well as a decent rate.

    That would be reasonable to me. We know pretty much who did what and they will pay the piper, “hopefully” one by one. We all could only hope.

  127. And would that hold true for a modification of the note & mortgage, done by the servicer, whereby it was only a rate change of the note & mortgage that was signed at closing (with the alleged lender/originator)?

    Would that be considered more non-disclosure? Aiding and abetting, etc., so that the servicer could continue to collect from the alleged borrower??

    And would that be considered a fraud in the inducement (at closing) as well as fraud in covering that up for as long as they can??

  128. evryone go back to go , do not collect $200 and start this game all over again…….give me back my hard cash deposit……take the house and/or sell it to me at MARKET PRICE

  129. Can’t they get around this argument by saying the consideration was paid by an agent? I mean people did move into these homes and someone who previously owned the home got paid.

  130. ” Absent all three there is no way for a party to enforce an agreement for which there was either no acceptance nor any consideration.” except for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, or promissory estoppel. all of those are quasi-contract claims.

    the problem with the theory is that yes, you may be able to claim there was no valid contract, but you can’t keep the benefit of the contract if you go that route. also basic, first day of law school…

    the remedy for the situation the author describes would be either to give each party what they expected to receive from full performance of the contract, or to put each party back to where they were prior to the contract at issue.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: