Underwater homes under 40 and over 55 still in dire straights

Obama response unclear. He keeps saying that the  object here is not to include “undeserving” borrowers who are just trying to get out of a bad deal a deal that went bad or whose eyes were bigger than their pocket book. As long as he keeps saying that he is missing the whole point. This was a Ponzi Scheme and even if the borrowers were convicted felons behind bars they would still be victims of THIS Scheme. ALl the elements are present — identity theft, diversion of funds, false documentation to both sides, fabrication of documents as the lies came under scrutiny, forgeries, surrogate signing, robo-signing, and profits 1000 times the usual profits for processing or originating loans.

None of these profits were disclosed to either the lender-investor nor the homeowner borrower, violating a myriad of mending and contract laws. It doesn’t matter whether the borrower is perceived as deserving relief — they all are if they were fraud victims.

If the average guy on the street knows we have been screwed without all the economic statistics, why won’t Obama at least acknowledge it?

See Vast geography contains underwater homes inviting homeowners to walk away from homes they are willing to pay for

176 Responses

  1. i AGREE. This is a horrific crime against all human beings on the globe. It is not just the house. It includeds our castles no matter what class we are in. Our castle our home and our rights not to be taken and victimiized. The future we leave for our children and their children.

  2. Wonder how they are going to sweep this illusion of billions more in crime under the carpet? Seems like their is no crime to big for the government and TBTF banks to dance around. They are magicians magically making all crime disappear. Unless you are in the five percent or less group. Then you go to jail. The crooks want no competition from the smaller crooks.
    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/08/27/libor-scandals-potential-costs-exploding-to-88-billion-or-more/ They will sweep this problem away. to just watch. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil!



  4. I have noticed that the major media is covering Mitt more than Obama.
    Could it be because Obama has a 4% lead over Mitt?
    It seems that the people who control the media, and the banks, and both parties want the election to be as close as possible.
    They want a 50.2 to 49,8 ratio.
    To keep Americans people divided lest they see the men behind the curtain.
    Regardless of the election results, expect no prosecution of fraud by the TBTF banks or Wall St, No investigation of 9/11. Less freedom and the loss of our rights.
    Being AWAKE while everyone else is ASLEEP is frustrating.

  5. And while we’re looking at Obama’s claim nothing illegal was done, if the language used in the psa were willfully framed to make the investors believe they had rights which they didn’t (like some recourse
    against the borrower or anyone else past any possible guarantee – guarantee: think at least FNMA and we still haven’t gotten to the bottom of that one), to say that’s not “illegal”, but just maybe immoral, is crap or at least somewhat misleading, (not calling it what it is – wrong – and stopping at it’s not illegal) although it might be literally true. If that language exists as I am suspecting – okay, speculating – is Obama saying it was a case of “buyer beware”? If that’s true, than any of the ratings’ agencies which were in on the A+ ratings on this paper should be shot (no, not literally) just for this and the pension fund mgr tarred and feathered for ignorance or alleged ignorance. Well, the investors are at least litigating the willful misrepresentation of the quality of the loans. If the language were deceitful though not illegal, and judges know it (and if they don’t, they should be made aware imo), maybe they should really sock it to WS as much as possible on the lies about the quality.

  6. If the warehouse lines weren’t paid off, and this is speculation solely,
    it seems to me that the w/h lender, unless they really messed with those warehouse contracts / agreements from what would seem to be the reasonable terms (pay off by time certain, subrogation), the warehouse lender has a security interest in the loans. But even if they messed with the agreements to preclude payoff by a time certain and subrogation, I don’t think that vitiates the warehouse lender’s collateral interest. So how could they be securitized (not to mention being sold to and going thru any of the agencies or private outfits on their way)?
    Wish we knew more so we didn’t have to speculate. Someone sane knows these answers. Probably lots of ‘someones’ sane. We just need to find them.

  7. JG,

    I can’t answer. All i can do is exactly what you do: look at what info we have so far (and we’re still missing a lot) and try to make sense of it.

    As an example, from the very get go, Obama has been adamant that “banks have not done anything illegal”. He didn’t say it just once or twice but over and over. You and I look at what was committed and we can’t subscribe to it. We look at the complaint which made the basis for the infamous settlement and fraud is spelled out at pretty much every level of the banks’ operations. We hear Bill Black and Neil Barofsky repeat over and over that fraud was endemic. Yet, no banker has gone to jail. No investigation has taken place and obscene bonuses are routinely still handed out.


    Somehow, i believe that there was some mechanism in place whereby the FDIC not only condoned fraud but needed it in order to accommodate the monsters that FHA, Fannie and Freddie had become. Even the fact that Fannie and freddie still exist is highly suspicious. Why is DeMarco so secretive? Why is he adamant that they must not allow principal reductions? Why did Obama name that guy in the first place and why does he act now as though he was above government? Does that include warehousing of mortgage loans? I have no idea. But think about it: despite the extensive coverage this has generated, Congress still hasn’t taken action. Government still hasn’t taken action. Regulatory agencies still haven’t taken action. And DeMarco reigns.

    We have only some pieces of the puzzle. All we can hope for, right now, is a judge who sees eye to eye with arguments we bring forth and feels as outraged and uncomfortable with the blurry big picture as we, homeowners, individually feel.

  8. There has been a crime at every peel of the onion. Where ever a buck could be made in the millions and billions it seems to have been done. No stone was left unturned. Layers and layers of crime.

  9. @enraged – do you think or know that the fed 1) provided the warehouse lines 2) to the same institution that made the loan to the borrower, as in no intermediary even? I see what you mean, sort of, abstractedly, about the fdic and wamu if the warehouse line were never retired and it had been provided to wamu by the fed. But only sort of because then what would stop the fdic from selling the loans it had funded and actually held as collateral, if its warehouse line were never paid off or I think even if it were? Seems to me those would be the loans that wouldn’t be subject to this fdic forfeiture business if there’s any merit to it. The answer might be found in the remedy, the rights accruing to a warehouse lender holding the loans as collateral in the event of non-payoff. I’m gonna take a stab and guess those
    arrangements come with subrogation as a matter of course (sooner or later ish) for failure to payoff in a time certain (not to mention the accruing fees still owed) If that’s true, the loans would become the property of the warehouse lender without further ado by contractual agreement (the warehouse line agreement) UNless those warehouse line contracts were materially changed to avoid the fees if not the
    subrogation. And holy crud if they were, either one.
    Mostly beyond my ken, really, other than that. The nuisance says the fed stopped their handy warehouse lines in favor of allowing the banks to use depositor funds for that purpose. My understanding of banking is so limited as to stop me from legitimately weighing in much on that factor, that factor being the use of the depositor funds for temporary funding v permanent funding, as in what I’d call a ‘normal’
    bank loan. But if they sold the loans to the agencies, those “warehouse lines” using deposits or a fed or whatever warehouse line to provide initial funding, should have been paid off, right? Please tell me they weren’t allowed to sell the loans to the agencies or whomever and then continue on the float. If they sold the loans to the agencies or whomever, their ability to continue on the float was not dependent on the borrower’s payment because they lost it by the sale of the loan. Surely a sale would trigger the subrogation agreement with at least the fed? But, oh dear, they had sold the loans as if the subrogation agreement or any terms of the warehouse line agreement would not compel the payoff of the warehouse line? Or don’t say it – they got rid of the subrogation agreement and any other terms which would compel the banks to payoff the loans on the warehouse lines upon sale, while good men and women were sleeping. And no such subrogation or other terms if using depositor funds because the banks wrote the rules? ish. Holy moly. Banks floating depositor or fed funds ad infinitum and ad nauseum with the “corpus” for the loans gone? This just can’t be. I hope I’ve gone sideways or something like that. Obama better not mean this is what wasn’t illegal because someone saw to it that it wouldn’t be. That would be insane, wouldn’t it? For all I know, which isn’t much at all on the subject of banking, banks have always been allowed to put deposits at risk, just not in this way. And then throw in the fact that they are publicly traded and the issues with this “capital value”. That one is way past me.
    But even acknowledging my extremely limited acumen, in fact don’t have any, about banking, I would still stand by mers-the-non-bank-as beneficiary bifurcating the note and dot, surely for purposes of the nuisance’s argument, which means the dot is unenforceable. Following what I think is the nuisance’s argument, which I don’t pretend to understand a lot of at least past a certain point, if the fdic has a path to the note by some trail of mechanisms, including any theories (speculation, discussion – skip the crap) by me here about who funded the loans and maybe didn’t get paid back, if the dot ben is in fact mers and not the bank(s), the fdic has an unsecured note. Here we go again. UNless the fdic 1) successfully can argue the dot followed the note 2) mers was just fluff, and 3) the dot was its property for not having the warehouse line paid off (because the dot followed the note), 4) if the fed were the warehouse line or 5) there are some rams to using depositor funds for funding and not paying them back upon sale, which seems to me there is or damm sure out to be, which 86’s mers on that score and 6) all this leads to forfeiture by some trail having to do with these issues, but not exclusively.
    So until the fdic comes after its alleged property, even as that may be what the nuisance is saying is done in the names of the banks,
    I’m sticking with what I can. But it is alarming to think those
    warehouse lines, no matter the option for sources here – I guess fed, bank deposits, investors funds – might not have been paid off.
    It’s only speculative for me. And like enraged said, prove it. And what’s the point of pursuing this? The only reason I can think of that would benefit the homeowner is to argue the note and dot are bifurcated and that’s already been tried, although under this doctrine, not for the right reasons and for that matter, just not by the right reasons. Maybe. It’s more likely mers is a front for something we here have a name for. Or start a constitutional pi$$ing match about (if nothing else I can’t name) real property not going to the government in such a fashion, especially one that was asleep on the job and not protecting the interests of the citizenry, if it didn’t just plain participate and abet.

  10. You are right some will have a third reason but not me. Ron Paul is the only one I will vote for. We have been controlled by fear, propaganda and power mongers. I am sick of it. Ron Paul is the only one that addresses the mortgage fraud, and tried to stop this crime years ago. The parties are so afraid of him they try to sweep him under the table. Dont know will get us into trouble. Hope everyone makes a choice and votes. Dont know and keeping out of it is what got us into this trouble. Let the other guys rule the world they will take care of us. NO THEY DONT THEY TAKE CARE OF THEIR PHSYCOPATHIC DESIRE TO RULE THE WORLD. AND KEEP YOU A SLAVE, SO WAKE UP PEOPLE AND SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE. AND GET INVOLVED.

  11. JG,

    “There could be a devil in the details if they didn’t pay off the warehouse line with funds from any source. Oh, my word. That’s a big spread. Gazillions of dollars if they left the loan on the warehouse line: The warehouse line is an overnight rate, much less than the note rate. But if they did this, what fatheads allowed it? Nay, I must be mistaken on this one because surely like a construction loan which is not paid off by a time certain, fees and points start accruing. But again, that’s only true if some fatheads were running the deal differently in favor of the banks, that is, no extraordinary fees and points accruing for delayed payoff.”

    I can’t comment on whether you’re right or not but… I surely can comment on whether it is possible or, better yet, probable. Remind me again: who were the players? Paulson? Geithner, formerly reporting to Jamie boy? Blankfein, who owned everything that had a heart beat? And tell me again, whatever happened to FHA, Freddie and Fannie? And would you have any idea why neither is subject to FOIA? Lastly, would you have any idea how, after the bailouts, those big bank became… twice as big?

    Would you be able to explain the Wamu/Chase transfers any other way? Remember, everything was done through the FDIC, without any proper document, let alone a schedule of loans. Tie it all together and you’ll see that your understanding isn’t so farfetched.

    Does 2 + 2 = 4?

    Proving it might be a different story altogether, though. And having a pretty good insight doesn’t mean being capable of expressing it in terms a court would buy.

  12. and if what I said is on point, that MERS is a non-bank, not subject to the fdic’s forfeiture (assuming arguendo there’s some merit there out of my reach), the author could have just said so instead of going off on those riduculous,offensive, and that word he’s so fond of rants.
    If his arguments have any merit, pity there not in better hands.

  13. The difference might be that when a warehouse line is used, the warehouse lender has only a security interest. But what is the situation if depositor funds and or investor funds are used to fund
    the warehouse line, i.e., the loans? If depositor funds were used, it might mean X. If it were the investor funds used, It might mean Y.
    It looks like it’s (the forfeiture) all tied to the “capital value” of the stock of the bank. Plus selling interests that were tied, or something, to
    our homes, real property, to foreigners, which in the way done, I’m taking as prohibitted. It isn’t necessary for a mers to be named a beneficiary to save us, UNless mers, a non-bank, being so named takes the dot out of the fdic’s grasp (for whatever reason it might be in the fdic’s grasp otherwise). But then, the note and dot are bifurcated. I don’t know how one would get around it, since mers the non-bank as ben, sep and distinct from the bank, is necessary to the argument.

  14. Anybody will know I don’t want to do this, but I’m not sure we can ignore some things said here. Last night I thought I would lose a kingdom before I would deal with a certain repugnant ilk. But this
    might bear looking at, even if it becomes a so what:

    “The banks are not at fault as it is the Directors of these banks that were allowed to use FDIC tax payer insured funds to promulgate their own investments It was alleged to ween the banks off their codependency of the Fed for over the counter short term yields and borrowing”.

    What a minute. The alternative to overnight lending was allowing the banks to use “FCIC tax payer insured funds”, which to me says
    consumer deposits, to “promulgate their own investments”. Banks have always been allowed to leverage their deposits, have they not?
    So what’s new? How is this other than business as usual? Where’s the dependency on overnight lending from the Fed, UNless it were the
    FED providing the overnight warehouse line? Was it? If so, news to me. Not that I would have known, actually. The borrower’s signature has always provided the collateral for overnight lending, even as it didn’t make the warehouse line the lender. The w/h lender only had a security interest. Is it to say the banks were allowed to use depositor funds for the overnight lending which theretofore hadn’t been allowed? What was wrong with overnight lending that it inspired the
    use of depositor funds in its stead, if that’s what’s said here. This might conflict with NG’s doctrine (the use of depositor funds in banks v investor funds, but keep reading, if I may).
    FNMA and FHLMC were set up to provide the “take-out financing” more or less because the lender who used a mol overnight warehouse line would then sell the paper to those agences and payoff the warehouse line. Well, that’s how it was supposed to work. There could be a devil in the details if they didn’t pay off the warehouse line with funds from any source. Oh, my word. That’s a big spread. Gazillions of dollars if they left the loan on the warehouse line: The warehouse line is an overnight rate, much less than the note rate. But if they did this, what fatheads allowed it? Nay, I must be mistaken on this one because surely like a construction loan which is not paid off by a time certain, fees and points start accruing. But again, that’s only true if some fatheads were running the deal differently in favor of the banks, that is, no extraordinary fees and points accruing for delayed payoff. GNMA took the fha and va paper. The lender, who once portfoliio’d the loans, before the advent of the agencies, got theirs out of the spread. Somewhere between greed and a desire to spread the risk away from the agencies (accent on greed), securitization raised its ugly head. According to NG, think, never want to misquote, the investors funds were used to fund the loan, although I have been hard-pressed to follow the money down to the closing table. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Just means I don’t know the mechanics, UNless the banks that got the dough were the same banks using depositor funds to fund loans, and they just threw the investor funds in with the rest of the deposits, mol. And this would mean, I think, that what is meant by the comment is that the banks started using depositor funds
    including the investors’ funds, the ostensible reason to wean them off overnight lending by the Fed) in lieu of a warehouse line for the overnight funding pending sale to one of the agencies or hell skipped that for all I know and went right to the trusts, who has partially if not fully funded the loan by the use of the bank of the
    investors money. If the investors money were segregated, which I’d say it must have been, than their funds were used to fully fund the loans (in lieu of a warehouse line) Got me. And got me why the Fed
    would want them weaned off the use of warehouse lines for overnight funding, if it were the Fed providing those warehouse lines in the first place. So, I wonder, 1) IF the Fed were providing the warehouse line and 2) what was allegedly or really wrong with that deal that it needed relief such that depositor funds or investor funds could or would be used. But poor banks? Not in this lifetime. I don’t know that the Fed provided those overnight funds as the warehouse lines, but its need for truncation (had to look that up to make sure it’s a word) was either bull with a capital B or was caused by abuse by the bankers, which could have not been allowed. And we’d have to keep going to see how the use of those funds leads to a particular conclusion about the FDIC’s rights, especially , I think, if the FDIC has a priority claim. The fdic only has a priority claim , i would think, when it has had to take over an institution. So it’s a claim from a different path – the claim for forgeiture. Still, this may not have been a worthless exercise if we learn, for what it might be worth, that banks were using depositors funds as their warehouse lines.

  15. Great documentary from PBS. We all know what really happened and the result of it. To have on MSM is something else.


  16. My comment lord was re I had written something and left De off Deborah. Therefore It went for” moderation.”. Woops. Sorry
    Please all stop being mean. It’s hard enough without getting pissy Live n let live.
    Non resistance. Nothing more powerful

  17. ToLLe,

    Ain’t gonna work. He’ll come back through the window with another name… 🙂

  18. Shelley,

    Are those your only two choices? Fear or heart? Did you consider… I don’t know… reason?

  19. Nomods says, “Look answer the questions please . Just hep [sic] us out and answer the questions.”

    OK, here’s the answer:


    Now I’ll hep you out….there’s the door…..

  20. Dont add me into we all believed this guy. I was in dire fear of this happening with him, however I mistook the republicans were doing this to us also. So either way we were screwed. We need Ron Paul in office. So many tell me they believe Ron Paul will make a difference and Romney is the lesser of two evils but they are going to vote out of fear of loosing a vote for Ron Paul and allowing Obama back in they are choosing to vote Romney out of fear when if they voted by tnheir heart they would vote Ron Paul. If everyone that thinks this way voted out of heart and not fear, I trully beilieve Ron Paul would be president. I am voiting out of heart. I cannot bring myself to vote out of fear and be responsible for the next horror coming our way if Romney gets in or Obama the worst of the two evils..

  21. Look answer the questions please . Just hep us out and answer the questions.

  22. A “Robo” signature is a blessing to your case…a blessing . and your throwing it away …why ? Robo signatures are legal under the law and rules governing a fictitious payee. Herein the instrument is payable to the bearer . . .when it is payable to the order of a fictitious or non existing person , and such fact was known to the person making it so payable .” This dates back to ancient law and is held today by operation of common law.


  23. Why we all got screwed: we believed the guy. We did. We really did!
    And since his administration is the only thing standing between banks and pitchforks, we need to remove it. Simple.

    “Obama came into office vowing to end business as usual, and, in the gray post-crash dawn of 2009, nowhere did a reckoning with justice seem more due than in the financial sector. The public was shaken, and angry, and Wall Street seemed oblivious to its own culpability, defending extravagant pay bonuses even while accepting a taxpayer bailout. Obama channeled this anger, and employed its rhetoric, blaming the worldwide economic collapse on “the reckless speculation of bankers.” Two months into his presidency, Obama summoned the titans of finance to the White House, where he told them, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

    The bankers may have found the president’s tone unsettling. Candidate Obama had been their guy, accepting vast amounts of Wall Street campaign money for his victories over Hillary Clinton and John McCain (Goldman Sachs executives ponied up $1 million, more than any other private source of funding in 2008). Obama far outraised his Republican rival, John McCain, on Wall Street–around $16 million to $9 million. As it turned out, Obama apparently actually meant what he said at that White House meeting–his administration effectively would stand between Big Finance and anything like a severe accounting. To the dismay of many of Obama’s supporters, nearly four years after the disaster, there has not been a single criminal charge filed by the federal government against any top executive of the elite financial institutions.”

  24. And I’m the president of the whole universe!!!

    Enjoy the day. It promises to be interesting. 🙂

  25. LORD- deborah wynn REAL NAME

  26. no one wins in the lower courts but they flog you to death first. only the strong survive, know you are in for the roughest ride of your life. i could have bought a nice home cash twice, with what ive lost fighting this case but the way i feel is who wants a house with clouded title owned truthfully by god knows who, you are still a renter and the big boys hold the keys in front of your nose who needs that or accepts that or tolerates that. i want justice.THE MOST GOOD FOR THE MOST PEOPLE.

  27. ToLLe,

    You missed the whole point of that insanity. NG is the devil and Soliman is your savior. Just send him 27 easy monthly payments of $438 and he’ll be able to close on his 5th house. You and I are shills and don’t let me start on poor John Gault … who keeps practicing law without a license! The bastard!

    This site is under attack from some pretty quirky dudes… and it’s not even full moon yet!

  28. Did the banks sell the stock representing the equity in US home to foreign national banks.

    Did the capital value of the stock exceed the capitalization of the bank itself?

    If so does MersCorp represent the right of the consumer to repurchase his or her home?

    If the stock was charged off down to ten percent of the homes value ….does this mean the MersCorp “substitute and delete” mandatory requirement for rolling over these securities into a new five year bond cause the modification to be more than meets the eye?

    If a modification cannot happen at less than par (notes face value) or a maximum of ten percent of the par value…then are the debt collectors restoring value going to sale with the equity in your home?

    I am hearing of people being turned down for modifications for being overqualified….This is due to the restraint on income not exceeding the 10 percent threshold.

    MersCorp is the bailment agreements that is restoring the original form and substance of the mortgage before its conversion and dilution into preferred shares.

    These foreclosures wreak of a recapitalization effort tossing the borrower out of home. Once out its a matter of accrued interest for the next 10 years so no hurry t fill those homes with new buyers or renters.

    Or better yet ….My name is enraged and I’m here to enrage you to buy more NG seminary tickets and securitization reports.

    People….I will go if these seminar sales shills and individual orifices (anonymous the enraged and inflamed Abbey the real John Gault ) are who you want to comment on your homes welfare.

    Let this site know who needs to go …


  29. Soliman has never been disqualified as a witness other than the moron who hired him failing to enter the proper motion for expert testimony in a circuit court. This site is linked to these comments and shall stand tall for the false claims made to date. People move on this site is the rip-off. If you enter court with this internet gibberish your marked from the onset.

    Neil I read your testimony . You address the bailee letter as multiple investors. Please Pops , once again, explain to this site

    What is a bailee letter for ?
    Why is Mers Corp proof of a long standing bailment claim?
    How can the convectional mortgage not be enforced under bailment?
    How doe interest calculate under a bailment arrangement ?
    Why is a blank endorsement in your favor ?
    Why is the ABA wire a known securities claim?
    How does the bailment fit into a zero coupon bond?
    Where dose the yield come from on a Zero ?
    How does phantom income prove your case?
    Why is tax avoidance so critical to these platforms and their success?
    Why are these nothing more than tax shelter schemes?
    Why do these foreclosures fall under EESA and TARP instrumentality for national security ?
    Why are these matters demanding a motion for closed door hearing
    How are the cases bifurcated by jurisdiction ?
    Why are these claims less arduousness argue under a simple ex-parte motion for failure to provided title the right of exoneration ?
    Why is a right of exoneration specific to a certain specific date?
    Where is the motion filed for intrinsic evidence?
    Why is extrinsic evidence critical to prevailing?
    Where does maritime law surface in a summary judgement?
    Why was the 12(b)6 motion introduced ?
    The 12(b) 6 substitute out the common law procedures for what?
    Why is personam and in rem so critical to the differentiating claims ?
    Why does USC 18 (25), (26) fall under a non criminal statute ?
    Who is the TRS and what role does it play?
    Is the not-for -profit really entity or a party ?
    Who is the investor and why will you not answer Carries question ?

    You got so long a way to go my friend….so close and yet so far to go to plead a solid claim. Now to what is important to your site and the efforts to avoid the truth …….

    ** He’s a rip off
    ** He rips clients off
    ** He sued tobacco companies
    ** Robo the Hobo signature
    ** Pooling and Servicing Hog wash
    ** Securitization reports
    ** Soliman s past clients recruited as experts….
    ** Linda Green and Kerosene

    If you can answer these questions your an expert that is 15 percent on his way to a winning testimony .



  30. So….the banks are not at fault and MERS is our savior?

    Talk about shills…..

  31. These people are disgusting shills. They are there to get people excited about moot arguments. They are there to incite chaos and controversy against the banks of the United States and to instigate controversy. Anything to draw in more desperate homeowners , wave after wave…Don’t push the matter Neil, with what I know I have enough class not to spread your dirty laundry .

    The banks are not at fault as it is the Directors of these banks that were allowed to use FDIC tax payer insured funds to promulgate their own investments It was alleged to ween the banks off their codependency of the Fed for over the counter short term yields and borrowing.

    Your homes were taken to pledge as collateral to swap the 30 60 and 90 days commercial paper rates and to swap out for Libor based 3 month and 6 month yields.

    Your homes debt was converted to equity and the title transferred unencumbered subject to all liens of record which stands for a UCC filing. You cannot have a UCC fling on a warehouse line that was transferred into common stock The UCC is against the common stock representing the equity in your home.This in part is why we ask – “how in the world can a first and second deed of trust or mortgage survive with a UCC filings. .

    Land patents and robo signatures are a draw to lead you away form the real arguments and this site must come clean. Either its known by this and they are concealing the facts or this site is incompetent to stand as a wittiness or purveyor of valuable information.

    I hear all the time “how does he know” Its never a complete sentence that should end with “he is not a member of the Bar!”

    Who is more crooked . . .this site or the sucked attorneys who fall for it’s bait of modifications and causes of action to prosecute bankers long after the statute of limitations has run its course. Assuming the attorneys do not already know . . .they lose their license for interfering with national security in a mass recovery of US assets lost to overseas banks.

    Modifications suck the next six payments from a desperate household.and its sites like these that sucks the same out with its internet securitization audits and land or procedures patent gibberish.

    Stop the pain and fight the last fight using an argument that makes sense .Look for yourself at the short term commercial paper rate from 1996 , the time of birth for MERS Corp through 2002 culminating the first five year bond cycle with Wells Fargo and Bank of America. From 5.4 percent down to .1.50 .and then to .500BPS in 2002 -2003,. Five more years later and whoops. Back up to 5.5 percent. Yet they still made loans in 2006 2007 and then passage of TARP and the EESA in October of 2008 and whoops again.

    As always….Fed intervention and down to 44 BPS. By then the party is over.


    For informational purposes only I am not an attorney nor are the other users of this registrations comments and views. Note – only an attorney can advise your of your rights . Call your state Bar for more information.



  32. You people talk about Wiki leaks and more gibberish.Soliman was with a client in Seattle, Ms Butler who will testify where he was when asked by the plaintiff to participate last minute in a settlement conference in the case these fools refer to .

    Soliman was there ready by phone and no call came in .

    This for a case using his testimony and it was later found out it was used by a Los Gatos attorney and client , an executive for State Farm insurance, to steal a home from an old woman.


    These unscrupulous mortgage fraud dealers want to use SOLIMAN’S testimony play Strong arm with the agencies…he refused. .

    These perpetrators of fraud use the right arguments for wrong purposes and are subject of an intense investigation for civil crimes against a title holders in foreclosure. It was extortion as Soliman did not cooperate and court ruled accordingly.

    He was told by one of them he would pay the price on the rip off report and other offshore character assassination efforts along with Garfield cast of sublieutenants if he did not cooperate.

    Neil should I release the names of these unscrupulous players and the names of people I was made known of that you have minding the shop while your away on business?

    Garfield – you must stop what your doing and lying to people- stop cease and desist. Soliman gave me your email that states “Not so fast” when confronted with why is the truth being suppressed from the public.

    Here we go people.Hang on to your hats. The next wave of the truth bashing is about to start by people that should not be so emotionally tied to the Soliman right of counter arguments.

    Watch people they cannot resist … watch them come out here …under there alias and false names and contracts

    Soliman has nothing to do with the Arab who was involved in the Philip Morris case. This is more evidence of the anti culture and anti antisemitism this site promotes

    Concern reader who believes i have been lied to all these years . Watch folks as these editorial;l rats are coming back out .. watch

    Just a reader.


  33. @Deb Wynn

    Yes, how to prove…we can’t prove if the judge won’t allow us to show the proof—because we are not allowed to see the proof…Fannie/Freddie won’t open their “books”—because then we could prove…and all would collapse.


    My mom is 80. She doesn’t want to start a business…she just wants to know where to put her money so it doesn’t disappear!

  34. @boots

    Yes, I saw that the loan numbers are completely different a long time ago—and of course I brought that up to the servicer, and they had their own lame explanation which made no sense…but they don’t have to make sense—’cause the government told them it’s okay to foreclose and take the fees…however you can.

  35. Britain wants to restart Assange talks with Ecuador
    By TIM CASTLE, Reuters August 27, 2012 7:27am

    LONDON – Britain said on Sunday it remained committed to reaching a diplomatic solution to the presence of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in Ecuador’s London embassy, after both countries took steps to defuse a row over his action in taking refuge there.

    Assange has been living in the embassy’s cramped quarters for more than two months since fleeing there to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over rape and sexual assault allegations.

    The Latin American state’s leader said on Saturday that Britain had withdrawn a threat to enter the embassy to arrest Assange, to whom Ecuador has granted asylum, and that he now considered the “unfortunate incident” was over.

    President Rafael Correa was responding to a British assurance that it was not threatening the embassy and that Britain was committed to the Vienna Convention, which protects the inviolability of diplomatic premises.

    “We remain committed to the process of dialogue we have entered into and we want that to resume with the government of Ecuador,” a British Foreign Office spokeswoman said.

    Britain provoked a furious reaction after telling Ecuador that an obscure British law allowed it, under extreme circumstances, to remove the embassy’s diplomatic status, exposing Assange to immediate arrest by police.

    Ecuador accused Britain of planning to storm the embassy and demanded it withdraw the threat.

    Britain said it had not meant to threaten Ecuador, a plea that fell on deaf ears, prompting it to send Ecuador a formal communication on Thursday confirming that the embassy was safe.

    The communication was copied to diplomats at a meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington on Friday which discussed the spat.

    A British diplomat attending the meeting invited Ecuador to resume “constructive discussions” on Assange, the Foreign Office said. “We believe that our two countries should be able to find a diplomatic solution,” the unnamed diplomat added, according to a transcript issued by the Foreign Office.

    Britain says it is determined to fulfill a legal obligation to send Assange to Sweden.

    Correa responded to the British diplomatic approach by saying in a weekly media address on Saturday: “We consider this unfortunate incident over, after a grave diplomatic error by the British in which they said they would enter our embassy.”

    The OAS had condemned the British threat, and South American foreign ministers backed Correa’s position that Britain’s warning was unacceptable and could set a dangerous precedent.

    Correa says he shares Assange’s fears that if handed over to Sweden, he might be extradited to the United States to face charges over WikiLeaks’ 2010 publication of secret US cables.

    US and European government sources say the United States has issued no criminal charges against the WikiLeaks founder and has made no attempt to extradite him. –Reuters

  36. JG,

    The British threatened last weekend to barge into the Embassy but withdrew at the end of the week. They know they can’t afford a diplomatic disaster of that magnitude. What they can (and will do) is deny Assange any opportunity to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy. They have clearly stated that they would arrest him, should he set foot outside, including if he was in a vehicle under diplomatic immunity. That, in itself, would be a very bad move on the part of the UK.

    As a result, an anonymous group supporting Assange disabled Interpol’s server yesterday for a few hours. I expect major leaks in a short future.

    Ecuador will not hand him over, even if it means doing construction work inside the Embassy to build decent housing for Assange.

  37. Worse than that, enraged. the british have threatened to storm the embassy and take him by force. That would be a mistake imo unless they want all hell to break loose all over the place.

  38. carrie,
    go back to your origination documents, we are indeed paying the wrong entity because the loan number on our original document is different from our mortgage loan statement. kindly check your document loan number in your deed and note and other documents for closing, then compare your billing statement to which we are paying to the loan servicer.

    on my discovery , i found our that they are three loan account number related to my loan account. i think we should also explore this avenue.

  39. I hate harping on one person but when that person called me as a party to his dementia (BSE,Tolle ,Enraged, and other’s. This J Gault is a classic example of the real criminal act – practicing law I have referred all these comments over to the state Bar for consideration. You never testified in a court o flaw and your not licensed to play attorneys.), he exposes himself.

    Interesting case of Maher Soliman going after the tobacco industry for his inability to quit smoking and his resulting poor health. i don’t have anything against smoking. I am guilty of it myself. But going after the tobacco industry for his lack of will power and failure to quit tells me everything I need to know.

    Quit while you’re ahead, Soliman. Your disruptive job here is done.


  40. That’s how Soliman has been able to pay off 4 houses…
    John Gault doesn’t have any complaint against him. Anonymous either. And by the way, Anon has an MBA in finance. Soliman? Depending on which Linkedln profiles you check, he either has a BA or a BS in accounting. Not finance but accounting.

    An obnoxious light weight with a big mouth and questionable ethics.

    Ripoff Report 828726

    Maher Soliman ‘Phony’ Expert Witness Los Angeles, California

    I paid this buy $5k to be my ‘expert witness’ in a foreclosure fraud case. He assured me I could get my house ‘free & clear’ after the court heard ‘bullet proof’ testimony. He gave me his resume of ‘qualifications’ and a list of cases in which he testified; which I filed with the court to use him as an expert witness. There was a deadline for him to provide a written narrative explaining ‘what’ he was going to testify to in my case.

    He never provided it and the FEDERAL JUDGE DISQUALIFIED HIM as an expert witness as he had provided phony court case numbers (which I had filed with the court; putting me at risk of filing false information into a court case….!). He then changed his mode: saying the ‘judges don’t understand his argument’ , they’ve been briefed by the State Department to ‘beat the homeowners and ‘no-one wins’. He refused to refund my money, and is using ‘3’ different emails and just changed his cellphone number (again). Maher Soliman is a Scam Artist….!!!

  41. Soliman has owned four homes and paid each of them off. Can anyone attacking him say the same?

    His arguments never make it to court and this is why he is asking the Bar to step in. When they did make it into court all hell broke loose and the plaintiff was called by various agencies asking she withdraw the complaint. Now the attorney in the matter is conducting modifications.

    The point is this, if the mortgage was abated under FAS 140 accounting rules, then what mortgage is being considered for a modification.

    The modification is believed to be the right of repurchase under Mers Corp at 10 cents on the dollar. If the loan cannot be repurchased by the party entitled to the REPO, under a reverse purchase and sale, then the home is abandoned.

    Soliman claims are null to attorneys – why ? This cause people to question his approach and to leave his testimony behind.

    Claims are that Abandonment is the center of this controversy as every sale lease back to the subrogation effort is required to issue a 1099 A for abandonment to the taxpayer in the end.

    Ask a CPA will you ….

    This is the context of the rip off and this site is not dealing fairly with the public.


  42. Believe what you may . But time will tell the truth …no expert can cause a case to be ruled by his admissions or otherwise if the testimony was entered and he was or was not scheduled to appear…. Garfield will tell you as an expert he never has appeared . Soliman was never scheduled to appear and an attorney can see this is mindless.

    This is insane.. Never an attack as to the validity of the argument. Just poor decision making by those who want their opinions to prevail over others. Attack the opinions and not the person.

    Calm down all of you . Let the ABA divulge the truth here and silence the critics.

  43. MSoliman

    I will not condone this type of unnecessary arguing amongst different views. No thanks.

    My view is what it is and theat is the tact I am asking attorneys to consider. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and these people are ever bit entitled to foster their views whatever the may be. If the mortgage is affirmed sold the entities books are available and shall demonstrate a gain or loss on the sale. This is the substantive element of the matter brought into a court of law. If alleged to have not sold the mortgage remains as a booked asset and therefore remains with the originating lender held on its financial statements. .

    The fact is the funds used to settle the consumer household mortgage were provided by the Defedants lender warehouse bank and FDIC commercial securities financing and credit line provider. The FDIC member banks offer lenders the financing needed to wire good funds into the settlement agent at time of the mortgage loans closing.

    Let the facts speak to the court

  44. It’s moving. Now, all I’m waiting is for someone to publish everything there is to know about what the banks caused worldwide.

    ‘Operation Free Assange’: Anonymous take down Interpol website

    Published: 27 August, 2012, 01:23

    TAGS: Protest, WikiLeaks, Assange, Anonymous

    Hactivist group Anonymous claims to have taken down the websites of Interpol and a British police force as part of a campaign calling for the freedom of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

    Several Twitter accounts associated with the loose-knit Anonymous collective have announced that the website of International Criminal Police Organization was taken down. The site was unavailable as of 9:18 pm GMT but resumed functioning soon after.

    The hackers also claim to have taken down the website of the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), a UK police unit responsible for operations against serious and organized crime.

    Assange, the founder and editor of whistleblower website WikiLeaks, has been ordered by Swedish authorities to be extradited from the UK where he had been under house arrest. Two women from Sweden have accused Assange of sex crimes, although he has yet to be charged.

    In fear of being sent to Sweden and then extradited to the US to be tried for his role with WikiLeaks, Assange applied for political asylum in Ecuador, which the Latin American country finally granted him earlier this month.

    Regardless, British authorities have refused to give Assange safe passage out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London so that he may travel overseas.

  45. Ripoff Report complaint No. 833780


    “This guy took money, then provided ‘gibberish’ info in multiple foreclosure cases. He did NOT show up for meetings with attorneys and bankers, phone conferences and provided phony credentials to the court. He was DISQUALIFIED as an EXPERT WITNESS by a federal judge. If you have a location or him, let us know as we want to file a lawsuit against him ASAP. “

  46. Oh yeah, that’s another one of the Soliman’s claims of fame: he states that he is fluent in French. Obnoxious, insulting, offensive and pretentious. Bad combination… Doesn’t do much for credibility.

  47. excuse moi , pardon mais voulez-vous preferee je fait le statement en francais

    Excusez-moi, pardon mais si vous le preferez, je peux faire cette declaration en francais.

    Drop the pretention and stick to what you know.

  48. excuse moi , pardon mais voulez-vous preferee je fait le statement en francais …

    play your games lunatic with sentence structure you damn moron. Confuse the matter more a$$hole …this is the Garfield way of setting up the next big new story as his own .

    A lender is a separate entity you grammatical fool.
    The lender is a ax payer corporation that elects to form a REIT
    The FDIC warehouse provider is a tax payer corporation held as a national association or member bank .
    The sponsors are a subsidiary of the tax payer corporation
    The registrant is a corporate affiliate owned by the same holding company for the FDIC bank ….retard.

    They are separate registered entities that are in essence all one in the same …you contradictory mental moron

    Show your ignorance of the subject matter and get off this site jerk.

    People John Gault and others want to confuse you and distort the reality of the fact . They profess knowledge and five years later are more ignorant than the courts they attack unfairly.




  49. @carie, I am not an attorney, and this is not legal advice, but if I had any of my own, I would invest it in a business, or something like that, just sitting in the bank is letting it fade away. Real estate is gone, and if more people started to put together money to start businesses, then may be this will improve.

  50. swore I wasn’t going to do this and have you been checked for
    skitz lately? don’t get bent – i make little joke.
    huh? an entity is not financing. they are both nouns which are not related. an entity gets financing. maybe it’s just poor sentence structure. You just can’t have poor sentence structure when attempt to explain something – sorry – buff it up.Get a translator if you must. I know what take-out financing is, at least as it’s generally applied, like to retire a construction loan, and can’t imagine how that applies to mers or any ben, if it does. so shoot me. actually, don’t. and I know what in rem is, at least somewhat. Don’t blame me being stubborn for your unintellible argument, thanks anyway.
    Even if there is a 5 yr repurchase, and excuse moi while I struggle to follow that, to say it is by way of MERS says a lot in favor of mers’ status. But you may be saying that’s all we have.
    Not so sure that’s a fact in evidence. Don’t know what it presumes or needs to presume about mers or its status in the dot or anywhere else for that matter. Can’t you target someone else to get this and les moi tranquille? I don’t want the job, even if I were somehow mentally capable of taking it on. Je suis desole.

  51. In general, a foreclosure is brought by a counter servicing agent defined as a specialty services or another debt collection processing center that is taking appropriate debt collection action on behalf of one or more specialty agencies or a unit or sub agency of the United States Government.

    Foreclosure is a foregone conclusion from the time you executed your documents. Your home was taken long before a foreclosure was filed and our staff will show you why.

    The 30 days notice is affirmation of this fact. The most critical piece of evidentiary is never brought into court. And the procedures you’re following are in fact a nullity, Your defenses for the most part are moot and waste of time. Mers corp. Robo signers FDCPA current legislation and ancient law . . .that’s what is in your favor. Yet they are attacked and argued against in court.

    The Debt collection is done through specialty centers defined as an agency center or a unit or sub agency within an agency that has been designated by the services executor of the agency. The task is to collect on debt owed to the United States. Specialty management services are this sites “code” for a processing debtor center. Yet still we see complaints making it to court and the wrong arguments being made . Under the civil code for transfer of specialty debts to agency for collection we can see the purposes of this action. The action your fighting is soley brought against title.

    Foreclosure is brought by a specialty designated agency. By this we mean a bureaucratic department, specialty appointed agency, court, court administrative office, or instrumentality of a legislative branch of the specialty government, including government corporations. The collection is by a Creditor agency that refers to any specialty agency representative that is owed a debt. The Debt is defined as any amount of money, funds or property that has been determined by an appropriate official of the specialty government to be owed to the under a specialty act by a person.

    It should be noted that the term ‘‘debt’’ does not include debts arising under the internal revenue code of 1986.


  52. To the morons who wrote a book on how to quiet title. You cannot quiet title to something you do not own. The arguments fails and is thrown out before you enter the court http://www.foreclosurealternative. word press.com

  53. MersCorp is the only thing you have left to reinstate your rights in title that was lifted at time of execution of the loan documents.

    MERS Corp is the take out financing for the warehouse-line that the Feds are seeking to recover. Soliman said day one . . . do not attack Mers Corp as they are the enforcement of the repurchase agreement five years later for a mortgage converted to equity . Your equity was seized and used to floor a five year bond. Why are you so stubborn and unwilling to listen.

    Soliman said your fighting the same old worthless NG asinine arguments that sell books and seminars. His argument five years later are for what …nothing. Nothing but the cost of a u haul to move you out of home.

    Its Civil judicial forfeiture which is an in rem (against the property) action brought in court against the property. The property is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is necessary.

    Call the bar and discover yourself.


  54. @carie
    You know the answer – false default
    How do you prove that

  55. @All

    An attorney told me the most important thing in all this is: “Did you pay the wrong person/entity?”

    …but HOW to PROVE you paid the wrong person/entity, and WHY it IS the wrong person/entity…and WHO indeed IS the RIGHT person/entity?

    IS THERE ONE????

  56. Sorry to jump the gun on the OREGON MERS DECISION. A freind emailed it to me and was excited it was decided. Did not look that close before I got it out on the web. Opps pardon me. Just went back to read in detail and discovered it is not the biggy we are waiting for.

  57. @Shelley,

    It was in the guardian. Tina somebody in the UK.

  58. Just realized this Oregon Case is the Appeals Court and dated July 2012. We are waiting for the Oregon Supreme Court ruling now. It took five months for the WA Supreme Court to decide, if that is any indicator for this one. The Appeal was won in July. We may here by December or January.

  59. Grateful for a cease-fire, but I can’t go that road even as you think I and others must. too old. too tired. too, who cares. can’t. It isn’t that I don’t believe it, don’t know enough. It’s that I’m smart enough to know what I don’t know and in that area, it’s, oh, everything. And I am not up to learning all that stuff. Adopt or go after, if you must, one of the brilliant minds here that sits on the sidelines and partakes not of the heavy lifting, tho if you continue to attack the man whose site this is as well as what you perceive his arguments, that overture will not be well received – by him or his followers. Quit arguing and putting NG down and find common ground if he wants and you want. Either way, it’s his website. I don’t know his stuff, either. That I want to expose and get
    86’d the supreme-enabler, if not endorsed by him, is tolerated. I just work on what I know and look for ways to defeat mtns to dismiss and for sj. That’s what I’ve got energy for and anyway, I shouldn’t have to apologize for my efforts, even if you see them as misdirection.
    They’re not wrong, generally, even if they don’t support what you see as the core issue.
    Your ego, my friend, is getting in your way. imo. Nothing wrong with ego – we all have one, but you have to get yours off your sleeve. You are not going to catch many flies with vinegar, even if the vinegar is righteously acquired. That’s just a fact of life.
    I can understand your irritation if you think we are all barking up the wrong trees, especially after all this time, but you have to keep your
    irritation in check, something even I know about, if for no other reason than it undermines your credibility. You can’t afford that, expecially if you’re right. Plus it’s offensive to others, including the owner of this site who has graciously provided us with a forum we need. Might I suggest you look at your comments as if the courts you need to impress with your doctrine read them? I think that would cause you to stick to facts, your doctine, and keep away from personal attacks, even as you find them just. You can “sell” information; you can’t sell hostility or other emotions, not here, anyway. Even if you’re brilliant and right, you won’t be taken seriously, not to mention believed or followed. If you are right, then we all have an interest in seeing your arguments succeed. I’m embarrassed and nonplussed by your attacks on NG partly because I might be on a shoestring myself. I don’t attack of course – not capable because I don’t know his doctine other than generally and if I did and didnt’ agree, it would not be an “attack”, anyway. I’m not able to contribute to the cored of his doctrine for my ignorance. So I talk about what I know, which is something about real property laws and how they might be used to get past square one and in that, I don’t see a conflict.
    Where you and I really butt heads is that I want mers gone, while somehow in your formula, MERS is necessary, maybe even critical. So I can see if that’s true how my views on MERS could be at odds and even undermine your premises, which you find irritating to say the least. But since I can’t learn your premises, or won’t, until you are capable of saying succinctly why mers is necessary (without going over the hill and dell to grandma’s house which will lose us) and those facts are assimilated by and large, read believed, I won’t stop and even if you do and it does, I still want them gone. No more “MOM’s” in this country. That leaves me to expose what imo has been done and is done by mers and in its name.

  60. Consider
    “between stimulus and response there is a space, in that space is our power to choose our response . In our response lie our growth and our freedom”. – Victor E Frankl

    I thought it appropriate to share that.

  61. Attorney claims county officials did nothing while people faced UNFAIR FORECLOSURE
    A civil attorney, Richard Roman, said he warned El Paso County officials about a scheme that resulted in people being unfairly kicked out of their homes, but the county did nothing to stop it. Roman said they waited too long and now several of his clients have had their lives ruined. People have ended up paying the wrong bank and then faced eviction before they knew what was happening.

    Housing will not recover until the criminals who caused the crisis are in prison and the money and property are returned to its legal owners.
    A Slim Recovery for Housing

    The Obama Administration, the 49 State Mortgage Settlement,
    and the Spin:
    A Study in Shamelessness
    The simple fact is that all of these things have occurred and reoccurred because, as the criminologist and economist William K. Black has repeatedly pointed out, fraud was not an aberration at these firms, it was their core business strategy. With reams of evidence pointing to fraud and malfeasance strewn surrounding us, fending off serious prosecutions has required a non-trivial commitment of time, effort, and extensive ‘political capital’ on the part of the Obama Administration and its senior staff. Failing to act on this copious evidence took an exceptional act of will. But, they were up to the job.


    Treasury told the banks if you convert this into a permanent mod, you will have to waive all the fees. But if you foreclose and pull the rug out from under the homeowner, you actually get to keep all those fees and can cash them in during the foreclosure sale.
    We have been set up for even more disasters.

  62. I am trying to find the video I watched a couple of days ago taped on a journalist that has been threatened not to disclose any classified material.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/07/in_victory_for_homeowners_oreg.html THE STATES ARE ON A ROLE.

  64. @JG—or anyone

    My mom just inherited a little money—where should she put it? Mattress? Credit Union? Some type of bonds? Talk to a “financial adviser? I have no idea what to tell her, in this wierd uncertain “climate”…

  65. The government represenatives and courts have done nothing but slap gangsters on the wrist and bad mouth them, then forgive them. Even give them chances to come back and try again. This is organized crime enabling and allowing the bad guys to get away with it. It is a slap in all our faces. Everyone on this web site has been fully made known this is a venting and learning web site by people whom do not claim to be attorneys. Freedom of speech has been taken away from us, however there is more than enough evidence to prove any talk against a criminal on this site is documente on the web and public sites. We have become a third world country. This site must get to the heart and root of the problems here and intimidate the corrupt. When public it can not be considered classified. The proof is all over the web. Just have to pull up every investigative report, Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a financial Collaspe, OIG reports on all the banks, you name it report after report. None of this is classified. The US V all the banks complaint. Consent orders. The boss is supppose to be responsible for all the employees. Each entitiy is supposed to be responsible for all contracted parties and employees. It is one said day in the USA.

  66. Soliman is right and I”m bringing his arguments into court to gain an injunction. J Gault keep researching as now your on the right track. These worthless distraught corrupt fame seekers are fools practicing law.. the wrong law. This is administrative civil forfeiture passed in 2002 at the time this crap took off . WWW, foreclosurealternative.word press.com

  67. @enraged – if what is alluded to there is prophetic, it’s worse than getting our money out. Getting money out won’t do much good if the dollar has no value even in its own country, which to me is or at least might be the implication of buying gold. Or, a somewhat softer idea – the market may crash with stocks becoming next to if not worthless, so liquidate those and buy what’s generally been a safer bet and one which is ‘globally recognized’. Or here’s another: there will be a run on the banks and the banks won’t be able to meet the demand, so get your moolah out. If any are true, better get some water and flash lights, also. I’m no doom’s day prophet. I’m just reacting and weighing in on what’s said here as if it’s factual and wondering what it might
    mean. Hey, maybe some of those guys just want to chill and join Arnold, former MERS’ prez, on his sailing expeditions.

  68. @shelley – even believing anyone was threatened to cool it, and that’s a far cry from being asked to cool it btw, an eternal optimist might
    believe it was done because exposure of a good plan might compromise the plan. I can see that would in fact take eternal optimism to look at it that way, but if I knew it to be true, the “cool it”,
    I’d go that way first. Someone else posits it shouldn’t be looked at that way and he may be right that anyone’s refusal to see it his way is
    folly, even damaging. But I can’t take it his way. Anyone who can, have at it.
    I don’t want to misquote anyone, not even someone who attacks me. Having said that, I think what he’s saying is that thru forfeiture, the DOJ is going to end up with our homes or by following a defined legal trail, it should, would, could. This would be at odds with our homeownership. So we should line up with the DOJ by first identifying the facts of forfeiture to courts (and then making a deal with the DOJ?) I don’t mistake his crusty character for his argument, (tho it’s more than irksome) but it’s getting troublesome that he can’t reduce his argument to something we can understand.
    But if it’s true, my reduction of his argument, there is certainly something wrong and attackable here because it is unconstitutional or otherwise *!*&%@’d for 1) a citizen to be put in that kind of harm’s way with 2) an institution of the U.S. benefitting. And maybe that’s a continuation of his argument. I don’t know. How could I? He doesn’t
    express it very well and instead wants the reader to follow the trail of
    laws which lead to forfeiture, which we’d rather not, dare I say. Let’s just say it does. Then what? What’s the argument?

    I am distraught that someone here might have an answer to the question regarding TILA and rescission and securitization, since I believe it’s an appropriate question even if the answer comes by way of a lay person’s qualified opinion.
    I accidentally found that NG has himself touched on this, so maybe he knows and will be so kind as to expound:


    see paragraph four
    This post was regarding the infamous Nozek case in MA where all the players were meted out serious sanctions, which were reduced to
    almost nothing by the appeals court in a decision which sickened me
    at the time.
    If there were 10 of me, (just the truth) I’d study the appeal for what I’d call bull, otherwise known as 1 + 1 is not 3. Maybe someone else
    will take it on because it’s important to know why people who lied to a court were sanctioned and then basically pardoned by a higher court.
    Some will say the higher court was just full of it for its own reasons, but that’s not good enough. We need to see where the court said 1 + 1 is 3. Imo there’s a lot of 1 + 1 = 3 going on with courts and unchallenged to boot, like unwarranted presumptions.

  69. Stay put in your house. Get your money out or, at least, enough to ride high for a couple of weeks. I’m not making this stuff up. And many people have taken notice. I mentioned it last week.

    We are not just talking about Soros but Paulson and others well-connected individuals.


    Why Is George Soros Selling So Much Stock And Buying So Much Gold?

    I am certainly not a fan of George Soros. He has funneled millions upon millions of dollars into organizations that are trying to take America in the exact wrong direction.

    However, I do recognize that he is extremely well connected in the financial world. Soros is almost always ahead of the curve on financial matters, and if something big is going to go down George Soros is probably going to know about it ahead of time.

    That is why it is very alarming that he has dumped all of his banking stocks and that he is massively hoarding gold.

  70. oops the pivotal word left out “Free” I trust the precious post and this will not be deleted Neil and staff. People need to know all entity that will “hopefully” bring us out of this.

  71. OOPS—sorry, Shelley—I just noticed you beat me to it!! 😉

  72. “More and more attorneys are helping the victims of this crime. Pro bonos and contingency attorneys are showing up in Washington state, when it was most difficult to find any that would or could help.”

    It’s been my refrain all along: eventually, it would no longer be possible for banks to hide the extent of their fraud. Not as long as the Neil Barofsky, Bill Black, Matt Taibbi of this world and others keep harping on it. This is not going away and homeowners will prevail. That’s all there is to it. May take time but it will happen.

    That’s why I get pissed when someone like masterservicer insults others while peddling his own money-making machine.

  73. Pretty bad when New media are threatened if they disclose classified information, which has been their position and job for ever, and posters are threatened while trying to sift throught our discussions attempting to make some sense of this senseless crime against us, matters and information to investigate and ask the advice of our attorneys. If one is lucky enough to find one not scared of the banks or is not participating with the banks. They are out there. More and more attorneys are helping the victims of this crime. Pro bonos and contingency attorneys are showing up in Washington state, when it was most difficult to find any that would or could help. The new Bains V MERS and RECONTRUST has trully opened the doors to help her. for attorneys and their clinets. Oregon is suppose to be next and more states are exsoected to follow. It is my understanding the Bains V MERS case can help; everyone in other states without it being in your state. So please take it to your attorneys nomatter what state you are in. The cases are well written and very clear.

  74. ETolle, I believe the he or she phsycotic forgot they were possibly intending to give legal advice. If they fear this kind of prosecution they may want to think twice, and perhaps we all feel bodily thrteatened by this intimidator, the door swings both ways. No intentions of legal adice here just possible legal information to investigate with the advice of your attorney.

  75. I’ve figured it out….he whose name must not be spoken is putting the final touches on a perfectly crafted insanity defense. It’s brilliant. It explains the meteoric rise to well beyond a mere incompetency defense, to one in which no one on the entire planet can understand the obscure, pretentious theories, landing him squarely in the domain of one who is deprived of any level of understanding whatsoever, not to mention social skills. Just add drool. Oh, and a spell checker.

    In other news, anyone coming onto a site full of battered borrowers wielding threats of “long term jail time for anyone here naming government officials as criminals” evidently hasn’t ventured out much….say like maybe…oh…just a wild guess here…the entire fucking world wide web? Otherwise, they’d understand that it’s probably getting into a percentage full of nines of people who would toss not only our president into the Greybar Hotel, but his chief so-called law enforcement – Holder, not to mention the other few hundred people wasting precious resources and perfectly good neckties masquerading as elected representatives. Might as well add Romney to the list just for being Mitt.

    Unfortunately, WordPress lacks an ignore feature.

    Disclaimer: All comments are subject to change without notice, and are provided “as is”. Comments may contain information that is unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humor or irrational securitization beliefs. Resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental.

  76. Masterservicer,

    I don’t know who the hell you are but you’re full of shit, obnoxious, arrogant, self-serving, insulting, offensive and overall very, very unpleasant. Don’t address me. I don’t do doom-and-gloom and I certainly don’t read your insufferable posts. If I want nebulous, I go to Anonymous: at least I know whom I’m dealing with and Anonymous

    Don’t use me to fight your battles. JG is NOT practicing law by giving advice and, at least, he is pleasant to deal with.

    PS: if you were such a top notch expert, your name would be everywhere. I have never yet to see one case more recent than 2009 where it is mentioned (that, of course, assuming that you are Soliman)
    And learn to write your url properly.

  77. KC, nice new name.

  78. 18. “subject to the terms”…

    Your information is just to much to digest at this time. I will try and process it.

    JG. I believe is not giving advice, information through research of his own. I as well as others do not take it as legal advice nor do I believe that is what he is doing. JG keeps the lesser informed, armed with information to which they cannot find on their own. His thoughts and information are not taken as legal advice, but his knowledge from information is very much helpful.

    Thanks JG and thank you Masterservicer for this out of the box, information.

  79. nomods, on August 24, 2012 at 3:40 pm said:
    17. Defendants are the parties who implement a convenient mortgage origination platform according to their agreements amongst one another for purposes originating mortgage whole loans for sale to investors.
    18. Parties to claims in bankruptcy and for adversary are against the (1) originator and entity recognized by the sector as the mortgage lender and “Seller” , who as of the related Closing Date, agreed to thereby sell, transfer, assign, set over and convey to Purchaser,” without recourse, but subject to the terms of a certain Purchase and Sale Agreement, all the right, title and interest of Seller in and to the Mortgage Loans in the related Mortgage Loan Package, and Mortgage Files and all rights and obligations arising under the documents contained therein for each Mortgage Loan in the related Mortgage Loan Package.
    Soliman was right – he told us this years ago…

    DISCLAIMER – I am not an attorney and all comments and views herein are never meant to be considered legal advice. I am not allowed to practice law as only a licensed Bar Member can practice law and help you to determine your rights. It is illegal to give advice and to practice law without a license. The above mentioned information and all information given that is associated with this ID and internet log in account is for discussion , informational purposes, personal comments and non binding views. Such informational content is not for legal purposes nor to be construed as such and nothing under the domain ID account log in name is ever intended to be used as legal advice or presumed offered for claims brought in a court of law. Consult your local bar for the name of attorneys near you who can assist you in legal matters.. .

  80. masterservicer, on August 25, 2012 at 9:35 pm said:
    Mary yes,
    this is Soliman commenting and I’m sorry someone spoke out of line from our cooperative [joint effort site.]
    YES – what I am TELLING YOU is the homeowner is a loser no matter what, …That is what his message attempts to say.
    You have lost your home regardless and this is evidenced by Obama having to Marshall in all US Homes from foreign investors. The good news – there is No loan to foreclose upon . The bad is administrative civil forfeiture by the Dept of Treasury . Read TARP my friend. This effort appears to be suppressed till after the election.
    A major newspaper told me to leave the issue alone. Really.
    Yes this is correct. You have defenses that are few and the State Bar knows this and I believe they have asked attorneys to focus in on BS modifications and gibberish claims to make money . This is why I am attacked over and over again.
    This of course does not sell seminars and books nor encourage retainer fees ….so its being kept hush.
    File the right claim is all I am saying . ..please listen !
    http:\\www.foreclosurealternative.\word press.\com

    DISCLAIMER – I am not an attorney and all comments and views herein are never meant to be considered legal advice. I am not allowed to practice law as only a licensed Bar Member can practice law and help you to determine your rights. It is illegal to give advice and to practice law without a license. The above mentioned information and all information given that is associated with this ID and internet log in account is for discussion , informational purposes, personal comments and non binding views. Such informational content is not for legal purposes nor to be construed as such and nothing under the domain ID account log in name is ever intended to be used as legal advice or presumed offered for claims brought in a court of law. Consult your local bar for the name of attorneys near you who can assist you in legal matters.. .

  81. BSE,Tolle ,Enraged, and other’s

    This J Gault is a classic example of the real criminal act – practicing law I have referred all these comments over to the state Bar for consideration. You never testified in a court o flaw and your not licensed to play attorneys.

    NG Manage your site damn it .

    Cease and desist and stop accusing people of criminal acts as your slandering the wrong “legal” parties . . .fools . Are you insane to not put a Disclaimer up for gods sake.

    DISCLAIMER – I am not an attorney and all comments and views herein are never meant to be considered legal advice. I am not allowed to practice law as only a licensed Bar Member can practice law and help you to determine your rights. It is illegal to give advice and to practice law without a license. The above mentioned information and all information given that is associated with this ID and internet log in account is for discussion , informational purposes, personal comments and non binding views. Such informational content is not for legal purposes nor to be construed as such and nothing under the domain ID account log in name is ever intended to be used as legal advice or presumed offered for claims brought in a court of law. Consult your local bar for the name of attorneys near you who can assist you in legal matters.. .

  82. John Gault Are you an attorney and why is there no disclaimer . Your confidently , practicing law here . No good lady . Your practicing law without a disclaimer . What is your bar license for public record. You love to drowned Soliman out don’t you Jack A$$ . What is your license number please . Otherwise your spewing gibberish is bad law.

  83. @ms – re posting since I don’t want you to miss this – we need an answer:
    Yo – smarty pants! Can an instrument, a note, say, which is subject to rescission as a matter of law (tila), be used for these trusts or to sell a share or a derivative,or whatever the hey? Can a note which is subject to rescission be used as the basis for whatever has been allegedly sold to investors? Please skip the lecture. You will not die, oh great one. This is a valid question and since you’z so smart, I expect you know the answer, so what is it, pray tell?

    I don’t know that obama is ‘marshalling in’ real estae from foreign investors, but if he is, I’m not inclined to believe that he’d use
    whatever premise he is allegedly using to do that to U.S. citizens.
    I take it you are?
    Maybe he’s just ousting foreign interests. If he did that against U.S.
    citizens, there would be anarchy, UNless he then formed a new something or even will make use of an existing something (an institution) to see that the homes went to their owners, which would actually be pretty clever, wouldn’t it? That be a good pay back to the rat-b’s. Well, right after they get put in jail.

    Now how about my question about rescission, oh, ma sahib?

  84. ps – in that case I ref’d at the end of last, party C really got it because he was never going to get the note he delayed getting when he ignorantly forked over money and just got an assgt of the dot. He could never get it because A was a crook and had sold the note to B who had possession. (B messed up, too, by not being diligent about getting an assgt of the dot) I really want to find that case to see what else the court said.

  85. Mary – have to confess – didn’t like that case much. Look at the bar the court set. Makes me think of that song that asks, “How low can you go?” All the bankster probably has to do is refile, include affidavit saying X, and get its sj. Maye the homeowner could argue damages or against the new complaint for f/c somehow. I don’t know.
    What a crock. A self-interest affidavit. Everyone involved in homeowner defense needs to learn how to squash those dime a dozen affidavits. And if we also have to attack their credibility in general thru judicial notice, then so be it. Not saying that will help, don’t know, seems like it would, but I dont know how it could hurt.
    And there they go with that “equitable” assignment. They refer to a case in 2004 which relied on a l938 case regarding a “mortgage”, akin to Carpenter. I am no guru on the UCC, so can’t speak to an “equitable” assignment of the note as alleged is possible in that ruling, but I am not going to quit opining that a dot does not follow a note: only the RIGHT to an assgt of the dot follows the note. S of F: don’t have an assgt til you have an assgt. But I can note that this court did have a bit of a caveat in regard to even the equitable assgt of a note: “upon a proper consideration”. That says to me that in order for a court to recognize an equitable assgt of a note, including an intent by the assignor to abandon all rights and lay them on the assignee, the assignee must evidence “proper consideration”. They won’t, no doubt because they can’t. Which reminds me of what a joke these “MERS”
    assignments are (besides the fact mers has no authority to exec an assgt and they are being done in mers’ name by the assignEEs) . The person entitled to an assgt of the coll instrument is entitled to an assgt of the coll instrument because he has already paid for the debt; he has already paid for the note and no consideration is due for the assgt of its collateral instrument. It’s the payment for the note which gives rise to his right to an assgt of the dot. The consideration expressed in these assgts (10 dollars and other good and valuable
    consideration) is red herring, misdirection, with malice and or they are in fact attempting to assign the note in those assgts of the dot and that’s why the consideration is stated therein. It’s one or the other. Period. But it’s worth noting, hugely imo, that the consideration is allegedly paid to MERS – see assgt. Mers can’t assign a dot, so it certainly may not assign the note because of lack of interest or agency or other status. UNless, here we go, they are relying on the e-commerce possession of the notes by MeRS which I ref’d yesterday was it? today? Can an e-commerce note be held by a bailee? Got me. Is Mers a bailee f an e-commerce note or have we really missed the boat and the e-commerce has made Mers something other than the bailee or at least that was the intent of their deal? Have to read their *&%!*& agreement again, but might be in their rules. Yawn. But if it’s as bailee, there’s no authority to assign or endorse. Even had they been granted the right to do so, I would think they would hve to do with an expression of the empowerment – agency or poa at the
    endorsement or from what I’ve read, they’d be liable on the note.

    During the time party B has an equitable right to an assgt of the coll instrument from A because it is the transferee of the note, I don’t think the note and dot have been bifurcated for lack of an assgt of the dot. It’s just that at that moment, the dot is not enforceable by either A or B. Yes, I have a case on point (pretty sure) and yes, I don’t know where it is. Forgot all about it til just now. That one’s worth looking for. So I will. But this is distinguishable from when
    party B owns the note and the assgt of a dot goes to party C from party A. Now they’re bifurcated, I’d almost swear. In fact, think that’s what happened in that case I’ll try to find. Also think the court found laches against party B for his failure to get the assgt of the dot and against party C for his failure to get the note.
    lay opinions – not legal advice

  86. How do we contact the masterservicer ?

  87. Mary yes,

    this is Soliman commenting and I’m sorry someone spoke out of line from our cooperative [joint effort site.]

    YES – what I am TELLING YOU is the homeowner is a loser no matter what, …That is what his message attempts to say.

    You have lost your home regardless and this is evidenced by Obama having to Marshall in all US Homes from foreign investors. The good news – there is No loan to foreclose upon . The bad is administrative civil forfeiture by the Dept of Treasury . Read TARP my friend. This effort appears to be suppressed till after the election.

    A major newspaper told me to leave the issue alone. Really.

    Yes this is correct. You have defenses that are few and the State Bar knows this and I believe they have asked attorneys to focus in on BS modifications and gibberish claims to make money . This is why I am attacked over and over again.

    This of course does not sell seminars and books nor encourage retainer fees ….so its being kept hush.

    File the right claim is all I am saying . ..please listen !

    http:\\www.foreclosurealternative.\word press.\com

  88. This is getting way out of hand.

    So one looses their property when attempting to make a good faith contract and is subjected to fraud and they cannot defend or fight.
    Do to what you claim.
    Or we just roll over and let them steal it anyway.

    So whats the difference.

    So what are you trying to imply, homeowner is a loser no matter what, is that what your message attempts to say.

    P.S. I am not an un-employed gobbler. Just so you know.

  89. Neil knows how to contact me.

  90. NG – You say they all are if they were fraud victims…

    Fool….This opens and clears the way for criminal forfeiture under a administrative In Rem claim by the agency afforded the task of the cleanup. Under In Rem proceeding they arrest the property .

    That would be the department of Justice and Treasury Secretary. No attorney will tell the client this as they are in uncharted waters and risk losing their licenses.

    NG your not telling the whole story or your harboring the truth to sell more of whatever it is you sell desperate home owners and researchers like “unemployed gobblers” such as Mary … You lieutenants are out in full force defending your cash cow and our staff commend you – but we will not cease in getting the message out .

    Mary , join me in a conference call with Neil and we can call the Attorney Generals office together ….. Please , or the FDIC , or the IRS or the Corn Kernel society for lost souls ….

    Get the facts – time is running out …


  91. So does that mean we won’t be hearing from you again??

  92. There is no lien other than a lien subject to future liens of record. This we can show the attorneys in a court of law.

    If a lien claim is without basis, the amount of the lien claim is willfully overstated, or the lien claim is not filed in substantially the form or in the manner or at a time not in accordance with the provisions of this act, the claimant shall forfeit all claimed lien rights and rights to file subsequent lien claims to the extent of the face amount claimed in the lien claim.

    This is held to an executory contract. Ask lieN Garfield , he will tell you . “IT IS Impossible”.

    The lender Is a claimant. the CLAIMANT shall also be liable for all court costs, and reasonable legal expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the owner, or any combination of owner, in defending or causing the discharge of the lien claim.

    Attorneys say (gimme gimme) on contingency.

    Note where the court shall, in addition, enter judgment against the claimant for damages to any of the parties adversely affected by the lien claim. If your argument is rejected for merit, and a common law is ruling a right to enforce an equitable mortgage, the arguments cannot fail if the substance for enforcement indicates wrongfulness for claim,, then your entitled .

    And you want to pay a retainer?

    Note further where a defense to a lien claim is found without basis, then parties maintaining the defense in your action shall be liable for all court costs, and reasonable legal expenses, including attorneys fees, incurred by any of the parties adversely affected by the defense to the lien claim. The court shall, in addition, enter judgment against the party maintaining the frivolous defense for damages to any of the parties adversely affected by said defense. (see an attorney as only an attorney can advise you of the law) .

    If a lien claim is forfeited pursuant to this section, or section 14 of this act, nothing herein shall be construed to bar the filing of a subsequent lien claim, provided, however, any subsequent lien claim shall not include a claim for the work, services, equipment or material claimed within the forfeited lien claim.

    File your claims correctly and according to the subject matter.

    http://www.foreclosureallternative.wordpress.com (or other competent informational sites)

    Note – Robo the Hobo, Linda the enlightenment assignment and claims for Mr. Lender the Gender Bender are moot and a nullity to your arguments. YOU DO YOU UNDERSTAND – THEY ARE MOOT.!
    (Thanks for all the confidential feedback, also. . . . we do hear what you say in how to address a temperamental public and for knowing how to recognize who has a home to save and who is out of work wasting time). . . .

  93. Here’s another helpful case:

    ROBERT McLEAN, Appellant,
    No. 4D10-3429.

    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    December 14, 2011.

    Stuart N. House of Giunta & House, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

    Heidi J. Weinzetl of Shapiro & Fishman, LLP, Boca Raton, for appellee.


    Robert McLean appeals a final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of JP Morgan Chase Bank (“Chase”) as Trustee for holders of certain mortgage pass-through certificates. We reverse, concluding that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in Chase’s favor, where the record lacked any evidence that Chase had standing to foreclose at the time the lawsuit was filed.

    On May 11, 2009, Chase filed a two-count mortgage foreclosure action against the appellant, Robert McLean. The complaint generally alleged that McLean had defaulted under the note and mortgage, and that Chase was “the legal and/or equitable owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage and has the right to enforce the loan documents.” Count I of the complaint was entitled “Mortgage Foreclosure,” while Count II was entitled “Reestablishment of Lost Note.” Count II alleged that Chase “is not in possession of the subject Promissory Note and [Chase] cannot reasonably obtain possession of said Note because it is lost, stolen, or destroyed.” The copy of the mortgage attached to the complaint stated that the lender was American Brokers Conduit and that the mortgagee was MERS.

    McLean filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied on April 7, 2010. However, in the order denying McLean’s motion to dismiss, the trial court ordered Chase to file and serve within fifteen days “a copy of the assignment by which it obtained its rights and standing to proceed in this cause . . . .” In compliance with the trial court’s order, Chase filed an Assignment of Mortgage, which reflected that MERS assigned the mortgage to Chase. However, the Assignment of Mortgage was signed by MERS representatives on May 14, 2009, three days after Chase filed the instant foreclosure complaint.

    McLean filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing that Chase did not have standing to file its complaint because on the date of filing, May 11, 2009, Chase was not the owner of the Note and Mortgage. The trial court denied McLean’s second motion to dismiss. Subsequently, on May 13, 2010, McLean filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses, raising various affirmative defenses, including the defense that Chase did not have standing to file its complaint.

    Subsequently, Chase filed the original note and mortgage, as well as a reply to McLean’s affirmative defenses. The original note bore a special endorsement, stating: “Pay to the Order of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee Without Recourse By: American Brokers Conduit.” The endorsement to the note was not dated.

    Chase filed a motion for summary judgment, as well as an affidavit in support of summary judgment. The affidavit, which was executed by a representative of American Home Mortgage Servicing after the lawsuit was filed, set forth the amounts due and owing under the loan. The affidavit further stated that Chase “is the holder and owner” of the mortgage originally given by Robert McLean to MERS. However, the affidavit did not specifically state when Chase became the owner of the note and mortgage, nor did the affidavit indicate that Chase was the owner of the note and mortgage before suit was filed. In fact, the affidavit failed to mention any endorsement of the note to Chase. Following a hearing on Chase’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of Chase. McLean appealed.

    The standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c). When reviewing a final summary judgment, an appellate court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Princeton Homes, Inc. v. Morgan, 38 So. 3d 207, 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “[T]he burden is upon the party moving for summary judgment to show conclusively the complete absence of any genuine issue of material fact.” Albelo v. S. Bell, 682 So. 2d 1126, 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

    A crucial element in any mortgage foreclosure proceeding is that the party seeking foreclosure must demonstrate that it owns and holds the note and mortgage in question—otherwise, the plaintiff lacks standing to foreclose. See Lizio v. McCullom, 36 So. 3d 927, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Verizzo v. Bank of N.Y., 28 So. 3d 976, 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Philogene v. ABN Amro Mortg. Group Inc., 948 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). If the note does not name the plaintiff as the payee, the note must bear a special endorsement in favor of the plaintiff or a blank endorsement. See Servedio v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 46 So. 3d 1105, 1106-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 36 So. 3d 932, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Alternatively, the plaintiff may submit evidence of an assignment from the payee to the plaintiff or an affidavit of ownership to prove its status as a holder of the note. See Servedio, 46 So. 3d at 1107.

    While it is true that standing to foreclose can be demonstrated by the filing of the original note with a special endorsement in favor of the plaintiff, this does not alter the rule that a party’s standing is determined at the time the lawsuit was filed. See Progressive. Exp. Ins. Co. v. McGrath Comty. Chiropractic, 913 So. 2d 1281, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Stated another way, “the plaintiff’s lack of standing at the inception of the case is not a defect that may be cured by the acquisition of standing after the case is filed.” Id. at 1285. Thus, a party is not permitted to establish the right to maintain an action retroactively by acquiring standing to file a lawsuit after the fact. Id. at 1286.

    Generally, where a mortgage foreclosure action is based on an assignment that was executed after the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. See Jeff-Ray Corp. v. Jacobson, 566 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In such cases, the proper course of action is for the plaintiff to file a new complaint. Id. But even in the absence of a valid written assignment, the “mere delivery of a note and mortgage, with intention to pass the title, upon a proper consideration, will vest the equitable interest in the person to whom it is so delivered.” Johns v. Gillian, 184 So. 140, 143 (Fla. 1938). Thus, where there is an indication that equitable transfer of the mortgage occurred prior to the assignment, dismissal of the complaint is error, even if the assignment was executed after the complaint was filed. See WM Specialty Mortg., LLC v. Salomon, 874 So. 2d 680, 682-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“At a minimum, as WM Specialty suggests, the court should have upheld the complaint because it stated a cause of action, but considered the issue of WM Specialty’s interest on a motion for summary judgment. An evidentiary hearing would have been the appropriate forum to resolve the conflict which was apparent on the face of the assignment, i.e., whether WM Specialty acquired interest in the mortgage prior to the filing of the complaint.”) (emphasis added).

    In the present case, as is common in recent foreclosure cases, Chase did not attach a copy of the original note to its complaint, but instead brought a count to re-establish a lost note. Later, however, Chase filed with the circuit court the original promissory note, which bore a special endorsement in favor of Chase. Because Chase presented to the trial court the original promissory note, which contained a special endorsement in its favor, it obtained standing to foreclose, at least at some point. See, e.g., Kaminik v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 64 So. 3d 195, 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (reversing fee award but otherwise affirming summary final judgment of foreclosure where the record demonstrated that the appellee “tendered the original promissory note to the trial court, which contained a special indorsement in its favor”).

    Nonetheless, the record evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Chase had standing to foreclose at the time the lawsuit was filed. The mortgage was assigned to Chase three days after Chase filed the instant foreclosure complaint. More importantly, the original note contained an undated special endorsement in Chase’s favor, and the affidavit filed in support of summary judgment did not state when the endorsement was made to Chase. Furthermore, the affidavit, which was dated after the lawsuit was filed, did not specifically state when Chase became the owner of the note and mortgage, nor did the affidavit indicate that Chase was the owner of the note and mortgage before suit was filed.[1] Therefore, Chase failed to submit any record evidence proving that it had the right to enforce the note on the date the complaint was filed. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Kimball, 27 A. 3d 1087 (Vt. 2011) (bank that filed a foreclosure complaint against a homeowner did not show that, at the time it filed the complaint, the bank possessed the original promissory note either made payable to bearer with a blank endorsement or made payable to order with an endorsement specifically to the bank; although the bank ultimately submitted the promissory note with an undated specific endorsement to the bank, the bank provided no information as to when such endorsement was made).

    We therefore reverse the summary judgment and corresponding final judgment of foreclosure. On remand, in order for Chase to be entitled to summary judgment, it must show, without genuine issue of material fact, that it was the holder of the note on the date the complaint was filed (i.e., that the note was endorsed to Chase on or before the date the lawsuit was filed). By contrast, if the evidence shows that the note was endorsed to Chase after the lawsuit was filed, then Chase had no standing at the time the complaint was filed, in which case the trial court should dismiss the instant lawsuit and Chase must file a new complaint. See Jeff-Ray Corp., 566 So. 2d at 886. An evidentiary hearing may also be required if there is disputed evidence on an issue, such as to the date the note was endorsed to Chase.

    Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

    [1] We think that if the body of the affidavit had indicated that Chase was the owner of the note and mortgage before suit was filed, this would have been sufficient to establish Chase’s standing on the date it filed the complaint. Alternatively, if the affidavit itself had been executed before the lawsuit was filed, the allegation that Chase was the “owner and holder of the note” would have been sufficient to establish Chase’s standing at the inception of the lawsuit.

  94. JG,

    Let me rephrase… Those cases that were decided against the homeowners despite seriously argued breaches of law were already decided ahead of time by judges with a bias, as in “The bank filed. No one would file unless he was right. Therefore the bank must be right.”

    Up to us to debunk that bias case after case after case… in court. Hence the need for everyone to file first. Keep in mind that the slow pace at which progress is made is only the result of apathy or fear on the part of the homeowners. Still fewer than 5% file anything.

    Telling, isn’t it?

  95. JG,

    You’re way ahead of the game sticking with the law. Those cases we keep posting happen to be decided… on the law! Whether it be contract, agency, transfer, assignment, you name it.

    As soon as you start dealing with “nebulous”, you can be assured that the fog emitted is fog perceived. Whatever people wrap it into (insults, name-calling or what not) you can be assured that they have been destabilized in their own thinking and can’t see any straighter than you do.

    Don’t sweat the small stuff and keep on your with your own search. You’ll find your own answers. Have you noticed that you get many of your meaningful answers from the people you seek them from?

  96. @johngault: Could you go back to the previous post and give me your thoughts on what I have posted. Would appreciate it.

  97. okay master servicer, i’ll bite. tell me one thing I posited here that was errant, even if of no value to your own approach. better tell me two as I’m human.
    The only thing I have ever touted is what I consider black letter law, which I have qualifed by my lay status, and other than questioning something in a post or a comment here and trying to figure out what is being said which is beyond my ken, I have made no respresentations about securities and trust law, because it would be folly.
    You can’t disagree really with at least most of what I’ve written because imo if you do, you are short on some areas of law. I think you disagree with the underlying causes of action and find the law I look at of no consequence, more than you could honestly say it’s
    being advanced errantly. Nothing I can do about that. Your stuff is in fact beyond my ken and that’s true for many. I don’t think I’ve given anyone a bum steer or if I have, I’ve said so unless it got put on the list and I forgot.
    And please direct us to one case you’ve won that we can sift thru it and be educated, for surely your confidence stems from many victories.

  98. Tnharry,

    I see what you meant…

  99. Thank you Neil.

    Perhaps I too am “undeserving” but this was not just me. it was my whole family affected.

    If I did a crime in the past, and yet am now remorseful, does this ATTAINT my family. My Bloodline?

    It is the Corruption of Blood, that is what is so alarming to me, not my own sins, but the ATTAINDER on the innocents.
    We are once again in the medieval times it seems.

  100. And as far as I know his name is Mike, and I will be sure to get it to him.

  101. Master, I do not think it would be too hard to find some order that Brandais signed right? Try ebay.
    And if you get it, please forward that Braddock autograph to the owner of Kingsley.

  102. And what’s any of that got to do with enforcement of bearer notes?


    a COMMON STOCK MUST HAVE VALUE. The value is the basis in the asset . The basis in the asset is the amount wire into settlement . The amount wired into settlement is the FDIC taxpayer insured warehouselines . The warehouselines are the obligation of the lender. Thelender is a tax payer corpration formed as a REIT. The Sponsor of the common stock registration is the taxable REIT Subsidiary of the FDIC member Bank.

    Making a loan to the Directors of a Bank for billions is a fraud against the US Taxpayer. The controversy is escalted by the fact the FDIC wh line is paid off by the common stock…which our internet researchers call a bearer note. STOP Please!


    Thank you


  103. So that is is then. No constitution. I am just a slave of my masters.
    And he a slave of his? I don’t know why this all happened, but I found some of the truth, and this must be some sort of fate for us all.
    We must have some faith.

    All I know is that my book, well, it would not have happened unless it was for Mike. I owe him everything.

  104. Soliman saved money through skipping the Dale Carnegie course, choosing the Adolf Eichmann seminar instead. Only time and a few more comments will tell if it was worth the savings. THIS IS THE ANTISEMATISM THAT WAS SURE TO EVENTUALLY COME OUT ON THIS SITE

  105. Martha mentions the Cinderella Man…I have braddock autograph but would trade it in a heart beat for Brandais , the Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939 who forewarned this was coming in 1929 crash. And now they did it again . Brandais asked “how can the asst held in the dominion of the statutory trustee be made released for a lwaful foreclosure…” It just cannot happen and the courts know this. But we come tocourt pleading the wrong case claiming robo bobo and banana assignments with quiet riot title and ….it must stop . . .we of course , naturally lose.

    Know the truth …the state bar does and told these attorneys to STAY OUT OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS OF HOMELAND SECURITY


  106. @Martha—we’re still working on it…

  107. Carie,

    What happened to that job offer of your Hubbys? I would rather work for them than against them. Its healthier.

  108. ???

  109. @enraged—how many times do I have to tell you I’m not trying to “incite” anyone—or give anyone “advice”—or give someone something to use “in court”—or to tell them to DO anything? I never, ever give advice—I just share the truth of what really happened. That’s all.

    And how many times do I have to tell you that I DID do something in my situation—I took advice from someone—acted on it—and it didn’t work. You keep saying I did nothing. It’s simply not true. I did do something. It didn’t work the way I was assured it would. I had multiple people giving me all kinds of advice and I thanked them all. I did what I did—just because it wasn’t exactly what you told me to do doesn’t mean you need to go on and on about it all the time.

    @Everyone here
    —what is your take on why @enraged feels the need to constantly attack me? Does she own this site? Why does she always try to control it? Why does her ego get so involved when someone (for whatever reason) doesn’t take her advice? Why does she get so upset when I say security investors are never the creditor, and post info about securitization or collection rights,etc.?

    What is the motivation to attack someone just for posting information?

    Dr. Lan Pham was fired from the CBO when she started to look into the MBS…perhaps enraged works for them…? I just don’t get it.

  110. I gotta share the fact that in my experience. eXPERIENCE being on the legal abuse edge of the issues in court – due process aside and all
    It seems mr soliman gets it The thing is how can his insight be harnessed into our cases to force the proof into evidence. I wish Neil and maher would work together instead of opposite one another. But I’m too nieve to have an opinion maybe. What I do know and feel everyday is the abuse I am dished out in trying to prevail with what should be my birth right
    I will write a book one day about all this I think it’s the only way I will ever exorcise the demon. My life had been hell doing this for 3 years I understand more than most give me credit for but in court sometimes… What’s done.., well … Needs to be corrected.

  111. There are two ways to look at the following: o0ne is to realize that we’ve made progress and MSM is getting more and more attuned and willing to touch that infamous subject. The other way is to focus on the injustice committed over 6 years. Whichever you see the situation is, unfortunately, how it tends to turn out. It’s all in the perception. I, for one, wants to focus on the progress made. Otherwise, I might as well give up hope.


    Attorney claims county officials did nothing while people faced unfair foreclosure

    EL PASO, Texas —

    A civil attorney, Richard Roman, said he warned El Paso County officials about a scheme that resulted in people being unfairly kicked out of their homes, but the county did nothing to stop it.

    KFOX14 News has reported that the County Attorney’s office has filed a lawsuit against several national banks. Roman said they waited too long and now several of his clients have had their lives ruined.

    Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is what some are calling a scheme by national banks to sell mortgages to each other without paying filing fees, or notifying homeowners.

    People have ended up paying the wrong bank and then faced eviction before they knew what was happening.

    Marcos Villalobos said after losing his job he applied for mortgage assistance with his bank, not realizing that his mortgage had been electronically sold to another bank.

    “I woke up one Friday morning with constables in front of my home and with strangers bringing out my stuff in front of my home,” Villalobos said. “It happened in front of the neighbors, which was a very embarrassing moment.”

    Another victim, who did not want to be identified, cried and said that the same thing happened to them. The person said that explaining to teenage children why the family had to move was a moment that would never be forgotten.

    El Paso County has joined nine other Texas counties in a class action suit against the banks.

    Roman says several of his clients should not have had to live through a foreclosure and that the county should have taken action one year ago when he warned them.

    “I’d like to know an explanation as to why it’s taken so long,” Roman said. “I’d like to know if they didn’t believe in the merits of the case, if they believed that MERS is valid, if they believe that robo-signing is not a problem and it’s non-existent. I mean, I think they owe that explanation not just to me, but to all of the citizens of El Paso.”

    “I understand their point completely,” said Joe Gonzalez, the first assistant county attorney. “As I indicated, there was a legal avenue that (the victims) could’ve pursued back then. Our issue was how it impacted the county.”

    The county is suing for millions of dollars in unpaid filing fees. Each time a mortgage is sold, the buyer is required to file that mortgage with the County Clerk’s office.

    If you have a story that you feel deserves media attention, contact Ric Dupont at ric.dupont@kfoxtv.com.

  112. Holy smoke! A few lose ends here…

  113. Does anyone know how to contact the site moderator here directly? Or contact Neil directly?

  114. Soliman saved money through skipping the Dale Carnegie course, choosing the Adolf Eichmann seminar instead. Only time and a few more comments will tell if it was worth the savings.

  115. @Master said,

    Pretty hard to go to a lawyer, and not be able to tell them the actual story of what happened when even you do not know yet.

    Im trying to tell you and will not release this at the expense of this site profiting with another round of sale

    I know that, I do not want to know anymore then this.

    Even I got pulled into the culture of what is the errors of the false “rights” we are all told we have, such as “Freedom of Speech” or right to own property.

    There is a scene in Cinderella Man, where Crowe goes in and pays back all the aid he got. I always remembered that scene, and thought, Wow, what a great feeling that would be!

    This is the greatest country in the world, and I would rather be a slave here, then free in any other!

  116. 1. Every foreclosure has two assignments …..
    and each is held as a foreclosure by the Third Party Originator
    Every foreclosure is an executory contract being fulfilled . . . You cannot be held to an executory contract.
    You’re sitting in a home that was the victim of a broken lease agreement. Therefore the provisions of law prohibits restricts or conditions the assignment . . .

  117. every foreclosure has two assignments …..
    and ech is held as a foreclosure by the Third Party Originator

    Every foreclosure is an executory contract being fulfilled . . .You cannot be held to an executory contract.

    Your sitting in a home that was the victim of a broken lease agreement . Therefore the provisions of law prohibits restrits or conditions the assignement . . .

  118. The late stages of a serious illness cannot be remedied by a cup of tea and a big retainer fee.

  119. Your not filing the right claims and yes, once again the rich and famous prevail while the rest of America is guessing

  120. but this was never a foreclosure issue, it was always something else.

    Pretty hard to go to a lawyer, and not be able to tell them the actual story of what happened when even you do not know yet.

    Im trying to tell you and will not release this at the expense of this site profiting with another round of sale

  121. there is nothing in the foreclosing parties documentation that need be correct or proper . Not if the procedures your foreclosure fall under are already sealed and decided in other jurisdiction ….wake up here

  122. and using your lack of knowledge of the crime to pull the wool over your eyes judge,.

    Maybe the judge knows and does the attorney and also the state Bar. Maybe this is something other than it appears …maybe

  123. @Marth: a few months back I randomly looked through a dozen of a couple of thousand foreclosure notices in a California courthouse lobby. Some of them said something like: “the legal description of property may be this, or the address MAY be this, or: Bank XYX may be the lender and BUA may be the beneficiary”!!! just go to any courthouse and see this for yourselves. as to First American Title, I don’t believe they pay a nickle on anything. their claim was most probably a hoax. they are an organized crime, a total MAFIA, just like all other title insurers.

  124. You are trully from the dark side. Is this post intimidating you? Your pretense to be a master is more like an intimidator, threatening all of us. Go back to your bankster cave.

  125. Are you from the bank trying to discourage homeowner input?.

  126. @JohnGault,

    I have a document from a conference with the top legal guy at one time at First American, who discussed the FATALITY of just an missing middle initial on the documents, rendering it a nullity, and about how they paid a claim on a claim that another DOT was rendered a nullity, as it had been just slightly altered by the legal description, after acknowledgment, as it failed to impart constructive notice of which property was being encumbered.

    I am now ready to look for a lawyer, as the truth of what was occurring to me is now revealed.

    Of that I will not discuss on here, but this was never a foreclosure issue, it was always something else.

    Pretty hard to go to a lawyer, and not be able to tell them the actual story of what happened when even you do not know yet.
    Now I know why they were pressuring me to BK.

    I have now, as of just recent found a 1971 Grant deed that has a complete different lot number and leg descp. then even the Grant deed later recorded, and now I found the reason they HID the TRUE “Notice of Trustee Sale”
    I mean come, on, they altered the one they recorded to hide the fatal defect from me!
    Then when I called them yesterday, they said, YES, we have BOTH and the one we sent you was just without the legal description, no big deal?
    REALLY, Come on,
    This means I have NOT even been mailed the TRUE Notice, and I also found the TRUE CREDITOR.

    When the Notice of Trustee Sale FLAT OUT STATES:

    “The legal Description set forth on the Deed of Trust is in Error”,

    Well that’s pretty cut and dried.

    I gave them a good fight. I gave them one of the most exciting cases they had in a long time. Witches, Ghosts, Secrets. They enjoyed every minute if it, and will feel an emptiness when it’s over. This will be talked about for years.

    I see this cannot go to a jury, and why. But that is up to them. I am compiling my documents, and what actually has happened, to me and my family, and then WE will look for a constitutional lawyer in the next weeks, and then we can all hush this up.

    This was always about the Emotional Distress they were doing to us by the predatory framing of us in crime.

    Time to play nice.

  127. Unfortunately Judge due to the complex crime, lthe banksters are able to fool judges very easiliy. (or the judge is flat out corrupt) Are you an expert in wet stamp notes judge? Then how can you tell this is a real one? Looks photo copied to me. The signatures dont match to me. How can you judge on something you are not sure of and we need more evidence to decide? .

  128. The answer is this crooked deadbeat bankster set me up to cheat me out of my equity and property to flat out steal by theivery my property and all my freinds and neighbors property causing your court room to be a crime scene judge, and using your lack of knowledge of the crime to pull the wool over your eyes judge,.

  129. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2012/08/25 BANKING FRAUD SPECIAL

  130. Common stock : Equity
    Preferred Stock : Debt
    Bond : Debt
    Non interest Bearing Note : Zero Coupon Bond
    Sero ” Discounted Warehouse line
    Call Date : Due date
    Call” Future Price Over
    Put: Future Price Under
    Strike Price : Par
    Accrual: Accumulated interest
    Accrete : Reverse Accrual
    WH Line : Commerical Line of Credit
    Pooled Investment: Aggregate Dollar Amount
    Houligans: This site of Pretenders
    Foreclosure: Livinglies advisement
    Jail term: Livinglies Staff for practicing law
    Long term Jail Time: Anyone here naming government officals as Criminal s

  131. John Gault

    Your of no past experience and have nothing to offer other than your own research . Your a mondaymorning quaterback and so wrong on what you spew. Your a loss to the matter and really should find work. If you do work you spend to much of your employers time on this site

    I save homes and do a good job and do you see me charging ? This site is a sorrowful tabloid and fast way to lose a home. Thats all I’ll say. You give people hope with your internet research and frankly dont know Sh#$

    Good Luck Poser

  132. nomods – anyone who thinks the readers here, including me, are gonna learn all that stuff you spew even if we know it’s true, is mistaken. We’re not, and we’re definitely not going to when it is crammed down our throats, accented by name-calling, as the one and only truth, the way, and the light, even if it is. Your audience is not here; your audience is those we hope will speak for us, attorneys, and the judiciary. Knock yourself out. Get their email or postal addresses and lay it on them, publish, mail. Start a password protected(or not) website for them or anyone who aspires to know what you want known. Your attitude loses your intended audience at the door in the first place and screams “ego”. You called us morons, at least some of us. Would a 2nd grade teacher call her students morons when they couldn’t recite the Gettysburg address? What’s the difference? You may have the qualifications which you garnered over an extended period of time. Sort of on the unrealistic side to think we’d assimilate your stuff from a few clues here and there and definitely unrealistic to think we would do so on command. This is NG’s website and not even he would command our beliefs to his. He might hope, but he doesn’t command. He probably wishes more of us would get in line with or learn his stuff, but he is pretty tolerant. Carie gets in his face regularly and I’m pretty sure he has seen what he takes or took as a difference in my angle or even premise from his, which he has also tolerated, mostly.

  133. One of the seven articles of propaganda is to substitute an attack on the man for his argument. Banksters use it all the time when they tell courts the deadbeat just wants to avoid paying.

  134. enraged – read Posner’s short but interesting comments. Also read tonight that 2/3’s of money in this country is controlled by the 6 largest banks. Could there have been any doubt that deregulation would lead us here? But Posner and others are far from ignorant, so why’d they do it? Just now, I wish we could implement bse’s plan (see first comment here) and that we had some educated patriots (oh, shadow government, just like shadow employees and ceo’s for bankster outfits) to take command.

  135. @E.Tolle

    I’m talking specifically about security investors not being a lender in any way, shape, or form. THAT truth. Only ONE way to look at that.

  136. Read page 261 of this deposition There are no allonges notes or anything transferred to Chase.

  137. Actually, out of respect for all of the practitioners of the trade within earshot, I should have said…. “More over, the lawyer’s trade is full of crafty liars, workmen who think of truth as something relative and malleable.” Until you need one….. 🙂

  138. @ carie, thanks….it’s all good. I’m glad to have both of you….

    As to what’s really the truth, there’s a lot of truthiness going on around here…..

    Some think it’s like the venerable Obi-Wan Kenobi said…. “So what I told you was true… from a certain point of view.

    Others think that for a price, “The truth can be adjusted”, like Michael Clayton said.

    I happen to believe firmly that… “More over, the lawyer’s trade is full of crafty liars, workmen who think of truth as something relative and malleable.”

  139. “Martha, my dear”. A property is conveyed by its legal description. It prevails over a street address. That would also be true, I would think, for a dot. Nothing attaches to the property with the wrong legal description. Pretty sure and it’s a lay opinion to boot. 1) call your recorder and ask how dot’s were indexed on the date of the dot. by legal? by grantor and grantee? how? It’s not funny at all if they actually left that out of your notice or even that it’s in the recorded version. Puhlease find an attorney who used to work for a title co. Call title companies and ask if any of their former staff attorneys are in private practice. That or hang it up and get on with your life best you can. They needed to correct the legal, and from what you’ve said, they didn’t. In my lay opinion not to be taken any where near the sound legal advice you need, a disclaimer in the nots does not overcome a fatal defect in the dot. Pretty sure it’s fatal, but only case law would probably provide a reliable answer. Good Lord I ain’t kidding: I canNOT believe the audacity of these people.

  140. @ E.Tolle

    ANONYMOUS left because Neil refuses to deal with the whole truth. It gets tiresome after a while.

  141. If the loan is being rerpurchased from the security then lets see the documentation —your being charged up to 5 yrs of interest for a loan that now is allege to have never sold.

    This violates the FDIC regulations and suggests these toxic bad loans are FDIC portfolio and bank inventory ? Get out of here ….Go pest

    Repurchase Price: With respect to any Mortgage Loan, a price equal to (i)(A)during the [TIME PERIOD] period following the Closing Date with respect to such MortgageLoan, the product of the Stated Principal Balance of such Mortgage Loan times the greater of (x)
    the Purchase Price Percentage and (y) 100%, and (B) thereafter, the Stated Principal Balance ofsuch Mortgage Loan, plus (ii) interest on such Stated Principal Balance at the Mortgage InterestRate from and including the last Due Date through which interest has been paid by or on behalf
    of the Mortgagor to the first day of the month following the date of repurchase. [The RepurchasePrice shall also include (i) any costs and expenses incurred in connection with the transfer to theSeller of the servicing rights related to the repurchased Mortgage Loan, plus (ii) the amount ofany unreimbursed Servicing Advances made by the servicer of the repurchased Mortgage Loanand (iii) any costs and damages incurred by the Purchaser or any assignee of the Purchaser in
    connection with any violation by the repurchased Mortgage Loan of any representation orwarranty.]

    In court I brought to the Judges attention the rerpruchase is done pro tanto or for whatever its worth . He looked as Bank of Ny attorneys and said —Looks lke we are going to trial boys ….

    fight back damn it …use your mind and think . get off the Mers Corp foreclosure seminar kick and call the State Bar . Ask them is they are aware this is a civil forfieture and if attorneys are advised not to take peoples money …or interfere .

    Oh that is unless you want a MODIFICATION !


  142. @whoever you are

    It was NOT posted as you said: “unbeknownst to the original author”.

    The author knows, and is FINE with it.

    Please stop trying to control the comment section all the time. It’s pathetic.

  143. No cut and paste here – unless its from published staute or stolen from Soliman . You are a serious threat to the honest message pal. Do you get a cut of this site ? Your the real threat to democracy ….Go away. Why . Why are you doing this. What is your objective ? Are you an attorney monitoring this site – who are you …

  144. And why would an intelligent person keep saying “It’s just too hard to understand so let’s not go there…”

    Makes me think of why Dr. Lan Pham was fired from the CBO.

    There is some agenda going on that is dishonest. I post the truth with no other motive except to get the truth out and I am called dishonest.

    Makes no sense…think about it, everyone out there…

  145. I posted that information NOT “to incite others to use weapons”—as someone said—but to show the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth—for whomever cares to know the truth.
    I don’t care what you do with it. But the truth is the truth. I don’t care if it doesn’t work in court—I’m not concerned with that. I am concerned when Neil says security investors are lenders, ie.
    investor-lenders”—because it’s not the truth.
    I will keep posting the truth if Neil keeps saying that, and so far he hasn’t stopped.

  146. @JG,

    I rest my case: too complicated to understand for reasonably intelligent minds who don’t hold MBAs in finance Don’t expect any clarification from the cut-and-paster who doesn’t get it anymore than anyone else here either (except, maybe, Nancy Drewe but I wouldn’t be so sure…)

    That is why I qualify that endless cut-and-pasting of dishonest and disingenuous: it was done unbeknownst to the original author, without any additional word of explanation and it brought more confusion than anything else.

    You can see why seasoned and competent attorneys won’t venture there…

  147. They own the loan but who is they ?

    The loan is funded on a commercial line of credit under an FDIC regualtory framework to PROTECT TAXPAYERS FROM THESE TYPES OF BAILOUTS. The loan must have a BUYER or a takeout investor as a successors and assigns . This is why the blnak enfdorsemnts and assignements.

    Mers Corp is the successors intended as an interim assignment

    The loans were never sold as opposed to they were abated, dis-appeared vanished into a conversion feature under GAAP called FAS 140 .The converted notes are shares of a SPE called a Special Purpose entitity . They are formed from the banks warehouselines called a Special Purpose Vehicle.

    The FDIC warehouse line IS the loan, an “asset” of the bank and “liability” of the lender (all one in the same) The asset eats the liabilities and viola…your home is unenecumbred and NOW pledged to a German national bank DBS as collateral for a bond.

    Now the tax payers are eating the cost for making the deal happen . But your home is the cost of the deal and your losing it. So where is all the Depositors Funds damn it Get MAD People! Where is all the money and why are tax payers paying anything .

    The tax payers are the investors here and this deal stinks of a five year bond rolled into another 10 years , its Mers Corp and a Bailment claim , this is Surety law and emiant domain to be heard under In rem proceedings.


    NG You know this – if you don’t what are you selling!
    (keep looking for my messages as this site is continuing to take me off each time I post a few comments…its all wrong very wrong )

  148. Martha, if CWHL is acquired by BofA and BofA is foreclosing and in the FDCPA letter its says BofA does not own your loan….If the loan was derecognized meaning it was converted forever into a stock and then diluted into a Bond and the the bond into a non interst bearing note, and then the note into common stock and again the stock into preferred shares. Carrie, if the REIT limits ownership to 10% then every $100,000 equals a million times two . John Gault – That’s $2.0 million per $100,000 note. The banks require 5% skin in the game and there you go – YOU and YOUR home are the cash or skin in the game damn it . NG Stop with the livinglies and raising money for attorneys . . . these foreclosures are judicial forfeitures and are being sealed from the public. The court knows this before the poor sap client ever gets his day before a judge.
    You Garfield 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.
    Soliman’s testimony in the CA appellate decision was against Wells Fargo and Mers Corp in one of the first bonds to roll over in 2002.
    http://www.foreclosure alternative.wordpress.com

    Disclaimer not an attorny and not intended to represent the right of the hoeowner to obtain counsel for information purposes only .

  149. @nomods: If alleged lender/seller had no interest how can they sell and transfer, nothing??

  150. nomods, on August 24, 2012 at 4:54 pm said:
    These deals are held to securites law and jurisdiction of the SEC for inventory and collateral assignment of peoples homes and their equity. An assignement of collateral stock must be made in blank to be tendered. They are tendered into offshore Cayman and Swiss bank accounts with US Banks as the depositors. The Blank requirment is for tender purposes. NG YOU KNOW THIS AND SO DOES THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. (if you don’t REFUND peoples money NOW!) foreclosurealternative.wordpress.com

    Caresful watch the NG defenders come out …. Rally people…come on carrie and John Gault . Rally here …

  151. carie’s deal said “the CDS (default swaps) remove collection rights from the cash pass-through structure..” Could use some help with especially that one. 1) Is this to suggest that otherwise , i.e., in the absence of the cds, the pass-thru structure would have had the right of recourse, which you may or may not be calling “collection rights”? 2) are you distinguishing collection rights here from the right of recourse under the note? 3) exactly what are you calling the ‘pass though structure’? I’m more confused than usual which means I’m really confused, because the cds, thought I got this here, did not include rights of subrogation. So how did the cds remove “collection rights” and whose rights were removed?

  152. Wow.
    I just went to the recorder’s office .I am just so overwhelmed at this attack on my family, still just looking for answers why they preyed on us.
    I mean what did they expect me to do when I found the fraud, the intentional preying they did on us?

    I clicked on the document that was the Notice of Trustee Sale, and I was just FLOORED.

    It was not The SAME Notice they had sent me!
    The notice they sent me was ALTERED.

    They had ERASED the part about where tell the prospective bidders that the Deed of Trust has a FATAL DEFECT!

    They WARN THE BIDDERS. “Please be advised that the legal description set forth on the Deed of Trust is in error.

    Funny why they felt the need to erase that from the notice they sent me!

  153. never mind, enraged – i see the 1 – 13. duh!

  154. Long article, worth reading. I only quote part of it.


    Robert E. Prasch
    Author, How Markets Work: Supply, Demand and ‘The Real World’
    GET UPDATES FROM Robert E. Prasch

    The Obama Administration, the 49 State Mortgage Settlement, and the Spin: A Study in Shamelessness

    … For this paltry sum, the banks were released from all liability stemming from a decade-long-run of illicit activities that fleeced millions of customers and inflated a bubble that eventually destroyed the economy of the United States and much of the world. I should add that, coincidentally, soon after this settlement was signed, several states inexplicably dropped or settled what were very promising criminal investigations. Just to remind readers of what is at stake here, the Federal Reserve estimates that the United States lost over $16 trillion in total wealth between 2007 and 2010, with the median American family losing 38.8% of its wealth, leaving them, economically speaking, where they were 18 years earlier, in 1992.

    Now, you might ask, to what did the five large banks that were a party to the settlement (Bank of America, Wells-Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Citibank, and Ally Bank) agree to do in exchange for this wonderful bounty of sweeping immunity? They committed themselves, after much dodging and wrangling, to follow the law of the land! Specifically, they promised to stop engaging in fraudulent foreclosure practices. That is harsh. No wonder Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, was so critical of this settlement.

    But, let us be fair, the Administration got more than that. Contingent on their meeting a number of criteria, families found to have lost their home through fraudulent actions taken by one of these five gigantic loan servicers were to be eligible to receive $1,500 to $2,000! Now, I cannot speak for you. But if, as a consequence of fraud or negligence on the part of a major bank, I lost my home and as a consequence also lost my credit rating, neighborhood, dignity, and the ability of any children I might have to remain in the schools and with the teachers with whom they were familiar, I would be very angry. If, years later, I got a check for $2,000, such a paltry payment for all that I had lost would strike me as only one more of a long line of humiliations. Personally, I would happily exchange that $2,000 for the therapeutic vision of seeing executives in handcuffs. While I am not a lawyer, the RICO statute seems nicely tailored to many of these crimes. Even if they cannot get convictions in every case, it would mean a lot to me to know that my elected officials were fighting for justice on my behalf. Perhaps I am just strange that way …

    And indeed, pathetic as this meager $2,000 one-time payment may appear, the reality has turned out to be even worse, because these payments are anything but guaranteed. First, the several states were — collectively — promised more money than exists in the entirety of the settlement. Second, the settlement features a significant degree of discretion concerning what the several states can actually do with the cash they receive from the banks. Guess what? At least fifteen states have decided to simply redirect the funds. Who could have anticipated such an outcome? Do bears live in the woods?

    Ah, but the Administration would likely retort, they did not give up everything in this settlement. And they are right. It features yet another important provision. Families whose homes were seized in foreclosure through fraudulent means will retain the right to sue the loan originator or servicer who defrauded them. Now there is some real power. Fraud might have left you broke and without a home, but if you can find an attorney willing to take on one or more of the largest firms in the world without a retainer, you are welcome to sue Bank of America or Wells Fargo! Good luck with that. Yes, the Obama Administration has delivered “hope and change” by preserving the right of destitute Americans to sue firms that have access to literally unlimited resources with which to mobilize a defense (unlimited because of the guarantees implicit in Too Big To Fail — and if you believe the Administration’s line that the Dodd-Frank Act ended Too Big To Fail, let me tell you about a bridge in Brooklyn… ).

    When this settlement was initially mentioned in the media many of us thought, “C’mon surely the Administration’s pandering to the banks has limits, after all, entering into such a settlement would be shameless.” But we were wrong. Moreover, the Administration gave far easier terms than any cynic among us could have imagined. As to shame, at least some people in the Administration harbor lingering concerns for the “optics” of the settlement as is evidenced by their vigorous effort — one that is ongoing — to misrepresent the out-of-pocket cost that the banks must incur to escape these charges.

    Considering that this settlement is in every way and manner utterly indefensible, we can only surmise that Timothy Geithner, Eric Holder, and their colleagues decided to “throw a bone” to the banks to facilitate the raising of cash for the upcoming election….

  155. @nomods – okay. but show me the list of the loans that were the subject of that document. If the bottom line is to say that these were sales (and who here is the purchaser – the trust?BUT did the trust then issue derivatives and that’s what the investors got?) which would accord the bens of the trust the right to recourse against the homeowners, (and I’m still not convinced fwiw) , I’d still be interested in knowing how where when any sec’n trustee takes his right to act on their behalf for enforcement of that recourse. And I want to see that my loan is on that list. I’m not going to. What I’m going to see is someone, a law firm alledging to rep the trustee most likely, claim its client is in possession of the original promissory note and to hell with the rest of it. If a bankster or a sec’n trustee can be put to its proof regarding its holder v hdc status, we may find out who’s on first. imo. The things I would put before a court are those which are not complicated securitization issues, even as I keep those in mind. I would stick to black letter law, which imo include the laws of agency, contracts, and affirmative defenses. If we don’t give courts reasons for things that a court can and must ‘get’, things which we silently know will or at least should lead to discovery, we’re not getting to first base. Without admitting anything about the note, I would ask for the more definitive statment about how the claimant is claiming, be prepared for any foreseeable battle on that score, and be prepared to argue how and why the claimant must be put to its proof. I have a due process right to affirmative defenses and I should not be made to shoot in the dark.
    If the holder is claiming as a hdc, many of my aff defenses are not available and because they’re not, it is not reasonable to deny me the right to assert them without evidence the claimant is in fact a hdc.

  156. obama’s administration knew about the fraudulent behaviour of the wall st. from money laundering, fraudulent transaction, creating a fraudulent securitized mortgages, selling useless bonds to the investors to e.i. pension plan, insurance money to buy these toxic assets. the propaganda of the administration is that the homeowners bought houses that they can’t afford and blamed us for the collapsed of housing market.

    in the eyes of this present administration is to feel us guilty for buying things we cannot afford, on the other hand, obama’s refusal to prosecute those who have designed the Ponzi Pyramid were rewarded by bailing them out. how could they blame the homeowner when the fact of the matter, this banks are looking for us homeowners to borrowed from them enticing us offering a a lower rate and lower monthly payment so we could afford the mortgage. banks waived all those underwriting guidelines and anyone can buy houses as long as you have an excellent credit and downpayment. they offered those loan programs such as NINA no income no asset verification, SISA stated income stated asset, adjustable mortgage based on lower LIBOR index with highest margin and other loan program to fits the homeowners profile. suffice to say, as neil said we are all victims of this ponzi scheme and the present administration refused to acknowledge that. we all know the truth so the obama administration. amen.

  157. JG,

    Points 1 through 13 of the cut-and-paste e-mail from gldsable.

  158. The most influential judge in the country admits now that favoring the deregulation was a big mistake on his part and promotes government’s intervention. This is important to note as, up until now, judges have refused to declare their opinion on the subject. I expect more judges to take heed.

    In wide-ranging discussion, Judge Richard Posner weighs in on Wall Street, the Constitution
    August 23, 2012


  159. @enraged – points 1 – 13 of what?

  160. In order for a sec’n trustee, in the first place, to exercise rights of recourse against the homeowner , those rights would have had to have been granted him by the party whom itself had that right UNless as a matter of law, a sec’n trustee has that right and duty on behalf of its beneficiaries who themselves have the recourse against the borrower. And as to trust law at issue here, admittedly got me. But since it doesn’t look to me like it’s (it = recourse against the homeowner) the right of derivative holders to give, WHO would have that right of recourse and where would it be found so we can go look it up? In the UCC and all homeowners are expected to get their doctorates? In a dot, the trustee is granted certain rights and duties and so that’s where we go look up those rights and duties generally: in the dot. In the dot we find the trustee is empowered by the beneficiary (and this is agree to by the homeowner) to take actions pursuant to the ben’s recourse for default on the note, the right to quiet title to the real estate in the ben’s favor or in the successful bidder by way of the trustee’s sale. And here I note something we do know and that’s that the rampant implementation of credit bids is a new machination of the banksters. It may have been legitimately available, but foreclosures were generally done by way of a sale to another party historically. And that reminds me; even taking credit bids as legitimate because I think they are in general, is a sec’n trustee authorized to make a credit bid in the first place? Where? How? Law? Some agreement? And if anyone makes a credit bid in another’s name, such as the sec’n trustee’s name, it must have the authority to do so. Where is this found so we can go look it up? Where can we find a servicer’s right to make a credit bid? What governs the amt a servicer may bid? Law?
    Yeah, right on that one. There’s no way a servicer’s right to make a credit bid may be presumed. Contract? Where is it so we can go look up these rights allegedly afforded a servicer?
    If the secn trustee may exercise the rights of deriviative holders and those rights extend to recourse against the borrower, where is this right and duty of the sec’n trustee found? In remic trust law? In a contract? If the right does not accrue to the deriv holders, then WHO has the right of recourse against the homeowner? If another party has allegedly been granted that right by the party with the right, where can we go look it up? Courts are making an awful lot of unwarranted presumptions here. imo.
    The cards are so stacked, it’s unconscionable. We’re not supposed to need a law degree and then some to defend our homes from
    blanking interlopers. We have to know the rules of evidence and
    rules of procedure. We have to know the right questions. We shouldn’t have to know any of that. It’s just wrong and was from the get-go. We should not ever have been put in this kind of harm’s way. It doesn’t matter if it’s judicial or non-judicial foreclosure. The burden on the homeowner is unconscionable if not unconstitutional. And as to non-judicial f/c, al lot of this is predicated by the stinking dot
    “trustee” who does not want his true assignment. He wants to act as and pretend he is an agent for a party he has no reason to believe has the rights it is trying to enforce in the first place.
    If the act of B leaves B with no remedy because of his own
    stupid *&@$^%& business plan, he should bear the loss. Now that’s not speculative – that’s the law.

  161. What kind of promotor NG or salesman and attorney would 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 forclosurealternative.wordpress.com You Garfield disciples who keep people interested by bantering amongst one another about everything that have nothing to do with nothing. Soliman not Garfiled testified before the CA appeals court and they remanded back to the lower court. 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.

    Look at Solimans testimony in the CA appellate decision was against Mers Corp …wake up

  162. 58. The sale of each Mortgage Loan shall be reflected on Seller’s balance sheet and other financial statements as a sale of assets by Seller. Seller shall be responsible for maintaining, and shall maintain, a complete set of books and records for each Mortgage Loan which shall be clearly marked to reflect the ownership of each Mortgage Loan by Purchaser in Seller’s computer system. In particular, the Seller shall maintain in its possession, available for inspection by the Purchaser, or its designee and shall deliver to the Purchaser upon demand, evidence of compliance with all federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations
    59. The Seller shall maintain with respect to each Mortgage Loan and shall make available for inspection during Seller’s normal business hours and upon reasonable notice by any Purchaser or its designee the related Servicing File during the time the Purchaser retains ownership of a Mortgage Loan and thereafter in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
    60. Agreements 5.03 Delivery of Mortgage Loan Documents. On or before the date which is agreed upon by the Purchaser and the Seller in the related Purchase Price and Terms Letter, the Seller shall deliver to Purchaser or the Custodian, as directed by Purchaser, the Mortgage Loan Documents as required by Exhibit H hereto for each Mortgage Loan in the Mortgage Loan Package.


  163. 17. Defendants are the parties who implement a convenient mortgage origination platform according to their agreements amongst one another for purposes originating mortgage whole loans for sale to investors.
    18. Parties to claims in bankruptcy and for adversary are against the (1) originator and entity recognized by the sector as the mortgage lender and “Seller” , who as of the related Closing Date, agreed to thereby sell, transfer, assign, set over and convey to Purchaser,” without recourse, but subject to the terms of a certain Purchase and Sale Agreement, all the right, title and interest of Seller in and to the Mortgage Loans in the related Mortgage Loan Package, and Mortgage Files and all rights and obligations arising under the documents contained therein for each Mortgage Loan in the related Mortgage Loan Package.
    Soliman was right – he told us this years ago…

  164. 26. The common stock is used to construct and to acquire an electronic “cyber “investment called a cooperative. This deal structure represents the entire Unpaid Principal Balance used to “floor” the Indy Mac Bank FSB mortgage receivables The objectives are to turn the financing of the unconscionable loans originated over the past 120 day into equity that will derecognizes the outstanding pool of mortgages as a final sale
    27. Under FAS 140 and revised SFAS 140-3 are the rules under GAAP that govern these types of de recognized liabilities and assets. The depositor of the stock or trust shares removes the lenders liabilities’ off the FDIC books and cause the commercial receivable to also become abated.

  165. Points 1 through 13 of the excellent dissertation about securitization are, in all probability, what really happened. HOWEVER, it is NOT something the average judge can grasp. It is NOT something the average foreclosure defense attorney can successfully plead, never mind the average homeowner fighting pro se.

    I know a few people who have approached the court with those arguments and have been eaten alive. 10 years down the road, they are still fighting and losing their health over it, having having spent inordinate amounts of money not holding to their house. Max Gardner does not use it. Jeff Barnes does not use it. Mark Stopa does not use it. Matt Weidner doesn’t use it. My own attorney does not use it even though he is perfectly well-equipped to do so. Even Mandelman, in his interventions, stays away from it, despite his degree in finance. There is a reason for that: serious people know that those arguments are not helping in court.

    Knowing about it is a very good thing for anyone who can understand it. Using it in court is a very, very dangerous proposition. It should be understood that this is not for everyone. Case in point: the writer of that long explanation, however good and true it is (and i know it is), can’t even see eye to eye with the owner of this blog and both are on the same side of the issue! One is a financier, the other one a lawyer. Expecting judges, whose loyalties are mixed, to grab that ball and start running with it is delusional.

    The writer of the piece has an MBA in finance and has taught it at college level. This is NOT your run-of-the-mill homeowner fighting foreclosure. Although I personally know and respect said writer tremendously, I am very concerned when bloggers who decided to walk away from a much, much more simple battle without even engaging in the fight, continue to incite other to use weapons they, themselves, refused to use in their own defense. I said once that it was dishonest. I stand by it.

    Neil Barofsky wrote about this economic debacle. He did it in terms anyone can grasp. Same for Bill Black. They both offer arguments that are much more powerful because much, much more simple to understand. “Perverse incentive”, “dual tracking”, “injust enrichment” are solid and proven arguments. If the entire securitization or lack thereof was as simple to argue as some on this site would want everyone to believe, this mess would long have been fixed. Regulators don’t get it. Congress doesn’t get it. To make us, bloggers, believe that we could is a very big disservice.

    People are much more likely to win using arguments from this interview below than using this long explanation requiring a college degree.


  166. @ carie, are you channeling ANONYMOUS? If so, why doesn’t she post here herself? I don’t get it…..

  167. @carie – if what is said in your first paragraph is true, then the
    investors, i.e., the sec’n trustees, have no recourse against the homeowners. If it’s true, it’s that simple or someone please tell me why not. That would explain why the investor lawsuits concentrate on the quality of the loans which were to get them their returns on the derivative investments, instead of, say, demanding any say about foreclosures and mods outside what is (allegedly) in their governing docs, which may actually have nothing to do with the investors. That would make the governing docs just a carefully worded misdirection for the sucker investors.
    The true loan owners (if arguendo there are any) could grant an enforcment right to another (here the investors) if it were consistant with the provisions of the UCC first of all. Doesn’t appear that was done. And maybe that’s because it can’t be done. If not, we’re getting hustled by the sec’n trustee (or the law firm pretending to represent the trustee), the sec’n trusee now by and large the go-to party for enforcement since MERS’ Consent Order. Just a new face on the charade. You don’t need a specific loan to identify and spout the
    charade and I’m not sure a courtroom especially in any given case is the proper place to do so. It’s all about recourse and who has it even if a plebe like me can’t write the book. But a plebe like me can see
    that a derivative holder not specifically granted a right of enforcement which passes muster of the UCC and the other favorite of no one except me, the statute of frauds, has no right of enforcement. Or tell me why they would. They bought shares in a corpus and the corpus has failed or is failing (or go NG’s way). Truly tough luck and that’s why they scream about the value of the corpus not being as advertized. But a question occurs to me if this is true: why do the investors who bring suit about the true value of the corpus (again this is what they do), which to me is an acknowledgement of their lack of recourse against the homeowner, sit on their hands and gag their mouths against the bull being perpetrated on the homeowners by their trustees?

  168. With all the fraud if the rule of law was followed, Under water homes is a falsity, due to the homes have no material lein against them. No provable mortgage note attached to them. no note in exhistance that is real only false affidavits and photo copies of want to be notes. The mortgages are void and uncollectable. There are no notes so how can they be underwater?

  169. From: gldsable
    To: mellojack2
    Sent: Thu, Aug 9, 2012 7:00 am
    Subject: Re: Another question…;o)


    CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) were the investments that most “mortgage” security investors were investing in. They are largely synthetic because they were not derived directly from the asset itself — they were derived from the securities that were derived from the loan “assets.” The banks that owned the REMICs (and the banks owned them), would package different tranches from multiple REMICs into CDOs — and that is what the pension funds, insurance companies, etc. would invest.

    A REMIC is typically structured with about say– 15 tranches. Since these were not mortgage loans by which securities could be derived for Triple A rating, these REMICs had to structure the trusts to provide credit enhancement that the rating agencies would use to “upgrade” the rating quality.

    Here is how the process went:
    1) the subprime loans were sold to one of the major banks (this is NOT reflected in any assignments, and only some REMICs disclose this). (I will explain why not reflected in assignments in a minute).
    2) the bank’s subsidiary Depositor deposits the loans in an off-balance sheet trust (some Depositors were not subsidiaries of big banks — but they had corridor agreements to sell to the banks — which we also do not see by REMIC disclosoure — (Corridor agreements to sell to the banks, but the Depositor name would remain on the trust )
    3) the REMICs are structured into certificates, which are all sold to the security underwriter (except the bottom tranche which the servicer would usually own).
    4) the security underwriters were subsidiaries of the big banks.
    5) the top tranches of the REMICs were rated the highest because the lower tranches provided support to the upper tranches — that is, given a default, losses would accrue to the lower tranches first.
    6) the big banks sold the top tranches to Fannie/Freddie and kept them for themselves (Louis Ranieri — grandfather of the subprime trust has explained this).
    7) Ranieri has stated that the lower tranches (credit enhancement) were sold first — to hedge funds, and other distressed debt investors, while the banks retained the upper tranches
    8) some of the tranches were sold to other big banks.

    Then the banks would take different tranches from different REMICs trusts, and package them into CDOs — to be sold to security investors. And, yes, the guy who sold the software for these CDOS is right — one had to be an idiot to invest in these CDOs, because the ratings on the REMIC trusts from which the CDOs were derived, were manipulated. Anyone who read the prospectus for the REMICs would know that the CDOs were derived from risky “loans”, and that they were not legitimate.
    9) From CDOs, CDS (credit default swaps) were derived — which are contracts not even “synthetic securities.” Sometime CDOs were repackaged into Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs).

    10) The CDO “security” investors are, the pension funds, insurance co., etc, that Neil refers to when he talks about “those who put up the money.” These security investors, however, did not put up one dime to the borrowers, they were just, as the author of the this article states, the “synthetic” security investors idiots that bought the idea that the derived CDOs, derived from the REMIC certificates, derived from the bogus loans, were actually triple A rated (this deriving is what is called “leverage”). These security investors do NOT fund mortgages, they do not give borrowers money, and they are NEVER the creditor. The creditor “investor” is the bank that originally purchased the subprime mortgage — that was never a mortgage to begin with.

    11) the CDS (default swaps) remove collection rights from the cash pass-through structure. Once removed from the above — who knows what the original bank does with your loan. Very often, collection rights are sold to the hedge funds who provided credit enhancement by purchasing the lower tranches of the REMIC trust. The “servicer” who owed the bottom tranche, continue to “servicer” for unidentified CDS holders — who have nothing to do with the REMIC trustee (as CDS are contracts not securities). So creditor is never identified.

    12) Back to #1 — why the assignment to the purchasing bank is never apparent — because in real securitization, the asset/liability balance sheet receivables are removed from the balance sheet to an off-balance sheet conduit (such as a REMIC). But, the subprime was not real mortgages, they were GSE charge-offs, with only collection rights surviving. Collection rights are not reported as “receivables” on an asset balance sheet. Any pass-through of cash is considered income, not collection of receivables (you can not have receivables when the loan was previously charged-off). Thus, the subprime REMICs were never “true sales” of anything.

    They were not legitimate balance sheet transfers.

    13) Many of the original tranches to the bogus REMICs have been paid off. At the very least, by the TILA amendment, the remaining certificate holders to the REMICs could be considered your creditor (remember there are only about 15 tranches to begin with). Creditor is NOT the derivative security investors. According to the Fed Res Opinion to the TILA Amendment, when there are multiple creditors, the creditor who holds the largest percentage interest in the loan, must identify itself to the borrower. Thus, the tranche holder with the largest position in your loan — should be identified.

    This is not happening — foreclosures continue under the bogus name of the trustee to the trust.

    Again, and again, security investors, trusts, trustees, and servicers are NOT the creditor.

    And, Neil is on bad track when he starts saying that “security investors” funded the loan. ( AS IN INVESTOR-LENDERS). This is in gross error, and has caused more harm than good.

    Security investors were chasing high yields — they expected the subprime borrowers to fund their pensions—OUTRAGEOUS.

    Interest rates on these loans could go as high as what one might consider “usury.” And, the further outrage is that the properties that funded the bogus subprime were inflated to make these bogus loans higher and higher — which would generate more and higher cash flows.

    The fact the government still has done nothing to help these victims is the final OUTRAGE.

  170. Obama keeps saying these things because he’s trying to look like a responsible guy to the American taxpayer. He plays into the emotional ignorant taxpayer that doesn’t have a clue about securitization. These people still think they got “loans.” He is trying to maintain the age-old idea that people can’t just get out of their obligations.. .yada, yada, yada. He’s ignoring the truth. If he told the truth, everyone would stop paying the banks.
    Imagine if he gave a state of the union address and announced to everyone what Marcy Kaptur said: Stay in your homes! ! Stand up to the banks! Don’t give them another dime! Etc. That would be the RIGHT thing to do…but he is not going to do that, is he? The system doesn’t work that way.

    I have doubts as to whether most of our politicians really know the whole truth. I think the elite keep them in the dar just like they keep us in the dark.

    Apparently preserving that status quo attitude toward debt is more important to Obama and others than the fact that there is an obvious criminal enterprise that has been ripping off the world and causing untold amounts of pain and suffering. He cares more about preserving the criminal enterprise than representing the interests of the people. Well, the enterprise is where his bread and butter come form, isn’t it?

  171. JAIL TO SOFT, Solution–>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoT_5Txwp5w

  172. When Neil says “investor-lender” he means SECURITIES INVESTOR.

  173. There are choices and action items to consider:

    – Home owners who are severely underwater will need to walk away.

    – Home owner who are severely under water by way of false
    appraisals and faked loans need to be adjusted to market value.

    – Jail DeMarco who continues to cover for Freddie and Fannie who
    part take in the ponzi scheme.

    – Fire all members of Congress who voted for the removal of
    Glass Steigal.

    – Remove all members of Congress associated with Phil Graham

    – Remove all members of Congress associated with Bill Clinton

    – Remove all members of Congress associated with Bush

    – Jail Geithner!

    – Jail Greenspan !

    – Jail Goldman Sachs!

    – Jail all rating agencies!

    – Jail all Bankers!

    – Jail J Dimon!

    – Fire Obama and his administration !

    This is a simple solution !

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: