Living Lies Opens Clearinghouse For Investors and Homeowners to Get Together


A division of General Transfer Corporation

“Workouts With Honor”

Call 520 405-1688 or write to GTC|Honors provides analytical reports, negotiation with the title insurer to eliminate exclusions for off-record transactions, and potential homeowners looking for deals in which they can either enter into a short-sale, or sale lease back with option to buy. Except in rare instances. GTC|Honors works with local licensed attorney and local licensed real estate brokers only. We do not accept applications from brokers but have no objection and even advise the investor and the homeowner to engage the services of a real estate broker and licensed attorney. GTC|Honors does not guarantee title or a successful result but does provide screening of both investors and homeowners.

Investors must have some knowledge of U.S real estate transactions, their own counsel, and proof of funds. Bank and customer references are required.

Homeowners: Must have an actual provable income from which they could pay rent or a modified mortgage. Personal , bank and financial references are required. DO NOT provide a history of your case unless you believe there is a single salient point that distinguishes your case from others.

Standard business model includes purchase at auction, purchase out of bankruptcy state, short-sale, lease back, option to repurchase at discount and an equity “kicker” for the investor in the event of sale or refinancing.


GTC|Honors Business Plan for Residential Housing Investments

GTC operates www. the largest website on the internet providing resources, articles, forms and active analytical assistance to those seeking to challenge those banks and servicing relying upon false, fabricated, forged documentation. Counties around the country have verified what Katherine Ann Porter discovered in 2007 in her ground breaking study — that the promissory notes executed by homeowners were a hoax, and that no less than 40% of them had been destroyed or “lost.” More recent studies show that the number is even higher, probably at 60%. The reason for the destruction and loss was that in between the delivery of a loan to an investor-lender purchasing a “mortgage bond” and the time of funding tot he borrower, the banks inserted themselves as the owner of the loan in order to justify the purchase of insurance, credit default swaps and other hedge products. They used investor money to make these purchases.

The author of the blog, Neil F Garfield is 65, started his career on Wall Street as a security analyst, then manager of securities and bond research, and then director of mergers and acquisitions at boutique brokerage houses in the early 1960’s and 1970’s. He then went on to become a successful attorney in the trial room and in the boardroom where deals were made. In South Florida he traded in residential and commercial properties.

After 6 years of interviews, analysis and surveys, as well as direct involvement with thousands of foreclosure cases, he has arrived at the conclusion that  the original obligation at the time of funding was composed of two parties — the investor-lender and the homeowner. Wire transfer instructions corroborated his conclusion and since then he has tested his conclusion by demanding the evidence of the money trail in loans that were subject to the claims of securitization. GTC now provides paid services to investors and homeowners alike as well as some community banks who have been approached with applications for refinancing but are worried about clear title.

96% of homeowners leave without a fight, some of those declaring bankruptcy. The others fight actively in state and federal courts including bankruptcy. The typical business model being followed by investors in the area is to buy the property for fair market value. The forecloser usually resists at first, because the banks have credit default swaps and insurance payable if the property is sold in foreclosure. The investors make an offer in short-sale or to buy the property out of the bankruptcy estate. They rent the property with an option to buy the property back over a term of 5-10 years. The rent depends upon market conditions and the LTV ratio. Investors typically seek a total ROI of 25%-50%.

Example, pending case now: XX was the owner of two unencumbered properties. She was induced to finance them to invest in a Ponzi scheme, for which US Bank was the conduit for funds transfer. The application recited her income including the projected income that would begin in 12 months. The income of course never arrived and the properties were set for foreclosure.

One property located in Payson Arizona was thought to include 4 parcels, including parcel #4 which contains a 2500 square foot log cabin with two floors plus a partially finished basement, appliances etc. The cabin has electricity but not access to water. Lot #5, also owned by XX has the water, pump and plumbing, and septic fields.

Chevy Chase Bank applied for a lift stay order in bankruptcy reciting their ownership of the loan. Judge entered an order confirming the ownership of Chevy Chase and lifting the stay. U.S> Bank then foreclosed without relief from Stay, eventually saying that the actual source of funds was a “trust” for which they were the “trustee” “relating to” the certificates. The foreclosure was set for auction and the auctioneer accepted a credit bid from U.S. Bank. XX is still in litigation with US Bank over their ownership of the loan. It was discovered that the only property foreclosed was Lot #4, after which discovery XX filed a motion to add the other three lots to her bankruptcy estate in the interest of full disclosure.

The U.S. Trustee has suggested a settlement purchase price of $80,000, half of which would go to US Bank if they can prove they own the loan receivable. We already know they do not. So the eventual sale price might be as low as $40,000.

The property was originally appraised at nearly $500,000 without Lot #5. XX has the ability to challenge US Bank’s right to intervene in the sale proposed by the Bankruptcy trustee, if she can show that she has the actual deal ready by which the trustee could be paid. The property is worth, according to local realtors (lots 4 and 5 only) approximately $250,000-$300,000 in a distressed market, containing over 2 acres of prime land overlooking valleys and mountain views.

She has an income now of approximately $500 per week without working, because of money due to her, is enrolling in nursing school, is 56 years of age, in excellent health and comes with glowing recommendations. She has prior experience as a massage therapist and a personal trainer. Her expected income should be in excess of $1000 per week.

She is looking for an “angel” to buy the house, allow her to perform maintenance and repair ( a brand new water pump was somehow destroyed by the realtor), pay rent starting 60 days after closing at the rate of $700 per month, plus an option to buy the property at $115,000 plus an equity kicker on refinancing or sale of the home at 25% of net proceeds. She is open to any reasonable offer.

I am her friend as well as her adviser, which is why I moved her case to the front of the list. Your offer to buy should be submitted to the Trustee with the usual demand for clear title which cannot be given without further order of the court since the Judge already recited another bank owned the loan other than U.S. Bank. The court and the trustee just want to get rid of this case. The auction “Credit bid” submitted by US Bank without a loan receivable or the note was $91,000.

She currently lives on a second structure on Lot #5 consisting one room, electricity for limited access to water. Lot #5 contains all ingress and egress to Lot #4 as well.

I have dozens of such properties in which homeowners are looking to walk away with some dignity or who would like to stay and rent. Most would like to stay and rent.

I am am an attorney and the author of the above mentioned blog with approximately 7.3 million visitors. My fee includes $7,500 from the investor for judicial and non-judicial methods of clearing title, providing title and securitization analysis and negotiating with the title company to include a guarantee of title including any off-record transactions. This feature is absent from most title policies and many investors are already finding out they are stuck in properties with clouded titles. I have attorneys that will provide services locally in Arizona, California, Nevada, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee Oregon, and other states.

If you have any further questions please call as indicated above

Neil F Garfield

P.S.  Our experience, while limited, confirms what we have already discovered in court, that when the Judge commands the forecloser to open up its books and records to prove the loan receivable they either fail to appear at any further court hearings or make offers of 70%-90% discounts off the original loan. It is still necessary to obtain a court order declaring the identities of the stakeholders and the status of their holding in the property in a final order that can be certified and recorded in the county records.

The reason why the foreclosers are moving in the direction of allowing short-sales it is that it no longer a bank with no interest in the property signing the deed, it is the actual homeowner. But that still leaves the problem of prior loans that were subject to claims of securitization. By following the procedures that we provide, the investor can be reasonably assured of getting clear title and a very thankful tenant.

44 Responses

  1. Sac Louis VuittonTo make a fashion statement with a couple of retro glasses, round glasses say the lot..You need to steer clear from on the net merchants who offers revolutionary pairs at cheap values..Get hold of that authentic NFL jerseys and engage in the game..These portfolios undoubtedly are a great source of ideas in making trade booths stand out and about..Individuals that accompany me as you go of youth, they will eradicate at different stations you need to different lives..

    Sac Louis VuittonA young mother was seen wearing a vintage hermes bags, which offers her little doggy..In spite inside the resistance designed to raise reality that considerable volume of pattern conscious males and females go with up, there is only only one undeniable actuality and that is certainly UGG 5220 Boots ordinarily are not your standard shoes, and just about you will discover solo just one tiny area pointed out and achieved you genuinely stand apart off from your crowd needs into your circumstance go with upon essential baileys from Ugg..Which is steering to be to share, Ugg Boots is steering being the mark of type and trend..One thing you will want to ensure however when looking for cheap NFL jerseys to order is that you still be able to get something authentic..It’s going to usually accompany you and cozy your existence on just about every step..

    Especially “Ugg Boots” really means to an Australian boot that is certainly made with sheepskin by using large and odd seems to be..Among the list of extremely huge collection of cat eyeglasses, it is sure for customers to build their favorite sex cat eye-glasses..You can understand its logo in lots of fashionable magazines and shops..Presently an activity admirer and wish you are able to position in your specific Sports Jerseys everywhere..You may also avail residential glass tinting services and obtain your existing glass colored..

    Related Article:

  2. @JG


  3. “Therefore, in most jurisdictions, the servicer will need to prepare
    (and execute – sic) a mortgage assignment from MERS to the servicer
    (itself – sic), and then bring the foreclosure in its own name, unless the Servicing Guide requires that the foreclosure be brought in the name of Fannie Mae. In that event, the assignment will need to be from MERS to Fannie Mae.”

    Above is from Mers’ directive to its members to no longer foreclose in MERS’ name. p. 31 of first link

    “Further, if MERS remains the mortgagee of record, then the servicer should also consult with its foreclosure attorney or trustee to
    determine the appropriate manner (!!!!! – sic) for identifying MERS’ interest in the subject mortgage.” Behind door no. 1 – nominee! Behind door no. 2 – agent! Behind door no. 3 – beneficiary! Make sure to pick the one that you think will fly!

  4. at least a cursory explanation of “authoritative note”:

    We just thought MERS had nada to do with the notes. We thought
    wrong. Wish I had gotten onto this in the spring. sigh. I did run accross the guy who put together the material at the first link a couple years ago but finding him got put on my pile. Alas for me, because I think there’s some real beef in here. (and he must be my brother by a different mother).

  5. See if this gets around the infamous moderation:
    Here in the winter (okay, maybe it’s still spring) of your discontent is something different to read which you may find interesting. It’s about MERS, e-notes, e-storage and includes a letter ( I don’t have the letter so it’s allegedly) from MERS to the Fed requesting that the “date of transfer” be broadened in regard to recognition in books and records (p.26).
    On info & belief, from a power point presentation by MERS in November of 2004:
    “The only copy of this electronic note that is the authoritative copy
    is the copy that is within the CONTROL of the person identified as the note Holder in the ….Registry (or that person’s designee). p. 30

    You won’t miss too much if you skip the graphics and start at page 25.

  6. We “can’t get no satisfaction”…at the moment.

  7. @CARIE
    The UCC provides for free transfers—like it or not the investors who put up money that was used to acquire homeowner promissory notes have tolerated an irrational amount of risky “freedom of commerce’ —which UCC permits. It is not mine to complain —–unless and until it comes time to close the transaction—when the issue arises as to whether the party facing me at closing is able to release me from my obligation.

    The holder has a duty to the maker–to terminate the liability on the note upon satisfaction. If the SEC and DOJ dont mind if thieves steal notes—i cant complain–but I can make the thief either turn over an authenticated original if there is a cloud over his possessory rights——-or if he cant provide that–then he must provide me a surety bond and swear as to how the note was lost. Bottom line I am entitled under UCC with protection against subsequent claimant HDC.

    IF theis purported holder can get a surety on board and indemnify me–he has established his ownership interest and he then and only then earns the right to release the mortgage. if there is no satrisfaction of note–there can be no release of mortgage.

    if we boil it down to this simple level and apply it uniformly homeowners will be protected from multiple claims and surety investigations will ferret out thieves–this is how it is supposed to work–when you chase the red herrings–you lose sight of the key —satisfaction —and release—that is your right–not to investigate the lineage and ancestry of every holder that ever touched the paper or electronic acct–give me satisfaction please

  8. @JG
    ” It’s alleged transfer to the trust didn’t happen because trust law requires strict compliance (with the psa?) and those didn’t contemplate an e-registry transfer and in fact called for something else? What else? One thing for sure, though. If an e-commerce note can’t be resurrected to paper, we are getting had.”

    With all the transfers that have occured and continue—-underscoring the purpose of negotiable instruments–all this gnashing of teeth over trails of money etc become impractical if not impossible on millions of notes—-but if they want to rely on the UCC negotiability for free flow of commerce —then they must live by both the sword as well—-ie they must meet the UCC satisfaction doctrine–recovery of original or surety bond w/ affidavit.

    They want it both ways—-transactional freedom—commingling negotiation willy nilly–with electronic inventotying–etc

    all of these freedoms invite fraud as well—and if the hplders dont seem to care about being robbed —so be it—-but there is no reason that the UCC protections for makers need to be abandoned–or make sense…..this loss of controls is bleeding through to the real estate interests—persons with no ability to release the note maker certainly cant release the mortgage—they mustr 1st comply with the UCC before they can release the mortgage—ipso facto

  9. @DCB

    “…You need to ask—were all prior loans paid off by the refinance and/or new purchase? This is difficult to get a direct answer to. But, if you read all documents, search all past records, you will find scores of glaring “errors” or impossibilities. You will find contradictions, you will find robo-signing, you will find non-compliance in discharge/satisfaction of prior loans. Then you need to badger Freddie/Fannie for answers. You need to SHOW that something is very wrong in the chain of mortgage title. And, you need to badger the title companies for answers. This is not an easy task. But, with hard work, it can be done…”

  10. I have well documented proof, they rendered my mortgage insolvent. They are not getting another dime from me to put in their crooked pockets. They are simply heinous criminals. I will not aid and abet them or their investor friends ongoing PONZI SCHEME. They ALL got paid exponentially by using my signature as a plaything. They NEVER paid off their original loans they took in our names from the Treasury. There is no legal or monetary fix for what they did not do BEFORE they illegally transfered these “loans” and oversold investments in them. They dishonored the American people and I demand monetary restitution and clear title. I will not give up..not ever. No forgiveness here…

  11. Diostebendiga0 • 10 hours ago
    Flag as inappropriateA neighbor paid her full mortgage in 2003 but in 2010 she wanted to move out of Chula Vista, Ca and look for property in Oregon and to her surprised when she call her “bank” to take out at least $50,000. and guess what? the house did not showed paid off , it showed in the county assessor’s recorder office being flipped more than a few times and “supposedly she had had3 “loan modification” by different Banks aka Loan servicers(OCN) and lawyer’s groups.
    Recorder’s office Deputy from told her that she even had a trustee sale
    and that she was about to become a foreclosure in the County Assessors’ recorder office.

    She was frantic and very scared. She went home and told her husband and both began looking for OLD receipts of the loan mortgage and thank God they found the copy of the payment receipt along with the copy for the Tax collector and Assessor’s office. They had to go to the Assessor’s Office in San Diego with proof of mortgage loan payment because … the “bank” never made their deposit and never applied that money to their mortgage loan in order to record the new Title of ownership, highly illegal therefore (reconveyance) Grant Deed was not recorder under their names.
    ! a sad story with a happy ending for this time. the tax collector change the status of ownership and no one went to jail

  12. @CARIE
    “They are unsecured (false) default debt—which was fraudulently presented to homeowners as a secured mortgage. ”

    Frankly I dont care whether the debt is secured or not——the question is whether there was a promissory note signed—yes—always

    if so if you pay it off with cash—or if you do a cash for keys, or get foreclosed—–is the promissory note being properly handled? Ie if 5 years from now, a HDC shows up at your rented apt waiving the note in your face–demanding payment what do you say?

    I withdrew all my IRA money and paid it off?
    Somebody foreclosed and siezed my house to satisfy that note–and i never thought to ask to get the negotiable instrument for 500k returned to me, although i had that absolute right?

    I was held at gunpoint and forced to sign over my deed?

    In any event the question is:

    Is the note satisfied?

    What is evidence that you use to show it was satisfied if you think it was?

    The UCC provides only 2 ways to prove satisfaction —-outside bankruptcy—-recovery of original or affidavit and surety bond.

    I know that nobody wants to face this question: the collection agencies do not want to pay the surety to reasearch the the claim–and to issue the bond—————-and the homeowners and their counsel do not want to admit that somebody can knock on the borrowers door 10 years from now —and say pay me

    Carie–you are getting this overcomplicated at least as far as the narrow questions that i am raising. The simple question im raising–and only that question; is how do you prove in the next court action being brought against you by the creditor on the note [forget the mortgage]———–that the note was paid off–or at least that part of it was by proceeds of sale of house?

    Forget about the mortgage—-forget about the house—-forget about securitization and govt agencies—simple question: how do you prove you dont owe the amount shown on the note when the HDC is waiving it in your face? Why will nobody respond to this question?

    why all the evasive runaround—-simple question—everybody that signed a note needs to be able to answer this question—-with all the fancy rigamoral on this site–the facy 1811 case cites—why can nobody answer this question? are people here covering up malpractice? self-serving economic opportunity?

    What good is all this securitization info–if in the end you dont know how to prove the note was satisfied—or is there just a gentlemans agreement between borriwers counsel and collection agency counsel—that the borrowers simply should not get a satisfaction and release–because there is a whole other case to be defended if not–probably a nice bk filing also—-

    why is there so much secrecy around this simple question?

  13. @DCB

    Once again you are dismissing the “false default” aspect which I have posted many times. Seems to me that is your “missing link”.

    Subprime/alt a/jumbo were manufactured default GSE loans—for which collection rights were purchased by banks (acting as debt buyers) and could NOT be securitized into any pass-through security trust. This is why the trusts are empty—there is no funding necessary for collection rights. They are not a mortgage, not a loan. They are unsecured (false) default debt—which was fraudulently presented to homeowners as a secured mortgage.

    In addition to every other crime imaginable—can you say major INSURANCE FRAUD? Our government knows. Knows and doesn’t care what happens to us…it’s all about money, power, and cover-up.

  14. @ dcbreidenbach, you wrote, “….you need to caveat that the enforcement is entirely within the discretion of the administrative branches of govt…”

    Yes, and that’s why there’s simply no justification to vote Obama….his watch and all that. We don’t need pretenders like him standing between the banksters and our pitchforks, he just gets in the way. And of course, Romney’s out as he’d just screw things up more. Unfortunately, the system’s beyond fixing, in my book. We need to start all over – post-collapse.

    As to the notes….our counterfeiting laws read, “[w]however, with the intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or alters any obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined…or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

    That needs to be understood to be the aftereffect of anyone caught using the “Nimbus Two Thousand Note Creator”, or whatever in the hell they call it. You and I both know that there’s a counterfeiting cartel in the U.S. creating new notes from binary code for all the banks, and it’s absolutely no different from plates printing crisp $100 bills. A few dozen sent off to a dungeon for 20 years would cool off the presses, no doubt.

    Better yet hang a few of them….a Nooses for Notes program….beats cash for keys in my book.

  15. @ET you said:
    “It is illegal to create false statements, conceal material facts, make false entries in bank records, commit mail or wire fraud, and organize a continuing financial crime enterprise”

    you need to caveat that the enforcement is entirely within the discretion of the administrative branches of govt—-and as we all can attest, there seems to be an unwritten exexmption——-for any entity engaged in financial matters or collecting debt for such entities or after assignment or abandonment by these entities–sadly there is no other way to describe it

    i do not think that civil attys representing borrowers should extend the rule to civil proof of satisfaction of note—it should constitute malpractice for an atty to fail to obtain the UCC required proof that a borrower can raise in defense against a subsequent claimant–ie the original note marked paid in full—-or a surety bond and affidavit

    there has been so much effort by people to get free houses—useless effort—-that the fundamental premise of proof of satisfaction has been overlooked—-thus people rdfi–sign new notes–but dont get the old ones back anymore—this is BS—-plain and simple

    for decades—we ALWAYS got the notes back—–then theyv taken to treating the house debt as if it were a credit card balance–its not–its represented by a negotiable instrument which can only be discharged two ways [outside bjk]–or its simply not discharged


    Did i miss the cite there? are you referring to bounty hunters—–I dont think this is literally true—-im not sure its true at all—–govts are particular about this —collection is a governmental function —-how can you be sure you satisfied your debt to anyone if there is no specific grant of authority to collect–risk of multiple collection efforts

    that is why UCC has a very precise way to demonstrate authority to collect: barrels head exchange–foreclosure or DIL etc—in exchange for return of the original note properly marked—–or a lost note affidavit and a surety bond in case the affidavit is wrong–its checks and balances to prevent exposure to double recovery attempts—-this is not mystical–this must be done either at MTD or motion for summary judgment —stages–or pursuant to settlement agreement–this is not rocket science–i simply do not understand why this is not the rule applied—–too many people chasing red herrings


    Thank you Nancy Drewe for that layman speak.

    This is exactly what is happening.

    That “debt” is OUR HOMES. Unsecured debt is being used to take all of our homes…with the government’s “ok”.

  18. A “Clearinghouse For Investors and Homeowners to Get Together?” Seriously? WTF?

    How many attempts have there been now at profiting off of the Rape of America? How many different twists can there be on reshaping the scheme to profit yet again for ‘those who have’ – against ‘those who have not?’

    This is beyond ludicrous and well into shameful territory! Clearinghouse? Our houses are being cleared out well enough as it is, with the entire U.S. Government looking on as if there’s nothing to see. Instead of yet another scheme that releases the criminals from their day of reckoning….let’s start rounding them up en masse and get to the bottom of this criminal enterprise NOW!

    Remember this:

    It is illegal to create false statements, conceal material facts, make false entries in bank records, commit mail or wire fraud, and organize a continuing financial crime enterprise.

    THEY – THE BANKS and THE BANKERS, are guilty of the above….each and every one of us here can attest to that fact. And We the People are having our homes stolen in plain view of our President and all of Congress simply to prop up these insolvent banks. As Matt Stoller writes today at Naked capitalism on Barofsky’s book, Bailout:

    Perhaps the most important revelation in the book is a meeting with Geithner that Barofsky recounts, where Geithner says that Treasury’s housing initiatives were successful, despite their inability to stem the tide of foreclosures. The programs were meant, Geithner says, to “foam the runway” for banks, spread out foreclosures since banks couldn’t take a hit all at once. The publicly stated rationale for administration housing initiatives, in other words, was simply a lie. The Obama administration didn’t try to prevent a foreclosure crisis, they just spaced it out to help the large banks.

    So what can we do about it?

    Write your elected representatives and tell them short and sweet that WE THE PEOPLE WILL NOT TOLERATE LAWLESSNESS IN THE UNITED STATES FOR ONE MORE DAY! Remind them of their oath, “”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” Let them know that you take the Constitution seriously and that you intend to organize against any elected representative who does not understand the Constitution and the following simple directive….that we need to fire all DOJ personnel who have any ties whatsoever to the financial industry and replace them with serious prosecutors who will start criminal actions immediately. Nothing short of that will do. Instead of protections for the bankers, we need prosecutions of the same.

    Print out and attach this exposé and explain that you’re not asking for any new legislation, but that you expect the laws that are in place to be enforced – immediately!

    There is no time left for scheming and profiting off of the insanity. Too much criminality to prosecute? They’d love for you to believe that. It’s a lie.

  19. She’s baaaaaack, elucubrations, capitals and all!










    Attorneys, Trustees Automated Order, Delivery, Billing, Collections, Insurance, Financial, Real Estate Monetary Affairs.




    http : // www .

    iClear ATTORNEYS, TRUSTEES & Automated Order, Delivery, billing & Collections Insurance & Financial, Real Estate & Monetary Affairs SERVICER iClearinghouse SERVICER Alltel Mailbox Payment by Batch Check to Attorney, Trustee Etc. iSYMmetrics, Inc. Copyright 1998, Julianne B. Bochinski Esq., PO Box 375, Canton CT 06019 Attorney Reference Number HEIN-102 SN 75/491726 Donald K. Heinmiller PO Box 5047 Breckenridge Colorado 80424 INFORMATION PROCESSING SERVICES FOR THE MORTGAGE BANKING INDUSTRY INTL. CL 36, PUBLICATION 9/22/1998 ICLEAR (SM) & INTL Cl 42 EXPRESS MAIL CERTIFICATE EE202564478US Resdearch ZGA Preeminient Creditors Right Law Firsms & KMCIS marks include NewTrak®, Lenstar®, First Americans’ VendorScape®, Countrywide®, iClear®, and NewInvoice® herein copy provided

    FIRST AMERICAN CORP ACQUIRED iSymmetrics, Inc. Automated Order, Delivery, billing & Collections ATTORNEY, TRUSTEE, ETC. PAYMENT BY BATCH CHECK SERVICER/PROVIDER …Link First American EXCHANGE & why does not need license HUD/FHA Claims Paying Agent Wells Fargo:

    Highbeam need subscription:8/1/2002: Dallas-based First American Default Technology Group, a member of First American Corp. [FAF], July 30 announced the acquisition of Merrillville, Ind.-based iSymmetrics, Inc. and its core product, iClear, a Web-based invoice management system. iClear is a total solution for secure, online bill presentment and payment. iClear is designed to …

    As of July 2002, iSymmetrics, Inc. was aquired by First American Corp. iSymmetrics, Inc. offers a menu of programming, consulting, hosting, and data processing services. The company flagship product iClear, is an automated order, delivery, billing, and collections solution required by Unterberg’s mortgage servicing clients. ISymmetrics is headquartered in Merrillville, Indiana.
    OWNER: Heinmiller Software Associates Po Box 5047 Breckenridge, Colorado 80424-5047 (970) 453-7737
    Applicant DONALD K. HEINMILLER intent to use mark in commerce or in connection with information processing services for the mortgage banking industry international class 36, 42, .. intends to use mark in connection with brochures, print advertisements,electronic advertising www. julianne b. bochinski member of Bar of Connecticut prosecute this paplication and to transaction all business in US PTO in connection with to receive the certificate of registration. Donld K. Heinmiller Esq. entitled to use mark in commerce…

    ICLEARINGHOUSE (Service Bureau)
    ICLEAR (TM) Website
    219-685-5025 FAX 219-685-5260
    ICLEAR 75491726 ATTORNEYS, TRUSTEES AND other Providers iClearinghouse SERVICER Alltel Mailbox Payment by Batch Check to Attorney, Trustee Etc. iSYMmetrics, Inc. Copyright 1998, Julianne B. Bochinski, PO Box 375, Canton CT 06019 Attorney Reference Number HEIN-102 SN 75/491726 Donald K. Heinmiller PO Box 5047 Breckenridge Colorado 80424 INFORMATION PROCESSING SERVICES FOR THE MORTGAGE BANKING INDUSTRY

    The First American is engaged in providing business information and related products and services. Co. has two primary business groups: the financial services group, which includes its title insurance and services segment and its specialty insurance segment; and the information technology group, which includes its mortgage information, property information and First Advantage segments. The First Advantage segment is comprised of Co.’s First Advantage Corporation subsidiary, which provides credit reports to the mortgage lending and automotive lending industries, and provides employer, corporate litigation as well as investigative services.

    2010:First American Financial Corporation ( FAF) is a leading provider of title insurance and settlement services to the real estate and mortgage industries, that traces its heritage back to 1889. First American and its affiliated companies also provide title plant management services; title and other real property records and images; home warranty products; property and casualty insurance; and banking, trust and investment advisory services. With revenues of $4.0 billion in 2009, the company offers its products and services directly and through its agents and partners in all 50 states and in more than 60 countries. More information about the company can be found at http : // www . firstam . com.

  21. Mers entered into that 7 yr contract with Genpact about the time of their consent order. They are doing something with the e-registry, and off-shore (India according to Dave Krieger) for those who missed it, or again I will eat my hat with a dose of crow.

  22. I meant dummying up a blank endorsement might NOT have been a risk they wanted to take at the time. Plus, if they were using Mers as a registry for e-commerce of the notes and for pointing to an alleged right to insurance pursuant to the registry at least at some point, they couldn’t very well give the insuring party a copy of a note with multiple endorsements on it since under the thing relied on, e-commerce, the note would not have anything beyond the initial endorsement by the originator. No, I can’t peg it precisely, but I think I’m on the right, albeit late, track: e-commerce. Hard copies destroyed. I’m always saying MERS can’t be anything (pick one – nominee, agent, ben) for non-members and I’m also always saying the investors, the ones with the alleged ben interest in the loans, aren’t Mers’ members so they’re toast as to the dot’s. How would those assertions, if true and I say they are, sit with e-commerce notes? Can the Mers e-commerce registry be retained for non-members? And can a note which has been registered as / in e-commerce and moved around as such take a life again as a hard copy? Besides sloppy if not worse work by the banksters, e-commerce explains missing endorsements: they never meant to get them. They didn’t just not get around to it, they never meant to get them under e-commerce so they could hustle them along. But something went very wrong, it appears. And in order to get a note to a trust, the psa required an end, if only in blank. If the psa’s actually contemplate e-commerce, it would be news to me and a lot of others. To meet the terms of the psa as to endorsements called for, (yes?) the e-commerce note has to be capable of arising once again as a hard-copy, and even with my limited knowledge, I’d say that doesn’t seem likely. But I don’t really know. If it’s possible, maybe someone can explain it. And obviously if it can’t happen, if that’s true, they pretend otherwise. If I’m right about e-commerce, and I would understand any reluctance to agree since it’s been pretty dang ‘quiet’*, if I’m also right that an e-commerce note can’t be resurrected as a hard -copy, we are truly being had and it’s inescapable that there’s a gang who understands this and does nothing.
    *consider the potential ramifications of acknowledgment.
    Actually, what would those be? The note belongs to the last guy in the e-registry? It’s alleged transfer to the trust didn’t happen because
    trust law requires strict compliance (with the psa?) and those didn’t contemplate an e-registry transfer and in fact called for something else? What else? One thing for sure, though. If an e-commerce note can’t be resurrected to paper, we are getting had.

  23. “The reason for the destruction and loss was that in between the delivery of a loan to an investor-lender purchasing a “mortgage bond” and the time of funding to the borrower, the banks inserted themselves as the owner of the loan in order to justify the purchase
    of insurance, credit default swaps and other hedge products.”

    I don’t think that reads. For one thing, they could’ve used the good old blank endorsement that they’re foisting on us now to get the insurance. The only possible diff I can think of is : if it’s true that one who endorses a note on behalf of another without disclosing ON THE NOTE that it a) does for another and b) in what capacity, becomes liable on the note, that may not have been a risk they wanted to take at the time. Kind of like Mers making a point of not being designated an agent, but then so alleging when it thought the coast was clear.

    What WOULD read is if they used an e-commerce registry of notes at, oh, Mers, to claim a right to insurance. After all, it was the members making the entries with no way for anyone in the world including Mers or Merscorp to assure the entries were legit or “thorough”. Especially if that system has a way to recognize a duplicate loan number. That would explain why loan numbers were changed. This deal was e-commerce and e-registry gone afoul or I’ll eat my hat and some crow to go with it. They could’ve just changed the loan number in MERS computer system and gotten the same loan insured 10 times. Who would know? You’d think the name of the payor on the note, say
    Robert H. Hanniman, would trigger a duplicate, but that could be avoided either willfully or could happen for other reasons, like identification of a loan by it’s loan number only or maybe even primarily. That’s not to say the borrower’s info wouldn’t be entered, but hk (who cares) if it’s the min that would trigger a dup and the same loan could get dup min numbers. The number used to register the loan for the e-commerce had to have been the min #, I would think. How they messed with that for possible dup insurance, or created non-existant loans with min #’s, I could only speculate. And I don’t know that they did dups or created non-existant loans. I don’t even know for a fact that the banksters took out and received default insurance, other than pmi or fha insurance or the va guarantee. Just taking it as fact I guess because I’ve heard it so many times. But I am pretty convinced this is in fact what I said: e-commerce gone afoul. E-commerce, from my limited understanding, means the hard-copy of the note is destroyed and that is a better explanation of why the notes were destroyed than the explanation offered here, I humbly posit without any offense intended. Hope none will be taken. Before the advent of Mers, if MERS didn’t also preclude rec of assgts, if legit e-commerce were undertaken, the recorded assgt or even tendering of a certified copy of an unrecorded assgt of the dot to the insuring party would have provided a measure of assurance to that insuring party.
    But we know, don’t we? that they wanted the premiums or whatever advantage they perceived. With MERS, it doesn’t seem possible for ANYone to really know anything.
    I swear the banksters who lost it themselves or didn’t lose it and “messed around” sit down at a conference table, terminals glaring, and do an “okay, we’ll take these and you take those” to come after homeowners and memorialize the agreements made there.

  24. Neil needs to stop trying trying to get rich off the helpless. More and more him and his crew look like a snake oil salesmen. Please give it a rest.

  25. @CARIE
    “He has documents to show this was not the case—he was never in default— never delinquent—and he has the CANCELLED CHECK to show that the loan was PAID IN FULL—BY HIM. The servicer has NO RECORD OF HIS LOAN — they HAVE NO RECORD OF HIM. NOTHING”

    This is intersting stuff—but under UCC the only way the borrower can demonstrate–prove–satisfaction of the debt –is recovery of the original note marked “PAID IN FULL” or an affidavit of lost note supported by a surety bond—because as your party there is finding out, the debt is not released –forget the mortgage–absent these measures/ The foreclosure is one way to satisfy the debt if the claimant is able to meet the UCC standards.

    Frankly I dont understand why people beat around the bush and run up legal fees when its really evidence or economic assurance that drives it. Folks who paid the wrong party or people who gave up houses without getting the nore or some other assurance will face kunk note buyers ——and neither the credit bureau nor the trustee will get in the way of the collection agency.

    They are setting this guy up for a future collection action—reinstution of security interst—or open lien on all assets under a collection action.
    There really is no such thing as moretgage severed from note—the mortgage exists only to enforce the note.

  26. @Tresspass Unwanted

    Re. that link you posted:

    This does not have to do with surety and patents. It will be eventually be shown that the fraud in the mortgages and refinances was that they were not mortgages or refinances AT ALL. They were simply a “personal loan” with a distressed debt buyer debt collector. People must understand that mortgage loans were CHARGED OFF by the GSE’s (Fannie/Freddie). Once charged-off — there can be no more mortgage/loan on the property. All that remains is “debt owed”—that is a “note” without a mortgage that amounts to nothing more than credit card debt. But, this did not stop distressed debt buyers from INCREASING the (distressed/charge-off) debt owed, instead they went ahead and increased the debt owed by the bogus mortgage refinances. The original mortgage is never properly discharged/cancelled — it remains in effect. Whoever was the the mortgagee on prior loans, is the distressed debt buyer who increased the debt owed to them.

    A friend of mine has credit reports that show that his 2003 “refinance”, with a bank, was just closed last month. How could that be? It also shows that he was only a “participant on the account”—meaning SOMEONE ELSE took out the “refinance” loan. Credit reporting agencies told him the 2003 refinance is reported to them as a “personal loan.” Someone advanced funds to Freddie (to purchase collection rights)—and reported him as in default with Freddie. He has documents to show this was not the case—he was never in default— never delinquent—and he has the CANCELLED CHECK to show that the loan was PAID IN FULL—BY HIM. The servicer has NO RECORD OF HIS LOAN — they HAVE NO RECORD OF HIM. NOTHING.

    This was not an “ethical” problem as the media would like you to believe. This was a well-orchestrated plan to increase the debt on “charged-off” GSE loans. And, yes, these increased “debt collection” loans were securitized. But, no funding is necessary for debt collection. Funding was already provided by the charge-off and insurance. NO FUNDING. That is why the trusts are empty. These were NOT mortgages —- they are nothing more than unsecured “credit card” debt.

  27. Not on Facebook, but I am in support…what state law applies to the property….that info may help many others and me point you and your loved ones in a positive direction …the problem was identified by NG some time ago…Pretender Defenders…
    Does not mean all should abandon the hope this blog has professed to advocate in the past.

  28. Let’s help save one house. Please sign the petition. Doesn’t cost you a cent and it will help one family.

    Wells Fargo: Stop the foreclosure on my dead mother’s home
    Petitioning Wells Fargo Bank CEO
    This petition will be delivered to:
    John G. Stumpf Wells Fargo Bank CEO Kathi Mathis Vice President Loan Documentation Howard Atkins Executive Vice President
    Mary Coffin Wells Fargo Bank Home Mortage Mike Heid Co President, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Cara Heiden CEO, Co-President WFHM
    Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation, Margaret Padilla President Marie Reinicke Chief Administrative Officer Pat Herman Managing Attorney
    J.K Huey Senior VP, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Oscar Suris EVP, Director of Corporate Communications Alanson Van Fleet Head of Social Responsibility and Executive Communications
    Media Relations
    Wells Fargo: Stop the foreclosure on my dead mother’s home
    by Gail Leeks and Jora Trang
    Oakland, CA
    Sign this petition
    with 119,070 supporters
    30,930 NEEDED
    Outside U.S.?
    Display my signature publicly
    By signing, you accept’s terms of service and privacy policy.

    Like vultures, Wells Fargo waited.

    The house that my mother, Marjorie Gibson, owned is the only home our family has had for over two generations. I know she wanted me to have the house to live in and take care of my grandchildren in because she left it to me in her will. But after I cremated her, while tears where not yet dried on our cheeks, Wells Fargo moved to foreclose on her house.

    Wells Fargo claims to have spoken to my mother while she was on her deathbed. But I know she was too weak to talk because I was there, caring for her. They claimed they served her the Notice of Default but it was served three months after she had died. Now the bank refuses to acknowledge me as an executor of the estate and title holder of the house. They have refused to communicate with anyone other than my dead mother.

    My name is Gail Leeks. I am 65 years old and I have no retirement and I am still working full-time to support myself, my children, and my grandchildren. This home is the only thing I have and without it I will be homeless.

    My family is doing everything we can to keep this home. I am capable of paying the mortgage but the bank refuses to talk to me or give me any information, even though I’ve sent them document after document proving it. I even sent them a check for $5000 and they returned it to me with a letter saying that it was not enough — but they will not tell me how much IS enough.

    I’ve been trying to communicate with Wells Fargo for eight months. I’ve spent hours on the phone speaking with customer service representatives who won’t provide me with any information. All they can tell me is that they have received my documents and they are “reviewing” it. Despite my repeated calls, letters, emails and faxes, they still won’t tell me how to save the house.

    All I want is for Wells Fargo Bank to stop the foreclosure, give me information on how much more owed on the house, give me information on what I can do to make up the payments my mother missed while she was dying of cancer and give me information on what I can do to make sure this is the best loan I can get.

    Please help us keep our family home by signing our petition! We have less than two weeks left. Please visit us on facebook: Please sign this petition. And if you want to help us – please pass it along to your friends

  29. This proposal—or actual offer—can be a solution to homeowners who are desperate to pay the same as an investor would —-and for investors that want a cash flow——but it can be very risky for both. Its gutsy—-and a lot more disclosure of terms is of importance.

    In the end the value added in part stems from a form of combined UCC and state records search. This is one alternative where the investors and homeowners deal from a point of weakness.

    The real issue is whether the party siezing a home has the power as owner or owner rep to release the homeowner from liability on the note.
    If the collection agency actually has that power it should be able to demonstrate it by presenting the original note marked paid in full—if he cant he should offer a lost note affidavit AND A BOND. If there is a bond then the title search is actually less necessary.

    The pricing should reflect the value added—but it is in the public interest that the collection agencies are tested and reviewed by sureties rather than homeowners–or NG.

    The availability of this service should not be seen as a short cut to achieve the duty under the UCC to post bond—if the collection agency cant persuade the surety–why do tes the collection agency sieze the house. Maybe the frozen title is the best thing to save both investors and homeowners.

    When a servicer steals a house that he cannot prove he has a note for which it stands as security—-the theft is from investors–albeit perhaps not known after all the laundering—-and ultimately the taxpayers and general population of homeowners.

    The sureties should be performing this service–if investors do it–its caveat emptor issue. We dont need more of that–will this create insurable title–will more than one surety buy in?

  30. nice predictions

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Creditor, Life, a Free and Independent state

  31. @ 1ofthemany…
    Exactly…and I faxed info to NG …no response from NG…even though he enters a post questioning who is U.S. BANK …(?)..,last month…all because of a “Madoff”/”MERS” similar scheme initiated on or about March 16, 1999…see case # 1:02-cb-0199-cc…doc..54-2, filed 1/31/07….Northern Distict of Georgia…please note in the U.S. Bank’s Vice President’s Affidavit….the “subservicing agreement” is applicable to some 2,500 TRUST AGREEMENTS…only as a “subservicer”. …maybe a MERS in disguise…
    If each bond deal is just $2,000,000…and U.S. Bank is not the real party in interest, not to mention all the homes lost to many families….WOW.

    “the designed shell game extorted over $13,000,000 from our family”…as we tried to expose the scheme in 2002.

    Maybe…Neil should rethink his post……

  32. Can someone offer an explanation in laymen terms regarding below:

    Nothing matters until you know if the loan closing was an agency or principal transaction.

  33. Oh jeeeze here it is again, now we have china motors that used to be ours, sent to china with OUR bail out money!! now we are being sold another bill of goods, ya know some …not all people are NOT totally dumbed down by HFCS and Fluoride, we choose to be free/healthy and restitution to be put back in place and the idiots to be removed from office and for us to get our life/homes and country back. I do not see this is as a move for “THE PEOPLE” that are out here screaming for justice when the evidence is so pronounced and revealed in real time as we speak and write. Maybe I am missing something?, or is someone getting a little piece of the GRAB bag of gold here, please clarify as we have respected this site and the info brought forth for years, any comment or these people here asking for some sensible and fair outcome and not another pile of FRAUD??

  34. @tnharry..

    Thank you for you reply….no parsing intended..
    With much disappointment …I agree with you and others that Neil’s post, on the surface, appears such that “the scheme [post] does fly in the face of Neil’s preaching for the last several years.”

    I am hopeful that a clarification with specifics will be posted and restore hope to all the followers of this blog…and such clarification will be prompt.

  35. @steve – if you want to argue about something, then tell us what you want to argue about. i don’t get the parsing of words that your reply tries to go into. i was referring to the proposed scheme that Neil described in the post, as are the other commenters. and yes, i believe the scheme does fly in the face of Neil’s preaching for the last several years.

  36. If you are still in your home, try to get an audit and file quiet title.
    I wouldn’t bother re-contracting with these clowns. Too little too late.

    I mean, now that we know about the fraud, how can we in our right minds sign up for this all over again? My conscience won’t allow them to drive the getaway car one more time.

    We are supposed to feel sorry for the “investors” by allowing them to recoup their investment via a new contract when there wasn’t an enforceable one to begin with?
    Is that our fault?

    Homeowners are investors, too!
    We invested in our future by providing our families with shelter.
    I personally paid on our home for 15 years. Where’s my investment?

    Kiss it good-bye. Not even OCC or Feds will help you. All lies.

  37. tnharry

    …”it’ll be interesting to see who comes to the defense of Neil on this”
    Indeed…. but what/who is “it”..those who below REPLY or …the Mission and/or goal set forth over the past 6 years…
    ” it seems to run contrary to everything preached on this site on so many levels.”
    Please clarify the party which your post is intended to address

  38. @tnharry,

    I’m anal about using the appropriate word to convey concepts. Otherwise, it’s called lying. You know, that thing banks are accused of doing all the time. The only way to keep any credibility is by not being caught using the same methods to make money, right?

  39. interesting point Enraged.

    From Trafficestimate : has received an estimated 100,300 visits over the last 30 days. The number of visits differs from visitors (or unique visitors). Visits includes multiple visits from the same individual (repeat visits).

  40. it’ll be interesting to see who comes to the defense of Neil on this. it seems to run contrary to everything preached on this site on so many levels. plus, there’s a nifty little $7500 fee included in the deal. so many more questions than answers come to mind ranging from who do you pay to “buy” the property to who is the client for the $7500 fee and can you really represent both the now mortgagee and homeowner simultaneously. i just can’t see how one reconciles what Neil’s been saying for years here with the business plan.

  41. “…approximately 7.3 million visitors…”

    Neil, Neil, Neil. 7.3 million visitors or 7.3 million visits? Biiiiig difference!
    For example, I, as a person, count as one visitor. Yet, I check your site several times a day (you know how it is. Slow economy, not much else to do and house cleaning doesn’t do it for me). So, let’s assume that today, I checked the site 5 times. Yesterday, i checked it 9 times. Do you count that as 14 visitors (in which case, it is stretching the truth a tad, right?) or one visitor with 14 visits? And if you count the visits, do us all a favor and state so. Try rewording your blurb. I promise, it won’t be painful. in fact, it might even be just what the doctor ordered!

    Remember, we got in that mess because truth had become a matter of presentation and interpretation. You don’t want to perpetuate that state of affairs now, do you?

  42. Here we go again with the “INVESTOR-LENDER” LIE. No matter how many times he says it, it doesn’t make it true. Security investors are never the lender, never the real creditor.

    Neil, why do you talk out both sides of your mouth? One day it’s all BS—then the next day you are trying to sell the BS. I don’t get it.

  43. does this include Frannie and Freddie ????

    i dont think i like anything i read in this posts

  44. Gtc. Here we go again
    More gimmicks and scams

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: