It’s the title, Stupid!

“What is surprising is the fresh evidence these cases are turning up of cockeyed mortgage practices, during both the boom and the bust. As these matters are adjudicated, perhaps we will finally learn whether these practices were intended or accidental.” — Gretchen Morgenson, NY Times

Editor’s Analysis: Gretchen Morgenson has latched onto the key element of the “securitization” of home loans that was faked to cover a Ponzi scheme in which the largest financial players in the world were pulling all the strings.

While the propaganda would have us believe that the situation is improving, the looming number of decisions from now alerted Judges may well produce a tidal change in the outcome of foreclosure litigation, the value of the bogus mortgage bonds which appear to be worthless from start to finish, and the balance owed on any of the debt issued under the guise of securitization.

Romney and the Republicans, taking their talking points from Wall Street are saying let’s wait until the market “bottoms out.” What people want and could have is a market where prices are going up, not “bottoming out.” Voters do not want to hear that because each year the predictions are the same: the market is finally hit bottom and is recovering, only to be bashed by news of ever-decreasing prices on homes.

The judicial system is where it all happening, albeit at the usual frustrating snails pace that the courts are known for, some of which is caused by the sheer volume through which the banks and servicers, masquerading as note holders push good-looking documents with not a single word of truth recited.

Judges are starting to realize that the issue of the identity of the creditor is important if any of these cases are going to settle or where a modification is the final result.

Under HAMP the servicers and “owners” of the mortgages are required to consider the mortgage modification proposal from borrowers. But they are not doing that, complaining that it is straining their resources and infrastructure since they are not set up for that. Whose fault is that? They took the TARP money and they agreed to modify where appropriate and even get paid for it.

The borrower is left in purgatory with no knowledge of the proper party to whom they can submit a proper proposal for modification, with principal loan r eduction or actually principal loan correction since the original appraisal was false and procured by the bank. Judges like settlements. But they can’t get it if they keep siding with the banks that the identity of the lender and the actual accounting for all money paid in or paid out of the loan receivable account is irrelevant.

The problem is MERS and the entire origination process where the rented name of a payee on the note, the rented name of the lender described in the note and mortgage, and the rented name of the mortgagee or beneficiary was used instead of the actual source of funds.

The second problem is the balance due, on which the servicers and attorneys have piled illegal fees.

The answer is the strategy of deny and discover which is being pursued by alliance partners of livinglies and the garfieldfirm.com. By the way, we are especially ready in South Florida. Call our customer service number 520-405-1688 for details on getting legal representation.

The banks and servicers are pretending that the report from the most recent sub-servicer is sufficient for the foreclosure. That has never been the case. Historically, if a lender felt it needed to foreclose it came to court with the entire loan receivable account starting with the funding and origination of the loan and continuing without breaks, up to and including the date of filing.

The banks and servicers have been steadfast in their stonewalling to prevent the homeowner from knowing the true status of their account, the true identity of the creditor, all of which can be gleaned not from the the records of the subservicer but from the records of the Master Servicer and the “Trustee” of the supposed common law trust which was “qualified” as a REMIC for tax purposes.

An accounting from the Master Servicer and Trustee would lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to what the real creditor was owed after receipt of all payments, and who the current real creditor might be. After all, they looking for foreclosure and they are taking these properties by “credit bids” instead of paying cash at the auction. Only a creditor whose debt was secured by the mortgage or deed of trust can submit a credit bid.

The truth is that virtually all credit bids that have been submitted are invalid because they were not submitted by a secured creditor. And that leads to an even larger problem for the banks. Those “assets” they are holding on their balance sheet are not just fake, worth zero, they are also offset by a liability to those whose money was taken by the same investment banks that sold bogus mortgage bonds to the investors.

Since those sales were made through elaborate CDOs, CDS and other devices, we have known since 2007, that the reported “leverage” (using investor money) was as much as 42 times the amount of the average loan in the portfolio.

So that loan for $300,000 resulted in a 100 cents on the dollar payoff to banks who had neither funded nor purchased the loans but were representing themselves as the legal holder of the note and thus the obligation.

If the mortgage was invalid, the note was unenforceable because it wasn’t funded by the parties named on the note, and the “assignment,” or other transfer or sale of the “note” were all equally null and void, then the bank that has picked one end of the stick saying the assets on their balance sheet are real, should also have put a contingent liability on their balance sheet for as much as $12 million on the $300,000 loan.

Each time foreclosure is completed, or appears to be completed, that huge liability is wiped out arguably. Then the banks keep the $12 million, and dump the loss on the individual loan on the investors, which is usually some 50%-65% of the loan amount.

THAT is why the banks and servicers are in the business of foreclosure, not modification or settlement. They have no choice. They could owe back all that money they received. It isn’t the loss of $300,000 or some part thereof  they are worried about, it is the liability of $12 million on that loan that they are avoiding.

The political impact of this will be devastating to incumbents not in 2012 but in 2014 when the pension funds, who have already reported they are “underfunded” start slashing pension benefits, thus requiring another round of Federal Bailouts because the government so far has refused to claw back all of the money that was made by the banks and distribute it to the investors and reduce the borrowers balance owed on the “loan.”

Given the above scenario and the widespread use of nominees in lieu of real lenders and real sources of funding, it is highly probable that the title to potentially tens of millions of properties have clouds either because the foreclosure was wrongful or because the wrong party executed the satisfaction of mortgage or both.

And as stated in the previous post, this is not a gift to homeowners. They will owe tax on the elimination of the mortgages and loans because the loans were paid, not forgiven.

It is left-handed way of providing huge principal reductions because of PAYMENT (not forgiveness). With the balance paid, the borrowers must report the claim as a gain paid by co-obligors they never knew existed. With a top tax rate of 35% currently, soon to be 38%, the homeowner will have a tax obligation for no more than the tax rate applied against the balance due on the loan — the equivalent of a loan reduction of 65%-75%, which would satisfy anyone.

Modification proposals from homeowners are much higher than that. The only reason they are rejected is because each modification would transform each loan into the class of “performing” and would materially change the balance sheet of each of the mega banks with adverse consequences for the mega banks and a bonanza for the 7,000 community banks sand credit unions in this country.

But in order to determine the balance due, the accounting must be a total accounting starting from the original funding of the loan right up to the present. When Judges realize that the would-be foreclosers can’t or won’t provide that they will start making the opposite presumption — that it is the banks and servicers that are the deadbeats.

283 Responses

  1. @dcb – you are someone who would get the tenets discussed in this granddaddy case on assignments for collection:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/48254612/MERS-COLLUSION-IN-THE-ASSIGNMENT-OF-DEEDS-OF-TRUST-AND-DIVERSITY

  2. @JG

    Very interesting point. Raises the question of whether the party entitled to enforce–eg thief of bearer paper has same rights as owner—-iv been struggling with that myself—if you have some sense the thief is the thief then you can force the claimant to prove authority–and what if thief forged indorsement

    but you have a burden under 308 right? otherwise the UCC leans toward the thief—-ut see 602 re pmt with knowledge of thft–not satisfaction—this is one place where ignorance is bliss

    i think???? best guess—i barely passed negotiables 40 yrs ago–now i know why—its excruciating —-

  3. @dcb – I have been thinking about the credit bid and who is allowed as a matter of law to make one. You have been talking about who can mark one paid – as you say, a thief? Well, what about when a thief or one claiming a right to enforce a bearer note: how does that give
    that party a right to make a credit bid? It doesn’t.

  4. @JG They depend on undermining natural industry Checks and balances—like non-trustee trustees v servicers that call all the shots

  5. Oh, my goodness yet again. The 80/20. I said a reason to fashion loans as 80/20’s was to avoid pmi, which is true. But, what I overlooked is that when pmi is necessary, the pmi company has to also underwrite and approve the loan……

  6. ivent – even if the fed or treasury funded loans with what should have been mol overnight lending, they wouldn’t have marked a note paid when their ‘loc’ got paid off. What they should have for not getting paid off is a right of subrogation, a recourse right for non-payment. Maybe they still do, but have never exercised it. But, if the loans were contractually subject to the rights of the party who forked over the funds to fund them, the notes if not paid off by the time certain which should have (doesn’t mean it was) been expressed , the loans are encumbered and in that regard I’d say you’re right – they were not appropriate for securitization. And in that regard, I’m confident WS fashioned it’s own illegal cures to get around things, even if I have been off-center. For all I know, they floated the deal and made payments on the notes to the fed or treasury out of borrowers’ payments after selling the notes to trusts (or at least taking the trust funds). This would leave them short on payments to investors. I doubt this part actually happened, but who knows.
    Not paying back the funder does not void the instruments; it just leads to a bigger pi$$ing match about who has the right of enforcement (and it wouldn’t be the investors if the notes were sold subject to someone else’s rights, which as i think you said and i agree, doesn’t seem like it could be done lawfully) I don’t know who funded what. I just know a little about how warehouse lines are supposed to work.

  7. Could the ALLONGE be the mystery assignment for buyer’s interest in a real estate contract….? Is that why the bank attorney tried to convince me that the ALLONGE is the assignment because there is no trust, trustee or discovery documents? Well that doesn’t hold water…the ALLONGE transfers nothing without the ABI..it is a scam.

  8. @invent – I do want to thank you, tho, for that link because without it, if I did get it, I wouldn’t have without that material. I would either have forgotten to pursue ‘money’s worth’ or it would have taken me a great amt of time to run it down.

  9. @ivent re: your article link bait and switch 0909 12:25 pm. I recently ran accross the words “money’s worth” as opposed to ‘money’ regarding the UCC. After reading your linked material, I think I know why there is “money’s worth”, something legal but nonetheless something kept from the masses. I think the distinction is that one who signs a prom note (which does not say anything other than “valuable consideration” ) is seen to be getting his ‘money’s worth’ in lieu of ‘money’ for creating / agreeing to the obligation. Still, since you introduced the material, maybe you will be the one to look into “money’s worth” and let us know what you find. Unfortunately, if I got it right, and not saying I do, the arguments espoused in that material don’t hold water. UNless a borrower could get an argument sustained that he does not agree with and would not have agreed to the bank being able to create money, though he got the benefit of the deal, his “money’s worth”.

  10. @JG
    Cornelison v Kornbluth, CA SC, 542 P.2d 981 – 1975
    is this an interpretation of the caifornia non-recourse statutes?

  11. @JG

    re collection on 2nd because of a technicality in the non-recourse law

    Gee you are so cynical—I cant believe that anybody in the financial services industry kows about this loophole–and none would take advantage of a technicality like that—nor would any give a special bonus to a broker to set it up—-they wouldnt do such unconscionable things–thats right there with selling and collecting on paid off note–not likely–iv heard people say that–not likely

    please keep looking at double collections—look at red states

  12. @dcb – it’s sometime hard to read all this crud. In looking for those couple cases, I found another about defic. judgments and not til I read this one did I get something that has really got me riled: At least in CA, and prob other states, one lender holding a first and second on a property is not considered a sold out jr lienholder, so that lender is out of luck on the second when it forecloses on the first. However, let’s say Tom went to RatbLender and got a first and second, say an 80/20, which I only learned last year was the course d’jour. If the first and second end up in different ‘homes’, sold to different entities, the second, whose lien is now gone, may yet go for a judgment on the note. How many borrowers do you think were aware of this dramatic consequence of an 80/20? NONE. And what lawyer they could have gone to see might have counseled them against doing this? I’ll let you answer that one. And who’s to say that knowing this, there wasn’t an effort to see that the first and second ended up in two places?
    It’s unconscionable to put the average guy in harm’s way like that. The ostensible reason for doing it was to avoid pmi on the first, and of course, the higher rate they could get on the second, some stinking
    heloc. Well, at least the homeowner can bk the second because it’s unsecured after the first forecloses. Still, no way people should have been induced to enter a deal like that. It’s just wrong and I wish to
    high heaven there were a cause of action in there somewhere for not disclosing this ‘little’ fact.

  13. @dcb
    “…..the argument is that the purchase by …beneficiary of the property covered by the purchase money deed of trust pursuant to a full credit bid made and accepted at the non-judicial foreclosure sale resulted in a total satisfaction of the secured obligation. We agree.” @ no. 8 in this decision which mostly concentrates on deficiency judgments.
    Cornelison v Kornbluth, CA SC,
    542 P.2d 981 – 1975

    Still looking for a couple other cases. Moving a little slow.

  14. Was the ORIGINAL MORTGAGE and NOTE STAMPED PAID BY THE U.S. TREASURY DEPT…? I MEAN THE VERY FIRST NOTE AND MORTGAGE….IF NOT..ASK THEM FOR IT…IF THEY DON’T HAVE IT ….ANY AND ALL FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS….. ANY SALES OF SECURITIES WERE FRAUDULENT AND ANY TRANSFERS WERE FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES ….THEREFORE ANY OF THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS MADE IN YOUR NAME….WERE DONE WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEGE AND THEY NEVER OCCURRED..THESE ENTITIES CLAIMING YOU OWE THEM YOUR MONEY OR PROPERTY ARE BY RULE OF LAW…IMPOSTERS..!

  15. @FG
    ” I don’t remember if the note marked paid must be returned, think it must in voluntary payment of the loan cases”

    —-the issue to me is this simple : if someone takes the collateral –there must be a way for that to be registered on the note per the statutes—or what do you have to prove that you paid it —–that the note is at least partly satisfied—-if this does not happen the collection agency could sell the note to a junk debt buyer HDC as soon as your payoff check clears or the public sale occurs–that risk deprives you of due process —injunctive relief? Either prove the right to enforece by present,ent or walk away–but if they walk –there is no taxable income–because the taxpayer is still in limbo-still owes and anyday somebody can claim

    remember these are not just bank transactions—-these are also private sales–it could be that a userer with one office generated a loan shark deal and memorialized it—see Hard Core Pawn-these guys could set up a note or contract —not just chase–the convicted userer loan shark may not get the presumption of credibility that say Jon Corzine gets [tongue in cheek–but up to a year ago –corzine’s word was gold too—things change

    -now I understand that as a practical matter notes being collected with a banks name as trustee get treated like they are beyond possibility of fraud or forgery etc—-at least until the doc mills became well understood—-i do not see why an allegation in a complaint on behalf of a trustee –followed up with a nice copy –should cause everybody to fall all over themselves rushing to give money to the collection agency —like it was indorsed by God—a nice autopen and a couple loan lists will go a long way towards a crook filling his pockets–i think at this point given the statements open to judicial notice re the industry negligence in servicing —any presumption of accuracy of records was lost in 2010

    i think its better to asume the claims are false until proven accurate–all claims—now what evidence do you use to show you dont owe the full note amount to an innocent HDC—or at least one you cant impeach

  16. okay dcb, but first of all you are inherently arguing that 3 regs the enforcement of these notes, right?. I do see what you’re saying about the tender of the paid note precluding the claim of C. But,yes, in order for a debtor to enforce the tender, (whatever), the debtor has to be by law entitled to notification of a transfer of the note and to whom. please send the 3 602 part. Certainly what you’re saying makes sense and it prob is the law. Altho i was not aware of the precise specs you site, I have suggested that when litigating, borrowers talk to their attorneys abou) asking the court to order the return of the cancelled note by a time certain, or something that passes muster reflecting the extent to which the note is no longer collectible, as a cast-iron condition of relief and I’d go so far as to ask the court to include that failure to comply vitiates the relief and nullifies any act taken when there is no compliance.
    Now when a loan is paid off voluntarily, i know the lien is to be released within a time certain or the interest established in the dot is to be reconveyed (as to dot’s) within a time certain. Seems like the note should be returned marked ‘paid’, but I’m not altogether sure, really just don’t know, that that release or reconveyance doesn’t as a matter of law signify the retirement of the note, in which case the info you are reading might not be germane to notes secured by real property. (Remember, I qual’d that by saying I didn’t know if it worked that way.)

    I don’t remember if the note marked paid must be returned, think it must in voluntary payment of the loan cases; it does seem likely IF it isn’t deemed extinuished by the rel or recon of the coll instrument.

    Under the doctrine of merger, a full credit bid at foreclosure sale extinguishes the dot as a matter of law. That takes care of the dot. But because it does, whether or not the proposition that extinguishment of the dot extinguishes the note is paramount. And you might think that prop is just ridiculous; maybe it is, but maybe it isn’t. I mean what’s paramount is to learn if it does or NOT. But that conflicts with your b & c deal, I can see. Well, one truth to me is that if C has the note, B has no business making a credit bid based on the dot – or anything – as it has no credit due.
    I’m going to find a case or two I’d like you to read to get a handle on something I’ve mentioned which bears on these issues and then say yea or nay about this or that.

  17. johngault…of course the Treasury…the trust for the peoples money funds everything..banks don’t lend. Private investors invest in the debt the banks create. If the banks paid back the loans after they capitalized on the loans they took, that is still fraud and nullifies the entire transaction.

  18. @JG et al
    To establish that my comments are not theory but a re-statement of a core basic West publication “Uniform Commercial Code –Nutshell Series, by Stone and Adams 2008, a text wich I cquired a few months back. The general prinicals of financial risk and frauder opportunity lie as follows, and I quote the referenced authority. in the section entitled Merger or symbolism,
    ” in addion to the fact that negotiability gives greater rights to the goof faith purchase, there is another attribulte of great importance. … Suppose …that A issued a negotiable note to B, which B negotiated to C. A should refuse to pay B unless B presents and surrenders the note because, if A pays B when innocent C has possession of the note, C can recover on the note from A. Thus in this situation, A will pat twice sections 3-601(b), 30602(a), 3-301.This attribute of negotiability is sometimes called merger [in atallics], that is the debt is so merged into the instrument evidencing the claim to the debt that the instrument must be treated in many situations as if it were the claim itself. This concept is also called symbolism [italics]; that is this instrument symbolizes the instrument symbolizes the claim itself. This means an obligor on a negotiable instrument cannot safely pay off the obligation without presentation and surrender of the properly indorsed instrument. When B surrenders the instrument upon , A is assured that such instrument is not in the hands of an innocent C, and thus the risk of double payment is avoided. See sections 3-601(b) (discharge) , 3-602(a)(payment), 3-301 (person entitled to enforce instrument ) 1,–201(b)(21)(A) (defining “holder”) 3–501(b)(2) (presentment and surrender: cf 7-403(c) (in case of bailment). But see 3-602(b) (notification of transfer) and Comments 2 and 3.”

    I quote this easily readable section on BLACK LETTER LAW on substantive rights of makers of notes to those of you want to take into account in seeking resolutions of all note-liabity disputes. The acquisition of your property by whatever process must have as its basis the statutory standards in the UCC. Then apply rules of evidence and representations of the person seeking possession of homes —are they in possession of the physical original and how can the prove it. You do not have to prove its authentic–they do. Actions which occur without avoiding double liability violate ones right of due process–unless the homeowner waives indemnification along the way in some manner aggresivlely.

    The words speak for themselves—the consideration homeowners have overlooked in recent years—is that finicial institutions did not sieze and sale property —and then to anotther the note. Today they can do it legally–B sells to C notes without representations of anything and its up to C to go collect anything he can get. I shudder to think of the amounts out there placed into controversy by negligent or intentional failure to present and surrender,

    The current lack of attention to closure of debt is unprecedented. Insofar as negligent administrative operations go–the failure to mitigate the borrower’s exposure is a much larger issue than the falsly notarized documents: it affects a much larger population of victims–most set up for a future “legal” shakedown,

    Electronic notes —how convenient—-easy affidavit —only issue is the indemnity form and amount—who the surety is.

    I continue to posit if a claimant fails the test of physical presentment and cannot post a bond–had no power to order the DOT or pretend person in possession with authority and right to enforce the note.

    So in a MTD or a DOT complaint: set up for summary judgement, argue thar presentment has failed—never was any branch of govt entitled to deny due process. Violation of Due process by local govt. The effect of after the siezure failure to have right to enforce means seizure of yoyr rights without compensation–is that the govt taking on behalf of the collector who has not presented–a posible thief—-or its the thief doing the taking under color of law—you need to complain about–if they cant prove the claim–it should allow recovery of the REO.

    request that te

    I would appreciate comments.

    If anybody wants a PDF of the page that is page 249 of the nutshell

  19. carie – please give me your email address. sorry, I lost it.

  20. @ivent – if I may : 1) what makes you think the Treasury provided
    the funds to anyone to fund these loans? 2) what makes you think
    they weren’t paid back, beyond speculation?
    This first of all seems at odds weith NG’s tenets. He says the investor money was used to fund the loans, right? I do recall seeing something about the treasury wanting to wean the banks off overnight lending.
    Was that here? Did you see it?

  21. @john gault

    Please check your email from me, please.

  22. Without the ABI…that is THE ORIGINATION FRAUD…any subsequent transfers or sales are not only improper but, ILLEGAL. They can only be considered INTENT TO DECEIVE to commit FRAUD. I don’t give a damn WHO their investors are…that is irrelevant…they ALL got fatter by fraudulent sales and transfers and ALL BENEFITTED from FRAUD….and were insured on their risky investments with CREDIT DEFALT SWAP INSURANCE. People with 401k’s and other retirement funds should look into if their employers were insured on these risky investments with CDS insurance. I would bet they were hedging their employees retirement money and had margin accounts. There was a lot of INSIDER TRADING going on with our wealth.

  23. Without the ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFICIAL INTEREST, which is the delivery and confirmation receipt…..PROOF OF LEGAL LIEN…PROOF their DEBT was PAID IN FULL BEFORE THEY CAPITALIZED ON THE SALE ….IS SECURITIES FRAUD…FRAUD IN THE SALE OF SECURITIES….NULLIFIES EVERYTHING….It has nothing to do with standing, holder or holder in due course status…this all happened WAY BEFORE THE UCC CODE ENFORCEMENT would have kicked in. That is why I argued CAUSE OF ACTION, COLOR OF TITLE and CIVIL RICO with a COUNTERCOMPLAINT of CONSUMER FRAUD and DECEPTIVE PRACTICES…BECAUSE…BY LAW…THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTION NEVER OCCURRED..

  24. I am not in a dot state yet the bank attorney transferred this mess into a dot nearly a year after the foreclosures lis spends was filed. The Recorder of Deeds office told me there was NO legal assignment recorded ever which is required by law in my state to secure the collateral lien..

    The Illinois Conveyances Act (765 ILCS 5/1 et seq); section 28 (765 ILCS 5/28), REQUIRES instruments relating to or affecting title to real estate be recorded in the County which said real estate is situated.

    The ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFICIAL INTEREST is the TRUST AGREEMENT…the delivery and confirmation receipt that PROVES the entity lent you money. The Collateral Assignment is the assignment to the beneficiary of that trust. These DO NOT EXIST because…they DID NOT pay back the Treasury. Instead, the arrogant hogs pocketed the payments as usury. That is why they committed massive Securities Fraud and other frauds because they never paid back the Treasury. The General Accounting Ledger would show where your money went in regards to that ONE SINGLE TRANSACTION…. However, that is NOT the ONLY FINANCIAL TRANSACTION MADE WITH OUR ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES…..The truth that is being hidden is, the MORTGAGES ARE INSOLVENT….
    They ALL GOT PAID…EXPONENTIONALLY….THEREFORE….any subsequent takings are MORE unjust enrichments they are ALL pocketing.

  25. @JG

    the psas always forbid the foreclosure in the name of the lender if the property is polluted—-so in a nonrecourse state im curious if that means the lender loses his shot at the collection entirely–or if he can step aside and let the sale to a 3rd party go thru—but disclosures would be interesting–so if you have a pesticide business in the basenment you wont be dislodged by the lender–maybe the EPA or health dept but not the lender

  26. I understand your uncertainty—when i reread it –i thought that may be confusing;

    In the mortgage states—where the plaintiff must go to the court 1st, the cause of action is in foreclosure: paragraph 1 literally must plead the that the claimant is a holder or [as it appears to me, a person entitled to enforce the promissory note against the maker]., the note is in default; we ask for judgment on the note,
    then we plead the right to foreclose –if there is no opposition then the court grants the judgement on the note and the amount

    and if you have requested the relief the seizure and sale and application of proceeds against the judgement

    now virtually always the proceeds will be far short of the judgment

    but once the lender has sold the house and taken the proceeds he would have tpo go file a general lien on all assets of the debtor using the default judgment–like a lis pendens sort of—

    so although iv got a big judgment against me–the collector may chose to ignore the deficiency judgment—this drives such things as short sales and other settlements—but of course if you dont get the note back —you lose the house for no consideration——-a theft in essence

    it is a lot tougher to deal with this in a recourse state—–i dont know how this works in a DOT state–seems to me they got the cart before the horse

  27. dcb said
    “in foreclosure states** the action is upon the note and mortgage under one action–but if i wamted i could proceed soley against the mortgage–obtain a deficiency judgement and then let it sit and expire after 2 years”

    ** you mean jud foreclosure states, right? And I’m not good at that.
    I have the cursory understanding of the one-action rule and have linked it here from a state or two. I do not understand how you could proceed solely against the ‘mortgage’ ( a word I have come to despise for it’s misuse in place of dot), tho I think I understand if you could, don’t I? because of the one-action rule, you’re done. I hope you are not saying you may avoid the one-action rule by the latter part of that sentence. I don’t need a tome – just some words, some direction to follow to understand how you could proceed on the “mortgage” solely (notwithstanding the heinous Hogan dec in AZ).

    I’d like to direct your attention to a couple cases. Got a res engine?

  28. We were forced into default when the decision was made to pull the plug on the U.S. economy. CNBC reported the stock market crash was caused by insider trading. A CNBC guest said the Illuminati crashed the stock market and should have not wiped out their equity holders. You can you tube search the video. The SEC removed the Uptick rule in 2007 that would have prevented that.

  29. carie – i just don’t know what else to say to you. don’t want to aggrevate someone already aggrevated.
    I am not asking you, for the 10th time, about proof. I’ll even say you’ve got proof if it will help. Get it? I have asked you what made you think in the first place that loans were being falsely defaulted. If I am driving, and my car acts funny, i may think oh I have a flat tire and go look. WHAT made you think your tire was flat to go look for evidence it was?
    Your old dot was not released, what?

  30. Economic related Breaking News ….CHICAGO TEACHERS MAKING A STAND….UNION PRESIDENT says their contract stinks and they aren’t signing…

  31. @JG
    I’d like to know if we have agreed about the first remedy for breach of a note secured by a dot, and that is an action against the collateral, which to me, prohibits an action on the note for moolah”

    I have a modest understanding of judicial foreclosure—modest—-I have repeatedly stated I do not understand how DOT jurisdictions proceed——-then they all vary——-

    Implicitly for your statement to apply even in DOT states, the non-recourse feature is limited to certain real estate–typically not investment property

    thus i would infer that someplace somebody checks a box metaphorically to claim the exemption——but the general rule is that the dot or mortgage is merely an enforcement device —

    in foreclosure states the action is upon the note and mortgage under one action–but if i wamted i could proceed soley against the mortgage–obtain a deficiency judgement and then let it sit and expire after 2 years

    Ill say this unequivocally–i am at a loss how party a can enforce a note but party b release the mortgage–or pocket proceeds from a dot sale—ii is not possible under due rocess clause if there is risk of double collection—so the specialized rules of those non-recourse residence notes are completely different

    If you have a commercial property case–you can see how the general rule operates then see how the exemption for residential real estate works——but the note is the most important thing outside of the non-recourse circumstance–the house may be worth 25% of the note—-and substantial other assets—if you were not protected by the non-recourse provision–you would recognize the significance of the note–

    you need to modify your perspective for a bit to see the foreset albeit you only need deal with one tree

  32. johngault…I know for a fact Chicago T&T was the trustee for the trust all throughout my loan history it has been the same person…they breached their fiduciary duty big time……. they released the mortgage to public in 2007..when I refied…..I asked the clerk at the recorders office who is public…? the clerk said it could be anyone…I believe that is where they tried to hide the toxic crap they did…..those so called black pools…that escrowee from Chicago T&T was also the NOTARY PUBLIC at the refi..but she was never there. The loan officer confirmed that to me. I believe the fraud and debt they are hiding there is where the insolvent truth lies. The truth would no doubt be astounding.

  33. @Mr.Gault

    I have posted that SO MANY TIMES—it’s not even funny…actually, it is funny that you are still asking about the proof of false default.
    It has to do with RESEARCH my “bud” has been doing for YEARS…
    But, I will post it AGAIN—just for you…stay tuned…

  34. Neil, dc, johngault or anyone…can anyone tell me what this is…? (735 ILCS 5/15-1106) Section (3)(b)(ii)….An assignment for security of a buyer’s interest in a real estate installment contract. For the first time ever..GOOGLE has no answers explaining what this is…? It’s not a collateral assignment..
    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=073500050K15-1106

  35. ivent – Actually, it may be that the party named on the note never had possession. Many of those yeahoo’s (I don’t want to bash any lender or other co. if there were any who did not operate improperly) used escrow or other companies to do their physical closings and the notes were shuffled off here (warehouse lender) or there (sponsoring entity) directly. IF as a matter of law, any of these other cos could be called the agent or possibly custodian of the named payee, it could be argued if not sustained that the named payee had possession. If not, now find a judge who gives a hoot or be able to make him give a hoot. But, actually again, they had to have poss of the note to do the initial endorsement UNless the stinking end were done ahead of the borrower’s autograph (sent over that way with docs for closing to X co.) which one could prob never prove without major discovery including to the closing co (escrow, title, some notary public?).
    I’m stalling! I have to read stuff I realllly don’t want to.

  36. @dcb – before we leave these matters behind as oft happens here, and we have to start over mostly, I’d like to know if we have agreed about the first remedy for breach of a note secured by a dot, and that is an action against the collateral, which to me, prohibits an action on the note for moolah. I give a hoot for one reason because without a valid assgt of the coll instrument, that note is inchoate ish or dormant or something like that, read unenforceable in that state. We need, imo, to tie up the dangling ends of what i think is recourse v non-recourse. I’m going to try to read more of your comments, tho I have hit most of them now. I think you are looking for support that one who cannot mark a note paid cannot enforce it, which makes sense. I hate the UCC and because I do, to my discredit and even now horror, I have until recently avoided it when I could except as to easy stuff like hdc v holder and a cursory understanding of 9 v 3. I told you I hadn’t read the board’s deal yet, and that truly reflects my impressions of the last one I did read, one I took as bankster-inspired, manipulative bs and dribble. And when I see what my gut tells me is bs, esp when it comes to the UCC, I know how high the mountain is in front of me to be able to assail it. People can spend their lives mastering the stinking UCC, and yeah, if I have to, or any homeowner has to, even try because MERS and its cronies decided to play hide-the-note, etc., I resent the hell out of it. It’s unconscionable.
    I literally take bankster-inspired changes to laws and rules personally and feel oppressed. That’s something these jackals have done to us: straddled us, wrapped us in oppression. Easier said than done to ‘get over it’ and I suppose that’s the ben of 0h-stinking-pression.

  37. IVENT—-Im impressed by the rational and concise summary—-now start attaching your ct rules and read the statutes and you are on your way—do not fall into the trap of simply rwading the comments–they are always from individual often narrow perspectives—what a person states is the law may be completely correct in her state–and seem completely wrong to you–because the states seem to differ—notably arizona which i urge people to avoid retiring to

  38. I completely agree with Neil. The Judges don’t believe the notes never existed. They believe the “someone is owed” this money theory. They don’t care about a mortgage you made 20 years ago, they are looking at what is in front of them. Color of Title is only at issue with the current “lender.” It is about what the judge will accept and I don’t see them wanting to look past the current mess. They have stacks of foreclosures every day. There are reasons why the banks don’t want to come up with a full accounting of the loan file ….. because they don’t want US to know where OUR MONEY WENT and these loans are exponentionally oversold to entities that are unsavory to say the least. I believe countercomplaints of Fraud and Deceptive Practices could be easily Proven. They have no material facts to back up their claims and, if the originator never had control of the documents, all subsequent transfers were improper and illegal and done to hide the true facts of their case.

  39. @dcb – don’t want to burst your bubble, but don’t make the mistake of relying on certain reaction to your theories as evidence they’re correct. Not saying they’re not. Just watch your reliance.

    and carie, love you, have felt your pain, but i’m personally not going to read anything else from your corner until you tell me why you and your bud first thought loans were falsely defaulted. I’m not asking for my health or because I’m bored.

  40. @NG – Just wanted to say I was happy to see your very clear articulation / conveyance of the issues involved. It was nice of you to take the time for the reasons you may have or even if your reasons can’t be inferred.

  41. @DCB—some info from my friend for you:

    “…But, his premise is also based on the theory that the note conforms to the UCC. I do not think it does. I do not think there was EVER a valid note. All you have is a modification of debt that masqueraded as valid “note.” Indeed, with the refinance the prior MORTGAGE was never (validly) discharged/cancelled, and the subprime “loan” just modified it’s terms. I am more concerned about the MORTGAGE — rather than the “fake” note.

    Too many are ASSUMING that the Note is valid under the UCC. It is NOT, since the prior note was NEVER PAID, and the prior Mortgage was never validly discharged. In effect, borrowers not only owe the last “loan” in question, but also the loan prior to the loan in question. A situation that likely destroys borrowers “credit” indefinitely. You do not cancel a “NOTE”, a note is marked “PAID”. You cancel/discharge/satisfy the Mortgage/Deed of Trust. But, again, I think that there are some very important issues here. Homeowners, who have been foreclosed upon, need PROOF, that the foreclosure was valid, by a valid creditor, and that all proper documents have been legally and validly filed in order to make sure that NOTHING remains outstanding. This is especially important as notes were not valid “notes” and instead “debt collections loans”, that MUST be properly disposed of — outside the valid mortgage/loan arena.

    With a good attorney — I think foreclosure victims could establish a class action based on inadequacy of proper documentation that a valid foreclosure took place. Once a court/and or process allows a foreclosure, they are not concerned as to whether all is properly documented by the PROPER party. They do not know what happens AFTER the foreclosure occurs.

    The statute of limitations is important. If you suspect fraud, you must act.

    We are finding much evidence that prior loans to foreclosure in question were NEVER PAID and mortgage NEVER DISCHARGED. This makes the last “mortgage refinance” you got, and subsequent foreclosure, invalid and illegal.”

    “…you need to establish a breach of chain of title. Combined with the fact that NOTE was never a valid note, it could be important. But, you must look at prior loan — prior mortgage — and all documents filed. You cannot, and should not, try to establish an invalid chain of title based only on the last refinance.

    I have always said from the very beginning of the mortgage crisis, whoever “funded” your loan when you purchased your home, that party never relinquished its rights — despite a refinance. Forget the investors — they are not the mortgagee. The mortgagee from onset is the party who remains your mortgagee. And, in case of new purchase — this may even go beyond — to the mortgagee of the prior homeowners of the property.

    Neil does makes sense on one issue — the argument must first be directed against the mortgage lien. Then he ruins it by “assuming” a valid note. He just does not get it — invalid “debt collection” notes did NOT require funding from anyone. Neil is very backwards on this — there can be no mortgage lien if there was never a valid note. Courts are very difficult. But, it is true that you need some PROOF —- which means, you must scour records — ALL records, for flaws. You must trace your “loan” to the inception of the purchase of the home. You must do diligent and extensive research on the affiliations, mergers, acquisitions, of any parties on any documents. This is a difficult task — that even most attorneys are not up to. You must get cancelled checks, you must try to get information from GSEs under the FOIA. You must go into court with some important discrepancy that exists in your documents. And, believe me, they exist.

    The problem with too many is that they remained focused on the SAME issue, they are not willing to branch out and LOOK AGAIN. Neil is like that. You know, the old saying — “too focused on your old ways.”

  42. Oh, geez. It never ends. I said that it’s been admitted in a case I linked that MERS (duh) can’t assign the notes, including in the assgt of the dot’s as is being recited in them, in all of them. The bankster alleged the recitation of assgt of the note therein is merely
    ‘surplusage’. I’d call that language something entirely different than suplusage, but since I’ve already stated it numerous times, I won’t again now, especially if mens rea and how can it not be if surplusage?

    Remember how we’ve been talking about article 9, which transfers notes by assignment v. endorsement? Is there a double game going on here (and I’ve proposed it was all done electronically)? Pretty sure the notes were transferred, if at all, pursuant to 9, not three, tho reliance in court is on 3 (endorsement, etc) for the bearer business (disregarding for the moment the psa’s req for art 3 endorsement, but that’s a homeowner killer, too, if they can get away with pretending it were done timely). I believe the bankster is actually relying for its own reasons on the assgt of the note in the dot when 1) there is no challenge from a homeowner to foreclosure (one hand in this act does not know what any others are doing or have done) and 2) is using that assgt as the bomb for some other unknown purpose; in other words, using that MERS assgt as an actual assignment (9) of the note for a reason we don’t know. But if we try, I have no doubt we’ll get there. Are they attempting to use MERS’ as alleged common agent or at all to transfer notes OUT of the trusts (9 again) they’re allegedly in – or for ANY reason for the reasons we can’t recite on command? I think they are, by george.

  43. @JG RE HDC

    Yes you need as early as you to demand the status and exect identity of the “persons” that are engaging in the events surrounding any adjustment to or complete cancellation/PD in Full.

    You want to know most of all if the holder is represented by a servicer or atty to act on their behalf. For example a note was picked up from the attorneys office that represents the nominal holder and the collection agency, which is the client. By inference Im thinking that the collection agency must have specific authority from the trustee bank–or the atty is authorized by the bank trustee as a person in possession. Now what if the Atty has no representation agreement. The point is to make the bank trustee personally liable for release. The promise that a note is cancelled by a sham entity is not reasonable assurance.

    Presentation is To establish possession of a physical document. For that a trail of custody is necessary. From where and from whom. The trail should have some sort of judicial order to verify it–some filing. If there is no decent trail the reason to believe its a true original is thinner. Anotherthing to request is an inspection of the purported original note in possession—thats when the trail of custody should be presented.

    This is info that you really want to know at the end of the day. If they disclose up front no possessionthen you must demonstrate cumulative risk that exists because the note-holders agent will try to skate by with a thin promise that there are no other holders —but have no published financials–no credit rating and a bad reputation.

    There is no physical proof of note possession in electronic or doc destruction systems—so its a mattr of credit—the promise of a thinly capitalized collection agency may be of little value. Any question about the economic strength should be made as soon as you know they are not in physical possession of the original. If not you need to come up with a demand for surety bond.

    Wow—what if the claimant cant get a surety to guarantee the truth of the affidavit—and indemnify the borrower if the note is falsely represented as original in “possession”.? The homeowner then moves to dismiss –lack of standing—claimant not provable as person entitled to enforce –dismiss with prejudice against that claimant.

    If nobody in the surety industry trusts the collection agency as a credit now—–then even if it pulls another trust out with a list or some such better demonstration—will the surety take the bait.
    This is the proper result for a stolen property–stolen note. If the state does not enforce their escheat then this property should fall back to the homeowner and a quiet title done on the property itself. Lo and behold A free house. And no Debt either

  44. I just read your comment Neil..Thank You…..! Thank You…! Thank You…! All of your advice has helped me enormously….!!

  45. The people need to know what to ask for in discovery.
    http://nrgnair.com/MPT/zdi_tech/ucc/setuprightback.htm

  46. I have suggested that a bankster be asked for a more definitive statement: is the claimant claiming as a hdc or a holder? Unfortunately, I think the law makes a presumption of hdc, so have to keep that in mind when asking for the more defin stmt and anticipate the inevitable objections regarding evidence of that status (but why should even this presumption obviate evidence of that status?) – the def stmt is asked in an effort at discovery to support an alleged hdc allegation. One can’t assert certain defenses against a hdc, right, so doesn’t one need to know if those defenses are available or not, esp when there is no e v i d e n c e the claimant is in fact a hdc? No, I can’t say it would work – form the basis of a need to know clearance on disc to support alleged hdc status, was just a thought at a path for discovery. I have seen that under think it’s 26 (I always forget), a party must tender certain information within its custody and control without being asked in discovery. And I’ve also observed that it’s never done. If one wanted to be a stickler and had the moxy and savvy, in light of that rule, one might try to force the bankster to stand on its claims as they are, unless, of course, doing so makes one the loser. If there’s not an attorney involved for the h.o., the bankster never (okay, rarely) even files a cert of interested parties (which not doing could ultimately bite them) and they sometimes don’t bother with this or comply with local rules even if the h.o. does have an attorney.
    lay opinions, as always

  47. @ALL

    I know a few things: I know that makers are obiged to pay furure HDC–even if they made payments to another person. The UCC is pretty clear about that.
    I know that this is inequitable.
    I know that large numbers of borrowers have not recovered the proof they need to demonstrate that the note was paid off.

    I suspect that the failure to demonstrate proof of ownership of note–and meet UCC 3-501—–allows a reasonable question as to wheter the party that claims to have right to enforce the note–but cant prove it—also lacks authority to release the mortgage–or order action on the DOT.

    I knew that the prospect of these issues becoming widespread would be damaging to the fonancial industry–because the electronic notes must be established by costly surety bonds.

    I know that the financial industry will be as receptive to this as they were towards defective assignments. If you recall that was wild-eyed crazy pointless argument as well in 2009.

    I also knew that if I raised it sufficiently well here and I was even close to the pain-point——that people would come out of the woodwork to deride the theory. And so it was. GC’s reaction is exactly what I was seeking—a poorly enunciated hostile attack without explanation of the real issues. And I will note for any reader who is mildly interested–despite my providing a contact –she did not use it—-the purpose of the posts was to stop the line of inquiry –not bring enlightenment.

    So now I am confidant I am correct that the failure to demonstrate proof of note–or aff —at any point in the foreclosure process is not only problematic to the debtor in terms of double claims–it is also a probable title defect.

    So I suggest that all here give careful consideration to the full realm of potential albeit uncertain implications of this theory of law—–do you have siblings that paid off loans? Did they get back the notes–how would they prove the loans were paid to the owner of the loan–vs a pretender?

    I beieve this is a matter of widespread significanceand could bleed through to impair the title–which is the topic of this string BTW.

  48. “an usecured claim”. That’s why foreclosure as the first remedy for breach of a note secured by a dot is critical (see old discussion here somewhere recently if you want) : Any party in possession of a note without an assgt of its collateral instrument has, I do believe, an unenforceable note under that mandated first remedy.
    And btw, then why would anyone want to argue a dot, an instrument governed by the statute of frauds (unlike a note) follows the note, which it doesn’t and can’t in my opinion? I feel like a recording: only the right to the assgt follows a note. Can’t be done “in equity”. Carpenter involved a mortgage lien, not title. A dot conveys either legal or equitable title to the dot trustee = statute of frauds. You Arizona people have it tough right now, it’s true. So do people in some other states. Someone needs to attack on sound principles those rulings, and I know, good luck. It’s sick. We might find that the bottom line is that legis has been changed in the banksters’ favor and that’s really sick imo. I took a cursory look at AZ’ statute of frauds, for instance, and thought it stunk. But even so, that doesn’t mean it’s being applied properly. Lot of work for someone to undermine this crud.
    Lay opinions. NOT legal advice.

  49. Gwen says…”I just don’t like pro se litigants.” First of all, there are not enough of us to screw up anything. I wish there were. Second of all, ..the U.S. CONSTITUTION….THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND…..was written so that EVERY AMERICAN could understand it and use it to defend OUR RIGHTS..WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY….It is arrogant of attorneys like you to believe that somehow you OWN the courtrooms. YOU DON’T.

  50. and no you have not tried to communicate. you come from a position of not knowing the law and all its intricancies and wanting to tell me what the law is and attack my knowledge which is considerable. im not bragging but i do know quite a bit of law and have done quite a bit of serious litigation in 35 years. don’t think reading the blogs without a legal ed makes you a professional or knowledgeable in the area–it makes you dangerous and that’s what you don’t all get–a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing–that’s the old saying and it is true. i don’t do law in areas i don’t know and you seem to think you are a lawyer with skills in this area and you and no one else who has replied to my entries is a lawyer. im off and will delete any further entries on my email. i have a brief to review for a lawyer tonite and that is what i will do–read a transcript. good luck but start with knowing that you don’t know. you will get farther.

  51. @ e tolle 0907 at 6:39 second paragraph. Yes, that’s the ticket.
    That’s exactly what they are doing and exactly what their platform
    allows whether by design or incidentally. So we have to attack based on laws even if it’s 100 of them to undermine this ploy I’d ulltimately call RICO activities.
    Allowing members to do self-assigments in its name, and unbelievably when that member is the assignEE, is dead wrong. In the first place, the dot, if taken without argument, at face, induces a borrower to agree to things the party who induced the agreement knows would never happen. “MERS”, the computer system, is a beneficiary, and MERS the computer system would never perform any of the acts the borrower was induced to allow it. By design, those actions would be performed by others with carte blanche ability to do so. MERS made its infamous disclaimer as to the veracity of the info in its database:
    MERS has no hand in entering that info. The entry is also carte blanche. Yet, there is NO way for MERS to know for a fact anything. MERS has NO way to verify the accuracy of that info, not even if those notes were in fact Eregistered on the system in digital form and the electronic trading entered thereto because even with a controller of an authoritative copy, it’s the same carte blanche entry regarding the Art 9 trade of the note by a member with the same carte blanche he had if notes are or were traded non-electronically. There is unreasonable and unfounded (at BEST) reliance on those entries when members execute self-assignments in MERS’ name, and as I said, by the law, the order for such an assignment, any assignment, must come from the assignOR, not the assignee. Please do show us that order from the last noteowner. **The MERS’ disclaimer as to the veracity of its database entries (veracity here = comparison of one ‘thing’ to a fact mol) is not made known to those it impacts. Like homeowners, or the judiciary who is called upon to make decisions sans this material information. MERS made the disclaimer to its members and hide the implications from anyone else who might challenge the veracity. How nice for all of THEM.
    Imo, every single case challenging foreclosure should include this set of FACTS; “This party’s right to act is grounded in information in the MERS’ database which was entered without any oversight of any kind by the members and even MERS does not stand by the veracity of those entries, as evidenced by MERS’ disclaimer which is both attached and judicially noticeable. MERS’ disclaimer is an acknowledgment that the information in its database is unreliable. For the lack of oversight, and there is none possible as MERS has no data (such as psa schedules, whatever -fyi) with which to compare these entries, the unreliability of that information is evident and any reliance is misplaced and patently objectionable. The assignment done to KillemQuick was not only executed by an employee of the assignEE, KillemQuick, it is at best based on wholley unreliable data entered carte blance by any and all members of MERS. The plaintiff before the court may have possession of a bearer instrument and may be entitled to enforce it under a provision of ART 3 of the UCC, (here: what did bankster claim, note is subject to art 9, affirmative defenses, strategy). Notwithstanding those issues (art 9, whatever, the ones in parens – sic), until the plaintiff can substantiate with admissable evidence that it is a party entitled to have received an assignment of the dot and that it’s execution is appropriate as a matter of law, the party before you has at best an unsecured claim.”

    DON’T take this as legal advice. It ISN’T. It’s the best way I know to
    express and demonstrate things this lay person believes. I have tried to show why I think the assgt is garbage or at least that there is no justifiable reason for a court to presume its validity, that it assigns anything. Your attorney will have to fight the fight about art 9, etc. (no available reliance on poss of bearer note under art 3 even for the note) The astute attorney imo will recognize that an instrument executed by an officer (ish) of a corporation binds that corporation, and here we’re talking about MERS in regard to the assgt. BUT, the person who executed this assgt in MERS’ name,
    an employee of the assignEE to boot, is not a bonafide MERS’
    officer. imo. And where is MERS’ authority to execute an assgt to be found? As a (bad) presumption based on its nominee status? That’s all it can be, because the authority otherwise is not to be found. This doesn’t encompass all relevant issues, and isn’t meant to. That would take a lot of work. And if they get by on art 3, I am still fwiw trying to prove a bearer (and herein maybe we should read dcb’s link to the board’s notes on the UCC or he will offer something up here if he wants) who is not its owner by transfer (ish) is not entitled to an assgt of its collateral instrument.

    I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVISE. IT’S A LAY PERSON’S IDEA OF WHAT ONE MIGHT DISCUSS WITH HIS ATTORNEY.

  52. anyone who knows me will tell you that i am the least arrogant person they know. I just don’t like pro se litigants on these cases who are screwing up the law over and over because they think they understand one small corner of the law and that somehow makes them masters of the universe. I have orked hard to be readmitted to the bar. Nasty? No, i am trying to save you and otehrs from yourselves and you don’t want to be saved. You want to go on making inane comments, statements about the law that are wrong. I have spent 3500 hours without a doubt learning about this subject matter and the least of it has been on my own case. I help lawyers write and figure out theories based upon the law and not some ridiculous interpretation of the law. I know procedure and i know how the procedure works. Going off and doing something outside the procedural bounds gets bad decisions and you don’t get that. You ask me how i know my signature on my doc is wrong–well i did the research and contacted a bunch of people who do forensic work as I did when I was practicing law and the issue came up. How do I know this is a 3 vs 9 issue–well I researched it and talk to lawyers in Mo who are working on those issues. 3 vs 9 may be different in some states depending on terpretations. You ask me about securitization–its a waste of time because the judges don’t like it and in the end what does it prove I ask you. I have done the research on all those issues and have been working with a dozen high end paralegals and lawyers around the country for three years working on these issues. I don’t pontificate on issues I don’t know. I’ve worked with a lot of people on a lot of legal issues and we talk and write law–not garbage. There is not an issue that i have read on this blog over the last three years that has not had some person screw up the original theory raised or who does not pontificate on something totally wrong. You guys thinks because the lawyer you hired did not do it your way or was wrong that someone you can do it better. Why do you think that???? How many appellate briefs have you written in state and federal courts? How many trials have you done? How many settlements have you drafted? There is a balance to these things and you don’t understand that. So about once every three months i read something on this and start blogging and all I get is bs from you guys who think because you have done some research on line you have the answers. Well go ahead. I can’t and won’t help you even if I was licensed but don’t get on my case because i write what you claim are nasty emails when the nasty emails are from the lieks of you because I don’t like the crap you postwhich lets people think you know what you are talking about when you don’t. I don’t like that at all because you give people false hope and make them clog the courts with garbage and then the judges get pissed at legitimate claims. I don’t know a legitimate lawyer out there who does not say the same thing over and over–we would be farther ahead if we did not have so many crazy people filing crazy claims in front of overworked judges.

    so are you going to vote? and forwhom? O, I know, both people are awful so you are not going to voite tor anyone. Did you go fiind someone out there who espouses your ideas and help to get him on the ballot? hell no, that’s too much work. You just tuned out because the new world order is coming or some such crap or obama care is taking over the world. I’m sick and tired of you folks. GEt a life and figure out what you know and don’t know. I don’t know jack s about contracting work so I let my boyfriend do that. I am not a doctor so i let my doc take care of my diabetes, but I do know the law and the complexities and i know when i don’t know anything about a topic in the law–i dont’ know securities law so i found a securities lawyer. i don’t know wills and trusts so i hire a wills/trust guy. i do know contracts, torsts, i know constitutional theories, i know whistleblowing, i know how to frame a lawsuit and not frame a lawsuit, i know discovery, appellate work and how to draft a case for an eventual appeal to the ussct. I know when i need a forensics guy and I have used experts all my career in fact establishing the use of experts in numerous fields. so don’t get on my case. I’m trying to save you from yourself and you don’t want to be saved so i am turning off the stuff you guys write. you waste my time and yours.

  53. @GC

    I will add I used to work with a particular litigator —nail-biting SOB–so nasty that the AG for a State refused to put people in the room with him—-so my management had to have me step in to undo the damage hed caused —ridiculous point was that we had assembled the facts to win the case–the antipathy was unnecessary.

    Blind anger characterized him—he was easy to anticpate as a result—play by the rulebook but go right to the dirtiest plays—with hundreds of millions at stake.

    Yeah im not a civil litigator—-used to these procedures or the toleration of litigator abuse that seems to characterize the foreclosure cases. I litigated against govts in admin proceedings–for a major oilco—usually real money on the table—-but we always had to operate with an eye to the future—-what are all of the consequences.

    So in order to preserve an argument inviolate that a somewhat different standard of proof exists under 3 v 9 —im hardly willing to ignore the implications for those who have an issue about proving that they do not owe the note obligation to a junk collector,

    To me its there with the DOCX issue—the entity was creating documents which were going to create lasting damage to title for tens of thousands of homes—–i determined all by myself—-that the important thing was to shut it down before they made more–mitigate damage society-wise. Nobody else was going to do it–and all the lawyers wanted to drag it out and do depositions to get to the same end—excepot there would be a lot more billable hours by the slow boat

    so the question i see today is much the same millions of homeowners are not receiving the protections afforded and needed by UCC 3

    so the question is :how do we fix the problem–and stop the imminent abuses that will certainly occur after election and the heat goes off.

    My thought now is back to the NYT—-the press is the real guardian of the people—-and it means trumpeting the weakness in the UCC as applied by the financial industry re discharge of debt and release of mortgages without authority–more title problems entering the system

    If there were one piece of info that id like to know and that is “who put you on this issue to kill it?” this position and your approach is more helpful to the banks in the big picture than to this fine point you are making supposedly making

  54. This can be did by state

    Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

  55. RE…comments you have endured from the peanut gallery….We who get this scam might be small in number but not in caliber. It is the not knowing what rule of law weapon we might be using that bothers the establishment. Catch me if you can only works for so long. The RULE OF LAW will catch up with ALL OF THEM sooner or later. That is what they really fear.

  56. @GC
    Iv tried to communicate with you at an intelligent level. I have said that a document without authentication with similar infirmities to those you describe was handed to my real atty–litifgation atty–

    subsequently as I pointed out in pleadings –the opposition asserted that even if it were not the original that is Ok

    My point is that the UCC 3 standards are very different for a copy 3-309 vs a person in possession of the original. 3-501 which requires assertion of authority to present on behalf of the holder for the person entitled to enforce using a power granted them.

    I do not know how a layman can tell if the writing before him is an auto-pen or real original—you state conclusively that your signature is bogus on the document you were provided –how do you know?

    I would note the following in response to your intentionally offensive statement:
    ” That’s what the “real lawyers” litigating are arguing about these days besides the validity of the note itself
    I was served a set of foreclosure documents in July 2009. The documents included an assignment of mortgage.
    The documents included a complaint with a previously unknown “trust” . I spent August poring through the intricacies of the 12 inch thick plus securitization document pile—it is not unlike many other complex multi-party document sets that i have reviewd over decades of reorg and structured financings etc–it took a month of evenings and weekends to cut through to the basics–the collapsable trust–the conflicts with the trust filings and the originator 10Ks and etc

    Then I spent a week on the Assignment—–within 24 hours determined that the VP MERS was actually a 24 yr old transvestite felon in Alpharetta Georgia named Korell Harp—-and I checked out the progress of the real lawyers–which in September of 2009 was ZIP. So i did the unthinkable—no legal rules to follow or stumble over—I picked up the phone and simply called the notary —-then the signer called me to clarify his arrest record—and in passing they explained something about DOCX robosigning. What I needed to know. Ever heard of them?

    I sent the appropriate complaints to the apprpriate people—being a litigator plying your set of rules –you wouldnt know about who to contact–its not in the rule-book. Within a few days the DOCX entity was shut down—-the relevant officers discharged. Today L Brown faces prosecution in your very own Missouri—-have you helped your AG on that ? I wont speculate—

    My attorneys kept talking about filing this and that —–discovery delayed and ineffective—-about taking years to cut to the quick. I chose my own devices–and cut short that operation—it was reported in NYT in October 2010—-a set of signatures for Tywanna Thomas that looked surprisingly like those that I had filed in my mailings was on the front page of that NYT. Along with work collected by another dooer that you probably have low opinion for Lynn Szymoniak. She did a very great amount more for people than you can even imagine–and I dont think she was too successful at litigating –playing in their sandbox by their rules.

    If I chose to attack the problem by taking your slow boat to China–there would have been a few non-dispositive depositions.

    My measure of success on something is getting it done—you deride the poor souls here—who lack either your skills or my particular experience–although many have reasonable accumulations of knowledge in this tiny corner of law. I am not favorably impressed by your grasp of the size of the problems—because you are fixated on your own issue and as most litigators –dont think about the full panoply of implications 5 years hence–why you were a litigator reading the dusty docs while i was doing policy for govt agencies.

    I think the worst thing that could happen is that you get your license back–you are obviously too stressed out to bear the responsibility or understand the full imlications of what you are doing. Iv had a few comments from the peanut gallery myself–i have a fairly thick skin—–in my view whatever you bring to the table interms of experience is outweighed by your inability to communicate meaningfully.

    If you want to comment to me at a professional level email me dcbreidenbach@aol.com—-otherwise please keep your thoughts about me to yourself. I do not appreciate your undue reputational attacks. Your attitude and approach are extremely unprofessional.

    You remark about non-lawyers shooting themselves in the foot—I think if I were attempting to get re-admitted to the Bar, Id be a lot more professional in my writings—-the disciplinary counsel may well turn up this series of nastygrams to demonstrae that you are not ready for prime-time and at your age probably never will agan–something is wrong.

  57. @DCB

    I think it already is “epidemic”…and, I applaud you…even if I don’t always understand what you are saying…

    @Gwen

    Don’t jump all over me—sorry, I’m a layperson—but wouldn’t you agree that it all comes down to the fact that these are debt collectors with no secured interest taking these homes—and all this legal “going around in circles” stuff is just the servicers and/or title co’s trying to confuse the issue? Just so they can keep jump-starting the unsecured debt? Isn’t it an FDCPA violation?

    My 1099 A that I received after they foreclosed on me says OneWest was the “lender”. They were never my lender—they are the debt collector. Can I use my 1099 A as evidence that a debt collector—not a real creditor or lender—took all the money from the sale of my foreclosed property when I sue them for unjust enrichment—(among other things)?

  58. Informed validation and attestation of the verity of all of the elements of the transaction is the second part of a signature…the scratching of the signature is only 1 aspect of creating a legal signature.
    read it here…Signature; Nondisclosure; bait and switch…
    http://nrgnair.com/MPT/zdi_tech/ucc/sndbs.htm

  59. Who are you directing that question to d.c.?

  60. @Gwen..FUNNY…. I don’t remember READING ABOUT ANYONE VOTING FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT…..THE WORLD BANK CONTROLLED FEDERAL RESERVE..U.N. MEMBERSHIP…PROPERTY TAXES…BEING MADE INTO A CORPORATION BY WAY OF OUR BIRTH CERTIFICATES…THE USE OF MY SIGNATURE TO CREATE MASSIVE, UNSUSTAINABLE DEBTS IN MY NAME….THE PATRIOT ACT….THE NDAA…OBAMACARE…..BECAUSE WE DIDN’T. That is called fascism…even if its sneaky and deceptive …its FORCED COMPLIANCE…That is repugnant in a free and open society. THE INTENT TO DECEIVE IS CRIMINAL IN THE U.S.A…So is the electoral college REPUGNANT.

  61. my signature on the note is bogus”

    how do you know this?

  62. RE my comment on the Elvis party raid…I have ex law enforcement and military friends who find police behavior is becoming more and more disturbing. In their day..a noise complaint rendered one police car and a request to quiet it down. Not a police raid of private property.

  63. BTW Gwen..In Illinois anyways.. It has become everyone fighting for themselves because of too much corruption. The truth is…you can only help others as you learn. Too many people don’t want to learn. So they settle for fraud.

  64. Dc..I have witnessed abuse of power EVERYWHERE…the people are noticing it as well, and are filing complaints. Take this scenario as an example… you are having an Elvis party in your own backyard with a bunch of middled aged and older crowd and the cops come in force with paddy wagons and storm the party and shove a guest and demand to see the homeowner and his drivers license…that makes people mad.

  65. Just want to add..I read the only way they can fraudclose is if they can get you to admit to their debt….cue the Rule 216 first request for admission of facts and admission of the genuiness of documents…..deny…deny…deny…knowledge of them and their debt….because they have shown me no proof of a legal assignment ….that means they are imposters.

  66. @GC and ET etc

    I will agree to some extent ET—–after several decades of wathich close up and personal a lot of things that go on—–and im not referring only to GC’s experience as apprarently a private practice litigator but also my own as a litigation mgr——and planner–and policy person–and drafter ——both private and govt—–that its akin to asking the guy that makes sausage if he likes to eat it

    We in the profession are faced daily with a never-ending lineup of other peoples screw ups—of overrreaching–of predatory conduct—of real live deadbeats–and iv seen way too much organized crime in mt life—–getting away with it most often—–it affects the way you see people ——but i will say this —the american public by and large has no clue how nasty things really are—you folks here are getting a taste of nasty in this tiny corner of the legal universe—-sad thing to me is that –the evil you see here is generalized–its everywhere–its organized crime with a hand in anything that consistently makes money—depending on where you live you may not be able to even buy gasoline that did not pass through mafia hands—-and thats pretty basic demand stuff–trucking—on and on

    and now they hold the titles to your homes —-sure you get treated as if you are dealing with organized crime–because even if the banks that drive some of this —they need the street presence which is organized crime–thugs–thieves–etc

    and the private labels are so close to direct affiliates its terrifying—-

    I wish the actions were limited to courtroom abuses–but they are not–they interface with you in your front parlor—the govts are missing it—-if this were prostitution and a well known thug were involved–then they would know where to put the case–but this is a new expansion of organized crime so expect anything—offshores doing manipulated bids–then the affiliate demands an insurance check from FDIC–etc etc—-no rock unturned no crooked angle too much

    I have no answers to the sweeping expansion of organized crime that i have seen in the past 20 years—–but id at least like to prevent the shakedown of simple people that actually paid off homes one way or the other–and who will soon be facing junk debt collectors with no evidence to protect themseleves

    If there is one thing the CFPB could do –it would be to MANDATE that the UCC re discharge of debt be brought under control. before it becomes epidemic

  67. By law, the mortgage follows the note. If the note is an unindorsed copy…that is counterfeiting of securities because they already cashed those checks at the treasury, otherwise we would not have the warranty deeds. The mortgage contracts are therefore a nullity…the mortgage contract cannot by law, be enforced as a separate instrument. Besides we DID NOT SIGN anything because they never disclosed ALL ASPECTS OF THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTION(S).

  68. Dc…you can’t by law cash a copy of a check. A copy of a note is a copy of a check. That would be counterfeit and forgery. Those notes coverup for a lot of things like unjust enrichment. Unindorsed notes…ha.

  69. What are you saying? I’ve read it twice and its unintelligible. Bottom line, they have to prove they have the note to foreclose in a proper chain of title and a proper chain of custody–that’s land law for a gazillion years as we say. Just holding a phony note does not get it done. And the real question is when all is said and done is it a 3 or 9 instrument. That’s what the “real lawyers” litigating are arguing about these days besides the validity of the note itself. Now, i have said the entire issue in a short blurb. What is your issue with that and what is not understandable about that dc? And if they can prove its valid note and a 9 does it have value? Thats what the dc action is about. Hamp claims are dead. Unjust enrichment, well its a tort claim because you are not suing the person who you have a contract with–you are suing the person who claims to have the contract, and doesn’t. That is a tort claim not this other garbage you are talking about.

  70. if you are talking about me–how many people have you helped personally keep their house by your “snarking and sneering”? I would bet not one. And how many people do I help without any pay I might add most of the time by my own example of my lawsuit written about by many lawyers around the country and used as an example of how to do it–i bet quite a few. I just don’t like bs especially nonsensical idiotic bs and there is way too much of this on this blog in my opoinion. You are all ranting and raving and not DOING. when you start accomplishing something write a note to me at gwencaranchini@sbcglobal.net–one case, jus one person you kept in a house or did someone for.

  71. Let this be a lesson to anyone thinking about getting a JD behind their name. It’s obvious that arguing and complaining for many decades leaves nothing but a disagreeable shell of a person behind….one who can do nothing but snark and sneer for a living or a pastime.

    What a horrible existence.

  72. @GC

    Iv finally got the drift from the last extensive post that you made re receiving a suspect note—its very timely—you said “my signature on the note is bogus”

    i dont want to trigger off an angry torrent here—-but im involved in something with similar overtones—-a mystery note that appears suddenly with no trail of custody–no authentication.

    And frankly it boggles my mind that a mystery note with no dates on assignments–no idea where it came from–nor anything else to establish that it was not an autopen copy generated upon a work order —-yes the collection agency treats it good as gold—but in motion practice they assert : well BTW if it is a copy thats ok because you waived your right to an original [wont get into that] —then additionally –in reply to my whining about a future HDC, they state—you have no damages until that HDC shows up……

    Now of course the discourse there tends to cast a cloud over this mystery note—at least sufficiently so to to erase any peace of mind that i might have had at surrendering my house in exchange for later delivery of this document–to buy peace of mind–

    So i examine the standards of art 3 re who is entitled to enforce to lock down in my mind the vaste difference between presenting a copy under 3-309 vs a party in possession—–and it appears to me that a mystery note does not meet any of the reasonableness standards

    now since they already have the house—and btw largely destroyed
    it in a seize and freeze [accident?] that generated an insurance claim on my policy, im not trying to put off a seizure nor engage in an MTD etc as i infer you are GC

    My sole interest is whether the mystery note will withstand a challenge by a future HDC—–to me the evidentiary strength of a mystery note with no chain of custody–no poas —no dates—and at least one cloud over it—is pretty rough

    the thought i have is that if the roles were reversed gc and the bank was in possession of a new and improved autopen copy with a nice tale of its custody trail—is not the bank going to argue the reverse of what they tell you now–does the exposure to dual payments not deprive you of due process?

    even art 3 has standards because the maker must dependen upon art 3–specifically 3-309 in case its a copy–and they admit 100% its a copy

    you the maker at the end of the day need that authenticated note to defend against future comers–or am i missng the boat here

    and if this is true for me and a HDC does have rights against the maker even thought the debt was supposedly paid—-is not every homeowner in the same boat –on a scale rivalling the assignment forgery issues—does not the bank that has only electronic notes have to meet 3-309

    i mean isnt it obvious and unavoidable that 3 applies in many cases—i agree a more stringent application of a standard of proof in 9 is important—-and im looking at that based on your comments—there is overlap–and if its important to make proofs there as between holders –then surely no less standard should protect the poor maker

    i hope that you will discuss this aspect of the case in a less dramatic way–i get it that you are upset—but im a few steps ahead of ou procedurally and can only say that your fight at the wall nw is necessary because as soon as [if] you lose –then they whisper to you on their way out of the courtroom—that byw that is a really nice copy we gave you isnt it—then remove any deep pockets so its almost too late for you to do anything about it except sit and hope in the next decade that no HDC comes fwd—except with the crowd im involved with—it would be par for the course–sooo bad that ill be surprised if they miss the shot at double recovery–and if it works on me –then on all

  73. @JG
    Yes Unjust enrichment is a contract defense or quasi contract defense–but if you are defending against a siezure the claimant is casting his write in contract–so you are saying he was already paid–insurance contracts raised the double recovery stuff

    the tort of conversion is a form of unjust enrichment—arguably–iv racked my brain to think of circumstances where it would not be based on actual or implied agreement–have nt thought where yet—

    however i keep thinking in the back of my head the various theft torts are pretty close—although it may come into play in calculation of damages

    that can be very tricky—-for example if party a steals something from you—-you paid 100 for it, it was wort 100 the day stolen –but prices went up next day and the thief made a profit by selling at 200—–in your claim do you ask for 100 0r 200 —there is an element of unjust enrichment to that tort claim

    thats a big deal in commercial litigation—the 200 claim is called rescisionary disgorgement—–do you see why i was caught in a conundrum?

  74. Please do not pontificate to me as to what the note can be used for and what discovery is used for. I have over 900 cases under my belt in the courts. I know how to use discovery and what is going on in thse cases. My discovery is pending. There are over 300 entries in my cases in federal and state court and that’s not because i am loosing. If they had the note in over two and a half years they would have foreclosed. They have not. What does that tell a litigator? That they don’t have the “goods” on me. The note they finally produced after two and a half years has the following problems:
    1) does not comport with the affidavit given by the original mortgage broker as to whom it was assigned (they claim ML and the note shows Aegis Mortgage)
    2) the assignments are not dated
    3) the assignment signatures are the proverbial blue ink
    4) my signature on the note is bogus
    5) the wrongnumber of stample holes
    6) wrong assignments in wrong order
    7) false notarials and false jurats
    8) does not comport with what MERS shows in its records as to the manner in which the conveyances were done
    9) MERS records do not comport with what was done in the county records
    10) MERS statements as to who owns the note (BOA) does not comport with MERS records that an unknown investor owns the note as of 1-26 this year and that the file is deactivated
    11) Neither MERS statements or records comport with what BOA says–that MLMI2006HE-5 owns the note
    12) MERS also contends that BOA may own the note
    13) the SEC says the note is defunct and paid out
    14) An astrology group who moved into Wilshire’s offices said the file with the note was left in the office and they destroyed the file after getting my address to send me info
    15) BANA defendants now claim they have the file but it is the same file I gave them after i filed the lawsuit
    16) None of this comports with what AEGIS lending is saying the original mortgage broker

    Discovery is objected to on the grounds it is a 3 rather than 9 note and therefore they don’t have to answer any of the above questions including providing a 30b6 person from Merrell Lynch (to whom Aegis Lending sent the note), to Citi who BOA claims the note, to MERRELL who purported had the note orto Wilshire, the latter because they don’t exist anyore? Got that? What do you think I am doing? Sitting on my hands???? Golden rule letter, further discovery requests, all of which are being sat on.

    So do not tell me what to do unless you ahve won against the the likes of Sprint, GM, most gov agencies, the Catholic church and eveery city within 100 miles of K.C.

  75. That’s telling Gwen…..the truth is not hidden anymore…that means..and you and your comrades who never thought you would get caught, are not going to win.

  76. GWEN…FORCED COMPLIANCE IS FASCISM …THE 16th AMENDMENT NEEDS TO GO..

  77. i’ll stick by my prior comments–youo are your own worse enemy, you are ignorant, you are a jerk, and you take up a lot of space saying nothing that is worthwhile. good bye folks. not wasting my time.

  78. That is absolute nonsense Gwen..I sought legal representation long before I ever made a comment on the Internet. I only came to the Internet for help because the State AGs office told me to. The attorney’s I met with told me. Yes….this is fraud and we can’t fight it for you. One attorney told me they want to take back every property from US…I said…that is communism…he told me NO….THAT IS COMPLETE COMMUNISM…and he told me a lot of other stuff I did not know such as…the bank never lent you any money…this was all confirmed by another attorney. So you Gwen are either way behind the learning curve or, you are working for the enemy trying to clean up their mess. Thankfully…that’s not going to happen in every case…because you can fool some of the people some of the time but, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Dissent is the most honorable form of patriotism.

  79. ivent–you and others like you are stupid. you hurt yourself and those with legitimate gripes. Obamacare has been found to be constittional. you may not like that just like I don’t like many decisions of the U.S.Supreme Court. But I respect the court system. You do not. That’s your problem and others and you hurt our gov and system of go by spewing nonsensical bs without any real basis in fact or law. I’m sick and tired of folks like you. I was in court and some guy claiming the “original constitution” allowed him to throw seven pieces of silver at the court and redeem his house. Another “patriot” claimed the judge did not have a “correct” oath of office and threantened the court. This is idiocy. Go elect someone to change the law but don’t rant nonsencial bs which is what you do–lots and lots of bs taking up space. I do my research, i go to the law school, talk to other lawyers, write briefs based upon the law, if i loose, I appeal, and generally I win. You all you do is rant and rave. Worthless. I’m tired of people like you. I have serious financial background, a husband who was a CEO, cousin who was a founder of wastemanagement, brother in law who worked wall street–they are all democrats and all work for the little guy in their own way. They are educated and they understand the issues. You are not understanding the issues. You just spew crap. And I am tired of the uneducated american who has no economic understanding of the interconnection of world economis except to cry “one world order”. When you have done the homework I have and done the number of cases in the no of crts that I have i will talk to you. Until then, you waste all our time with your hatred and ignorance and that is all it is. I have a brief to review for an attorney today, a transcript for another attorney, work on my own case, a house to hold open, im finding a lawyer for a woman in california, one in franklin cty mo, and writing discovery responses to my own case. What the hell are you doing except ranting and raving????O and by the way I did voter registration yesterday, and am working for the obama campaign, claire mccaskill’s campaign, my neighbor’s secretary of state campaign, and figuring out how I’m going to pay for my insulin vials because I am not on medicare and my monthly meds cost me 600, my small health care policy 300 and i just missed the payment (563) on my long term healthcare. Gee not bad for a 64 year old broad.

  80. Dear Gwen: you ask all the right questions. And it is equally true that most judges will rule for the bank despite irregularities in the documentation.

    Yet analytical studies are far from worthless — if you are really taking the fight to their door-step. These studies coupled with proper pleading and argument make an excellent record on appeal. Each week more judges are taking it upon themselves to examine the documentation even if the case was presented poorly by the attorney or pro se litigant. They do this because they are starting to get reversed on procedural grounds.

    In the motion practice the objective is only to establish that there might be a conflict based on material facts that would alter the outcome. — the mistake made is that lawyers and pro se litigants don’t raise questions. They make allegations that cannot be proven without discovery.

    The traction is growing but without proper pleading and proper argument, with appropriate objections, the cases are doomed. No judge will be doing anything other than going through the motions if they think the homeowner is a deadbeat looking to get out of a legitimate debt. And no homeowner is going to get a windfall of having a judge declare there is no debt simply because of irregular procedures by the banks.

    The argument must first be directed against the mortgage lien with the goal of establishing a question of fact and a probability of success that at least rises to the level of probable cause that the homeowner will prove the point that the mortgage lien is not perfected.

    This is done by denying the allegations or presumptions made about the note. But you must realize that the note is evidence of the obligation, not the obligation itself. Carefully presented more judges are coming to realize that there are fundamental issues called into question here based upon principles enunciated in first year law school. Just because you signed a note doesn’t mean you owe any money if the loan was never funded, and just because you did get funding from someone else, doesn’t mean the note you signed is evidence in THAT TRANSACTION. you can’t borrow the money from a different transaction with different people and say that is the money you loaned the homeowner.

    If the banks want to say they funded or purchased the loan then consideration exists. But THEY must prove it and YOU must deny it if the facts warrant the denial. You don’t have to be right to allege or deny something as the banks have shown throughout this affair. In nearly all cases they will not be able to show that the funding came from the payee on the note, the lender described in the note and mortgage, or the mortgagee or beneficiary described in the note and mortgage. If there is no funding there was no deal.

    You presume that because funding from someone arrived when you signed papers. But that was just a trick to get you to lend them your signature on false papers they used for trading purposes.
    .

  81. @Gwen…I never said I hated anyone. Speaking the truth is not spewing hatred. You can’t disprove a thing myself and others have said is untrue, so you try to shoot the messengers. Calling us stupid and haters reveals you are either in denial and can’t deal with the truth or, you simply refuse to for your own personal reasons.. The only VOTES that will MAKE A DIFFERENCE in 2012 are REFERENDUMS ON THE BALLOTS NATIONWIDE to ABOLISH OBAMACARE….RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW….THE U.S. CONSTITUTION….. to its ORIGINAL FORM…ISSUE OUR OWN CURRENCY…U.S. BANK NOTES….ISSUED VIA STATE BANKS….SUE THE FED….PRIVATIZE OUR WEALTH. NO POLITICIAN CAN OR WILL DO THIS FOR US…BECAUSE…THERE IS TOO MUCH CORRUPTION.

  82. YOU KNOW WHY THERE IS NO ONE THAT WILL REPRESENT YOU? BECAUSE OF THE IDIOTIC THINGS YOU SAY AND PRINT THAT CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU–YOU ARE A LAWYER’S WORST NIGHTMARE–YOU SHOOT YOUR SELF IN THE FOOT EVERY TIME YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH. YOU THINK YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE LAWYER AND THE COURT AND THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION–NO YOU WON’T FIND A LAWYER AND ITS YOUR OWN FAULT. AND THE LAWYER WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT HE DOES NOT KNOW–EXAMPLE, I FOUND A WOMAN A LAWYER IN MO. THE LAWYER WENT TO COURT–LO AND BEHOLD THE CLIENT FORGOT TO TELL THE JUDGE THAT SHE HAD BITTEN (YES BITTEN) AN IRS AGENT THAT HAD COME TO HER DOOR! THE DEFENSE LAWYER FOUND OUT ABOUT IT–WHAT DO YOU THINK THE JUDGE DID? THE JUDGE FOUND AGAINST THE WOMAN–WHY–BECAUSE SHE ACTED LIKE A NUT CASE OUTSIDE THE LAW! AND THAT’S WHAT YOU DO AND EVERYONE LIKE YOU AND THEN YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY A LAWYER WON’T REPRESENT YOU–BECAUSE THE LAWYER NEVER KNOWS WHAT YOU DID NOT TELL HIM AND THE OTHER SIDE KNOWS THAT WILL KILL THE CASE. YOU ARE YOUR OWN WORSE ENEMY AND EVERYONE LIKE YOU . THAT’S IT, THE LAST ABSOLUTELY THE LAST THING I WRITE TO YOU AS I HAVE REAL LIVE PEOPLE TO HELP FOR OTHER LAWYERS AND MY OWN CASE.

  83. Gwen YOU just don’t get it. There are NO attorneys in my state willing to fight the fraud in my mortgage. I told the judge that last time I was in court when he asked me WHY DON’T YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY…? He asked me if I tried the legal aid….? I told him yes…they aren’t fighting mortgage fraud either. He did not seem pleased to hear me say that. I have had some legal advice and a real estate attorney who has reluctantly been advising me a bit. You see Gwen…pro se is not a choice…it is a neccessity. The outcomes by people with attorney’s have been less than satisfactory from what I have been seeing and hearing. These attorney’s are not defending the people. We are educating ourselves and representing ourselves out of neccessity, not because we want to. The reason why the judges want us to have attorneys is because they don’t want the American people sniffing around the scene of the crimes. All I can say is I am grateful for what I have learned so far. It has empowered me to seek justice not just for myself but forcall Americans. Because, if people like me lose…everybody loses..BTW…an attorney told me you have as much of a chance of winning with…or without an attorney. Nice huh…?

  84. Ivent–i am not going to answer your posts–you are clueless and you may have an issue–but its not mine. Also, you don’t have a clue about the law in its current state. I am a firm believer we must do two things: change the law thru the process we have–I am not for overthrowing the gov, throwing stones, etc. AND filing lawsuits within the current state of the law to get results. You want to do neither. You want to use this website to yell and scream. If you spent half the time working for a candidate who might make changes you would be ahead. So, I’ll do it my way and you do it your way but please, don’t spew your hatred and ignorance on others. Its counterproductive.

  85. Hey Gwen…here’s more proof the foreigners are robbing US….U.A.E Nuclear Program Gets $2 Billion Loan From U.S. EXIM BANK:
    http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-09/u-a-e-nuclear-program-gets-2-billion-loan-from-u-s-exim-bank.html

  86. show me one case where a person won his lawsuit by the defendants producing a false note or not producing any note and the judge saying –no note no claim–and the person coming away with a free and clear house–I’d like a cite because I don’t see that. What I see happening is the court’s saying you don’t produce the note you can’t foreclosre–but what does that really get the homeowner? no payments? a loan mod with someone who does not own the house? does it get an audit of payments? and if so what payments? form whom?

    I’ve seen several of these so called securitization audits–worthless according to judges. I have seen reports on the notes but no findings by judges based solely on those experts–i read probably a 1000 pages of cases a week and i’m not seeing those cases.

  87. Yeah people who tell the truth and know the law and put it out there john are often called public nuisances–the real public nuisances are people like you and ivent and others on this website who put out nonsensical infor and fase info because you are not lawyers and are cluelss–you think you know the law–you pontificate on the law, but you don’t know the law. Everyone once in a while I write on this blog becase I see something so outrageous and so stupid that i feel compelled to do so. But I’m done with this stupidity. I’m starting my own blog and website with real live law–you know the stuff in the books and the stuff in the cases being cited and not some garbage which I try to correct before people get in worse trouble than they are already in. People don’t like me because I tell it like it is, “john gault” aren’t you a woman–you won’t tell people your name. Well the truth is a lot better. so is my success rate with countless people over 30 plus years, including for that current CNN GSA whistleblower!

  88. discrimination is all con law if you knew what the law was which you don’t and i don’t have the time to explain it. i had a 90 percent success rate until they tood my license (steve limbaugh –rush’s cousin wrote the mosupreme court law opinion) after the state judge hearing the case called it a plain and simple” witch hunt”==his words not mine– because i was so successful against the big guys–working on getting reinstated because I got fed up with the foreclosure crisis and the idiot stuff being pled by pro se’s who are clueless and making bad case law got a book on it–that is with the printable stuff in it–getting ready to be published. Even the book company could not print all the stuff!

  89. they are all right and you are wrong–what a surprise!

  90. here’s how you plead unjust enrichment–you file as an independent lawsuit or as a defense to a foreclosure action in a non judicial state or judicial state a breach of chain of title claim followed by adeclaratory judgment claim tha there is no value in the note because of the breach of chain of title giving you title and the third claim is an unjust enrichment claim because a) you own the title not the person who has been collecting money, and b) the person collecting money has been collecting on a note with no value or one on which they have no right to collect per the decisiion on the declaratory judgment so that c) the person collecting has been unjustly enriched–its a tort and a contract claim with a punitive damage element.

  91. Close john but mers claims in my case that while they don’t have an interest in my note “now” they would be financially harmed if i win. my discovery nowasks “How harmed?” Which they refuse to answer. Especially when their records claim an unknown investor “or boa” according to mers in Dis responses owns my note and “mers does not know who”. Meanwhile both boa and mers and merrell lynch object to 30b6 depositions on the issue and boa claims citi as trustee for mlmi2006 he-5 owns the note which the sec says is wound day and almost valueless. So which one of u have a clue on Dis to unwind the mess. Ill be interested because I’ve submitted inter and requests for admin on the issues all of which are object to and waiting on ct to rule. By the way defendants claim I dont get to do discovery on the issue because boa is hdc on the note and its a 3 not 9 note Situation. Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

  92. Where did u get this stuff?certainly no caselaw that I am aware of and I’m eking in art 3 bs 9. Issue now. All this crape does unto ct us puss off judges. Don’t u get this?

  93. Go get the judicial filings on interests. If something is not there that should be and u have proofread it should be file a hydro com AND recusal. If u don’t have proofread shut up. U only make it worse fir yourself

  94. One last comment because this one is a real doozy……
    http://keywiki.org/index.php/Barack_Obama_and_the_Communist_Party

  95. Unjust enrichment is a good cause of action in combination with cancellation of instrument. But it doubles your burden of proof, so be careful how you plead it. Keep it as simple as possible.

  96. I was reading some of the comments from the Marcy Kaptur video…one said Maiden Lane has the notes. They sure tried hard to make us believe a lot of nonsense. The truth is ….the Treasury destroyed the notes after the banks cashed them at the Origination Fraud. If Maiden Lane has them, they are counterfeiting because you can only cash a check one time. That means those mortgage contracts are a nullity.

  97. johngault..well you are very perceptive then. That is a good trait to have. You don’t need a law degree to defend your rights. We can educate ourselves. Don’t we all wish we had some real Constitutional law classes in H.S…? They breezed over it around the 8th grade…I remember we had to pass the Constitution test and memorize the preamble to graduate 8th grade. When you are in 8th grade most kids don’t really think much about the importance of the Constitution. The history books in H.S. bored me to death. Now I know why..the public school curriculum stinks.
    dc..re do I want to be a slave to real estate..? Even if the title is clean you still have taxes to pay…renting a house or an apartment is slavery to a landlord. It’s all a scam to benefit the rich. We need to take our country back from these self appointed monarchs. Are we not supposed to be sovereign from this b.s….?

  98. dcb – unjust enrichment is a contractual defense, i do so believe. No contract, no use of the defense? I could have it wrong.
    ivent – manana. And i’m not an attorney. I’m a grunt with some info, some beliefs, some scars bearing witness to this or that, and no degree. Stinks really – though I might not have read all the cases I have read in law school, missing procedure is a rather big loss.
    Miss much of anything and you’re toast. Sad tale for many of us. Plus not using, like attorneys day in and out, is losing.
    But, I have taken a whole lot of r.e. classes and business law, tho
    who cares. No degree is no degree. So, in case you missed it: I am a layperson and nothing I ever say or write is legal advice. Ask a lawyer.

  99. dc…not sure what govtrip is. They are a .gov but so is the electoral college. That .gov stuff is meant to confuse and means nothing anymore. RE: James Bond…I am only interested in working for the American side of this.

  100. johngault…I uncovered who is invested in the Judicial Sales Corp..it is the judges….they probably won a lot of those credit bids in Illinois…there are illegal conflicts of interest all over the place. ..all of that codex/corpus juris civilus and Code of Justinian secret society stuff …it could be why these judges are so mean..
    http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/Public_Hearings/Mortgage_Foreclosure/Practice_Procedures/2012/lieberman.pdf

  101. The way you can tell if they are intnl is if they are exempt from govtrip

  102. Well theyv had a particular job opening for a long time—now that youv told me its for James Bond it surprises me that the targeted applicant hasnt applied

  103. dc…I am sure they wouldn’t want to hire me. Besides I now have lousy credit. They check that too. I am not trying to be bombastic. I am just calling it is I see it. As far as transferring our wealth overseas goes…..that is no secret. I believe the people who are receiving it will be fully exposed. That truth may shock some but not me. As for fincen, I told you, they are U.N. black ops for the banks…. They have no legal jurisdiction operating on U.S. soil. Look it up.

  104. johngault….re the credit bids. Are you saying they jumped the gun and went ahead and sold our properties before they were granted a foreclosure or are you referring to what went on with these financial transactions in general? I know the FED is still finageling their insolvent debts which is complete lunacy. MERS is not a bank, so are you saying they were used as an e broker/dealer? How could that work? There are for sure entities hiding behind MERS..who push the buttons. It sounds like electronic racketeering.

  105. @JG that re MERS is a very good synopsis of Art 9 v3 —–yes the banks have to revert back to Art 3 —-and they basically decided when they destroyed the notes that they would meet UCC 3-501 via 3-309 being affidavit and bond. Or other financially protective measure. This is the law. They must meet it–or else what do you use as proof the note was satisfied. I shudder to think about the ones that simply defaulted —-they will have no indemnity. They will be fodder for HDC claiming copys are original.

  106. @JG re unclean hands: yeah its back of the lineup–with equituitable stuff generally. Unless the whole thing is in equity.

    It is a catchall —-if they did anything along the way —-a really great situation for unclean hands would be for example: you find out that your servcer outright stole your note from its owner—the owner is not a party to your action —-and his loss –a civil or criminal action against him on the issue of the theft of the note you made—it did not injure you in a manner that is easily provable —-but it dirties his hands as he moves the court act against you—–a thief asking the court for equitable relief is a problem. So you may not be able to claim damages on that piece but its helpful wherever the court has discretion.

    Unjust enrichment really captures the essence of this fact pattern—-back to your issue——can a thief demand judicial action under UCC? Can a thief bt a person entitled to enforce if in possession of a collection agency

  107. @ivent – they can’t find the notes because not foreseeing MERS’ Consent Order and it leading to no more f/c’s in MERS’ name, the notes were digitalized and registered on MERS’ alleged e-registry
    and traded electronically – OR- otherwise under Article 9, anything but 3. One way or another, those notes were moved under Article 9, even if I can’t prove MERS acted as, or in fact didn’t act as, the e-registry for e-commerce. Now they need the paper notes for “Let’s Play Article III” to foreclose, having lost a good half of MERS’ cover by the Consent Order, and which without the paper notes (and their “endorsements”) they can’t.*
    Those notes were not moved by endorsement on the note or any stinking allonge. They can’t allow article 9 now, though it’s how they were transferred, because there are no endorsements and they need the article III endorsements to rely on bearer status.
    *Another part of the cover they still have is the “MERS” assgt where necessary, and I believe that’s also behavior 86’d by the Consent Order. By using paper notes with endorsments (art III) and “MERS” assignments, they are doing almost if not the exact same thing. The only difference i see is that when MERS is not the ben in the dot at the time of f/c, MERS doesn’t become the fee property owner with the full credit bid under the doctrine of merger of interest. Those credit bids have ramifications most people aren’t aware of.

  108. Ivent—thats good –i think every american should have a stint with the govt—-improves sense of balance. But I hate to tell you—I think you probably have impaired your chances by what you have posted —unless you are on contractor or some type of cooperating witness.

    People might think twice about your ability to swear that pledge.
    The background checks and interview questions will basically require that you download everything you posted here or whereever. If you are asked : did you ever say this or suggest that —with your stuff before the investigator, the questionair includes aliases–so if you deny what you have said under an alias—-it is perjury. So you would have to explain why you said some of the bombastic things you have—do you have a good reason to say what you have:

    You have touched on some potent possibilities there amoung the ranting. In all seriousness, what do you allege has FINCEN done or not done:poorly–or whatever? What is the relevance of FINCEN operation to mortgage finance cash flows?. Do you know something about proceeds of foreclosure-related crime crossing borders? You have reported it but nobody will take jurisdiction?. Im curious—give me an overview that I will be wiser. dcbreidenbach@aol.com

  109. johngault…..you sound like an attorney ….I don’t believe in coincidences…I used the unclean hands doctrine as one of my affirmative defenses. They are trying to dismiss 4 ….without prejudice and with leave to reinstate…can you guess the other 3…?

  110. unclean hands – now there’s an oldie only being spouted by the banksters as an aff defense. Believe me, I think it’s in every answer I’ve ever read. I’ve never seen it actually argued, tho. I only have the cursory understanding, but since it’s mentioned, made me think it deserves examination…..by lawyers with the energy.

  111. Dc…why would I be exposing them if I were working for them…..? If I got paid by line for exposing the crooks that would be fantastic. However, I haven’t gotten a big fat check yet. The AGs office told me they might want to hire me though. After I’m through fighting fraudclosure… Imagine that….?

  112. johngault….that is why the banksters don’t want to come up with an accounting ledger. That is part of proving up the chain. They don’t want anyone to know where OUR money went. If you can’t follow the money trail, you can’t catch the robberbaron thieves.

  113. Yeah Ivent but iv got one foot in the grave and the other starts to slide that direction around midnite—–besides now were talking about foreign espionage by fincen and im thinking only a banker would see it that way—what do they pay ivent–is it per line?

  114. That’s funny, dcb, because i’ve had some of the very same feelings about your stuff! Truly. So let’s agree to let alone what of the others we want (don’t have to address). deal? less you say otherwise, I’ll take it as a deal.

  115. @IVENT–Im still trying to figure out which constitution you are talking about
    with or w/bill of rights–are slaves part of the real estate?

    –or dont tell me ivent you never swore an oath? easy question ivent?/

    Ivent are you a US citizen?/

  116. NG said
    “Under HAMP the servicers and “owners” of the mortgages are required to consider the mortgage modification proposal from borrowers. But they are not doing that, complaining that it is straining their resources and infrastructure since they are not set up for that. Whose fault is that? They took the TARP money and they agreed to modify where appropriate and even get paid for it.”

    Damn straight!

  117. Its not that late dc…it’s Saturday nite and it’s only 11:35 Chicago time. The goods on FINCEN are..they are committing foreign espionage.

  118. @JG

    You are getting into stuff that is more detailed than im up for—i was talking very loose concepts–which is all you really do when you talk equity—i had a collegue once told me thaw to order legal arguments in any pleading: 1st argue the regs–then the statute—then the costitutionif available—-then equity and after all else argue the public policy

    when you talk to legislative types you do it in inverse order—and that way you can end up blaming the agency for the way it enforced the law–everybody wins—or nobody

    its late and im punchy–i know it because im enjoying reading ivent

  119. The overthrow of the BILL OF RIGHTS is a sneaky form of FASCISM….so are EXECUTIVE ORDERS…IN THE WRONG HANDS. The Supreme Court has been hijacked by fascists too. The ruling that Corporations are people is a sneak attack because ALOT of people don’t even know the politicians turned people into Corporations with their birth certificates …BANKS are BUSINESSES that make HUGE PROFITS from OUR WEALTH….THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE…THEY HAVE NO SOULS….THEY SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHTS…ONLY STRICT RULES AND REGULATIONS.

  120. But IVENT i want the banks to have forced compliance—are you telling me you want the banks to be self-regulated–say it aint so invent—if you want the banks to be self-regulated then you must be a banker—–are you a banker spy ivent

  121. @dcb – yes, I know it’s an expression. But it’s an expression which reflects the errant starting point, or one of them, of many courts and homeowners are prejudiced and damaged by that starting point.
    Comparitive liability and who bears a loss (the guy who caused it) are here apples and oranges imo. CL generally refers to that of the two parties to a contract, does it not, just like comparitve negligence? IF there is a contract between the investors and the homeowner, and as we know, that’s a big iF especially when considering the strict compliance for these trusts (unless they want to give up the preferred tax status if it’s not too late to try that move and btw, as far as I’m concerned, the fat lady isn’t signing about the right of recourse by trusts against homeowners), what would you say is the comparitve liabilty looking at? L & S of what I said is that CL is an issue relevant to a contract.
    Here we are talking about a third party who has interfered with the rights of the parties (say for disc if not arguendo borrower and investor) to the contract by its action or inaction, stated succinctly IF what the investors bought included the right of recourse against the homeowner. Except if they didn’t get the notes and dots, there is no contract for comp liabilty that i know of to look at. That little fact is obviously, is it not, fatal to such a comparison? The investors’ remedy is to sue the interferor. When a remedy exists as a matter of law, equity cannot impose another. Another tenet judges might be called upon to remember.

    So if you want to look at comparitive liabillity between the two (alleged) parties to these contracts, I’m not sure that’s an appropriate analysis.
    Seems like neglect, ignorance, or stupidity even (!) would be the comparison, and that would be between the loss-causer and the loser, I think. I don’t see any comparitive liability between the investor and the borrower. If comparitive neglect, say, WERE looked at between the investor and the borrower, whose neglect found the investor without recourse against the borrower? You’re making me think way too hard and giving me a headache!

  122. Why did the FBI tell me to call the cops on FINCEN…?

    Cmon now Ivent–if youv got the goods on FINCEN or some bunch of foreign conspirators–you can tell me—–nobody up this time of nite that will see it—-at least a clue—you wont cover it up will you?

    see 18 USC 2

  123. They are not upholding the U.S. CONSTITUTION. If you think I am a fascist, you don’t know what a fascist is. FASCISM is FORCED COMPLIANCE….BY THE GOVERNMENT…LIKE NDAA…..OBAMACARE…

  124. dc…Why did the FBI tell me to call the cops on FINCEN…? BECAUSE FINCEN IS THE FOREIGN ENEMY…. I told you I want the the U.S. CONSTITUTION RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM….OUR OWN CURRENCY ISSUED…THE FED ABOLISHED…..IT IS THE COMMIES WHO DEREGULATED THEIR OWN INSTITUTIONS….AND ARE PROTECTING THEM.

  125. @IVENT
    little civics test here Ivent

    quick question: have you ever had to swear to uphold the Constitution of the US—if yes –how many times?

    Why would you have to take the oath multiple times?

  126. NO BILL OF RIGHTS IVENT? you are a fascist then huh

  127. @IVENT

    Honestly FINCEN is a branch of treasury—-they track Suspicious Activity Reports [SARS] amoung other things—-it was too small and the drugrunners were laundering money left and right—

    They need more firepower to keep track of intrnl banks—the European banks simply say they are doing stuff that is so complicated that mortal men cannot understand it–much less regulate it—should the big banks be regulated or left to do what they feel like?

    INVEN are you a commie that wants to regulate banks or a fascist that wants them to own eeverything—or is there another brand here somewhere where you fit better?

  128. The U.S. CONSTITUTION…IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM…GAVE NO SPECIAL POWERS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT…THE TRAITOR POLITICIANS DID THAT…..WE DONT NEED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT…AT ALL.

  129. D.C…I believe in the U.S. CONSTITUTION in its Original Form…ARE YOU A COMMUNIST COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS MEMBER? I want the FED abolished. I am an American Citizen…I am for FREEDOM…INDEPENDENCE & NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY ..AND OUR OWN CURRENCY…U.S. BANK NOTES….

  130. Not buying that argument dc..FINCEN is the Federal Government. They don’t belong monitoring the peoples money…..THE U.S. TREASURY…. The CFR TRAITORS in CONgress did that….Did you know TIMOTHY GEITHNER is a member of the C.F.R…? SO IS ERIN BURNETT OF CNN.. Remember the FBI told me to call the cops on FINCEN.?

  131. IVENT the USC covers a lot of ground—would you drop food inspection for food consumed in interstate commerce?

    I hestate to point out 26 USC—–but you believe in balanced budgets dont you—or do just think Fed should print money?

    By the way what Title of USC and code of federal regulations governs federal reserve-maybe that will be the only institution left? -if you wipe out everything else—what about anti-trust —-will bill gates and a couple comrades fix the price of a phone call?

    im not sure about you ivent–are you sure you are not an anarchist fascist commie capitalist running dog?

  132. Its the same e format as MERS…

  133. FINCEN is a division of the treasury dept that is responsible for tracking moneylaundering–like the banks moneylaundering for mexican drug cartels—–they began staffing up a couple years ago—–
    FINCEN covers rule-making and enforcement –a cousin of IRS

    FBI is the investigative a branch of Dept of Justice——–Justice has to prosecute crimes brought by either to its attn—–curious the overlap—-im curious what crime would be moneylaundering and fbi and local “cops” —you mean like city cops–not AGs?

    Justice is responsible for almost all criminal prosecution and certain types of civil as well–although other agencies also do civil —they use civil vs criminal because its easier to prove civil liability [preponderance vs beyond reasoble doubt]

    there just are not enough of these people to cover this area–millions of transactions—and extremely convoluted—-specialized knowledge etc——–the dealmakers deliberately made everything so complicated that its extremely difficult to tell what they did much less to prove it was an intentional scheme to defraud—-the agencies need to somehow bring in algorythmic or statistical analysis of dat-streams to identify anomalies —to state that it is 75% or whatever certain based on models that something was planned—but the reasonable doubt standard will make any stistical evidence somewhat limited–im sure the older ones would have a tough time accepting the idea—-but you IVENT might have a hard time buying into the manner of data evaluation needed to do it—tracking all fincial transactions—then screening out the ones that are not interesting

    how do you regulate evil people without scrutizing normals? when the numbers are staggering?

  134. I should say the PATRIOT ACT amended the BANK SECRECY ACT.

  135. The UNITED STATES CODE is hijacking by the foreign enemy to overthrow our Constitution…CFR stands for COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS…

  136. This is why the U.S. CONSTITUTION must be restored to its ORIGINAL FORM…and the UNITED STATES CODE ABOLISHED…IT IS TREASON.

  137. Here it is folks…more FRAUD instituted by CONgress who gave FINCEN authority to hijack the U.S. TREASURY….THE PEOPLES MONEY….. and BUSH gave the FED authority to TRANSFER OUR WEALTH OVERSEAS WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY..via the PATRIOT ACT ….which includes THE BANK SECRECY ACT…….MORE PROOF OF TREASON…FinCENS Mandate From CONgress 31 U.S.C. 310:
    http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/bsa/

  138. @JG
    “Equity can’t abhor a forfeiture and endorse double recovery”

    Equity abhors a forfieture is an expression—-it is generally used to convey the idea that a substantial right should not be forfeit because of a procedural flaw. its not apllicable toevery situation —Iv never heard it in the context you use –basically comparative liability who should bear the loss —–im straining but as i recall it was used where old laws allowed an estate to forfet on a tecnicality—the flip pf equity abhor is the doctrine of substantial compliance—-that if i did most everything required but for a detail here or there—-i should not get tossed out —–often involved in penalty matters in administrative law—-the doctrine of substantial compliance is a more contemporaneous application of the old rule

    Im thinking you are setting up thinking about equity-based defenses —been there done that—got ignored as not being part of current commercial law–but maybe more acceptable now that theres criminal activity mixed in there

    under the prevailing sense of commercial law until recently–it was all about speedy administration–

    the double recovery thing would be no “unjust enrichment”——that would better fit the facts you are stating—— .

    another doctrine along the line is unclean hands—if he double recovery was had as a result of some evil act the youv got a twofer

    i think these are backup arguments –cts far prefer interpreting statutes—-and will only go to the equity stuff as a matter of common law–which means no statutes around—

    things like easements are pretty much still in the common law but for the 21 year prescripive stuff

  139. johngault…it is all about keeping the insolvent debt alive. That weakens us as a people and a nation. The crooks are just pocketing the payments as usury and all of our remaining wealth is going overseas. If the American people would realize that, and STOP PAYING..we would have a real TEA PARTY…

  140. Here’s one of my many stories from the “stenches” as Gwen puts it. I called the FBI a few times. On one occassion, I wanted to know if the FBI thought I should CALL FINCEN about the mortgage fraud. The agent replied “FINCEN, what’s that?” I said, “I don’t know I read about it on a mortgage fraud website.” The agent said “is there a .gov for that?” I said..”yes.”.the agent said..”o.k., you give that to me and you call FINCEN and let me know what they tell you. In the meantime I will look that up.” I called FINCEN ..they told me I have to call the FBI with my complaint. I called back the agent and told the agent what they told me. The agent told me to “call the cops.” I found out why later…FINCEN is U.N. BLACK OPS FOR THE BANKS. I think FINCEN did get kicked out.

  141. Apparently that equity abhorring a forfeiture has really pushed my botton. First of all, it doesn’t have a prayer against the loss being born by the party who caused the loss. But let’s leave that alone for a second (and only a second). “Equity abhors a forfeiture”. Okay. So how does, must, that same stinking equity look at a party who has already been made whole by something like, oh, TARP. Why would the same stinking tenet, “equity” , not abhor a double remedy for the same debt, the same cause of action? Because it would undermine TARP, that’s why, by precluding the double remedy. Grrrr. Among other things, the practical result of this is that, not to mention a %$!*$*! reward for bad and illegal behavior (or even follow Obama and call it ‘merely’ immoral) the ridiculous salaries and bonuses paid to those blankfaces and the similarly ridiculous amts of money which left the building are being replaced, sustained, whatever by the value of our homes.
    Now, some could argue that at 10 to 1 leverage or whatever (we all know I don’t know) or multiple sales of the same debt, all the outstanding, messed up obligations weren’t retired by TARP which would mean that sometimes it’s not the double recovery equity should abhor. Someone past me would have to examine that one. But they can’t have it both ways. Equity can’t abhor a forfeiture and endorse
    double recovery.

  142. dc..That sounds like a C.F.R. legislation. This could be why the cops don’t want to take police reports about mortgage fraud. I went to the Chief of police and he deflected me to the State AG’s office….same with the States attorneys office …the FBI told me to hire an attorney.

  143. 1981.1983 title voice whistleblower.?????? how about 18 USC 1513(e)
    (e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
    (f)

    This is the only whistleblower provision i understand.

  144. Here’s proof..the State AGs office told me YOU SIGNED THAT CONTRACT….THE RECORDER OF DEEDS OFFICE TOLD ME, BEFORE RAHM TOOK OFFICE…YOU DID NOT SIGN THAT CONTRACT.

  145. Well the discrimination piece i get —-but anti-trust is not particularly more colaw than any other thing based on commerce clause—-due process substantive and procedural was the focus i had—-as well as direct taxation—but although i filed many claims based in conlaw–i am not a conlaw person–iv hired such people—right now 1st amendment is only thing theyv beat me up on recently—-due process seems on the run

  146. Marcy Kaptur says “They “Can’t Find” The Paper Up There On Wall Street”:

  147. The NOTES DON’T EXIST PEOPLE…! Did anyone see Capitalism a Love Story….? Marcy Kaptor said they “lost ” them up on Wall Street.

  148. gc – You are a public nuisance! But I still like you, which may
    put me in the minority here (tho apparently that’s not a concern
    to you). I have a friend like you. He’s very bright if not as
    bright as he thinks. He knows everything, is hot-tempered and
    derisive. He has been a good friend to me for a long time, so I
    ignore the undesireable characteristics of his. I can still like
    you, because I suppose, unlike most people here, I am used to a
    “you”. As dcb says, we need contribution, not derision. No, you
    don’t have to contribute. No one does, though I wish more who could
    would. You’re going to find your own site subject to this truism,
    derision (not disagreement) is crap, and don’t think you’re not
    going to get some comments the highness does not agree with. You’ll
    get to be known as the Queen of Commedy and read if at all only for
    entertainment value. I just don’t believe anyone with any pedigree
    is going to hang out or contribute at a site where its host
    derides her readers or is subject to attack. You must be able to
    get out of your own way when you practice law, when you litigate,
    and good thing.

    Okay, moving right along. You might want to look into In re Walker,
    (ED CA 10-21656) for all the issues it encompasses. Don’t go off
    on me for the suggestion. It’s not made to undermine your own
    ability. Plus, I want you to win, believe it or not. The players
    in that case were the undeserving recipients of major wiggle room.
    No, I can’t write a prescription for truncating that !%#**! wiggle
    room, but imo it has to be done and a read of the case top to bottom
    (I know – yuk) may be instructive on what not to do, what not to
    tolerate, mistakes, traps and so on.
    One can’t get the gist of tricks used by merely reading a decision as
    I’m sure you know. One mistake that comes to mind, for instance and
    only for instance, is that on the date of the MOM, the lender named on the note was not a MERS’ member. Looked to me like this went right by the homeowner’s attorney. And don’t miss Hultman’s (hearsay) declaration.

    And btw, some of us readily understand at least to some degree the
    crap with 3 instead of 9 and the bullsh&tness of reliance on bearer
    notes. Further contribution wouldn’t be rejected. I’ve even posted
    (scribd) and linked here one of the two cases that I know of wherein
    MERS says these notes are regulated by 9 and asked people to make
    known any others. I’ve also linked a case I posted at scribd where
    there is admission MERS can’t assign the notes, calling such reference in the deed of trust merely “superfluous’. For your penance, I am not going to give them to you, so if you think they might be of any value, you’ll have to hunt for them at scribd.

  149. Gwen…they don’t have the notes because a check that is converted into a stock cannot be converted back into a check…They destroyed the notes after they cashed them at the ORIGINATION FRAUD anyway…they are trying to cash in on the MORTGAGE CONTRACTS…THE NOTES ARE A NULLITY…BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE FOLLOWS THE NOTE….THE MORTGAGES ARE A NULLITY….THEY CAN’T BE SEPARATED…..
    RE OBAMACARE…DO YOU WANT TO BE MICROCHIPPED TO DEBT..? GOOGLE IT… OBAMACARE is an attack on our infrastructure…BY THE CONTROL FREAKS…

  150. @ GC
    COT under 3 in possession is just proff of authority which admittely is slippery—-COT 9 —maybe more clear—yes draw me a map—thanks—-but argument gonna be alternative–the PEB suggests 3?

    The argument has been no difference between presenting the original [possion situation] or a copy [UCC 3-309] ——after property seized and just building defenses against the other claimant already on horizon–

  151. @GC
    1) I have never remarked on presidential candidates and consider myself as non-partison—-are you sure you have not mixed me up with somebody
    2) i have been in a neverending suit for the past several years—i reported LPS’ DOCX activities as a SARBOX in 2009—etc etc–stated that to you–I am an acting licensed attorney with a single client
    3) I would appreciate it if you would make sure what who you are belittling –i mean at least read the posts–itll look like you are really engaged

  152. @CARIE, ET, etc
    TEST ME HERE PLEASE: Im going to do a paper on this and i want to make sure the theory is sound–what caselaw currently exists.
    Premise
    The UCC standards determine who is entitled to enforce the note. The standards must be met at or in connection with presentment to the maker under UCC 3-501.

    Payment of the note may have been made earler than presentment.Thus makers may have paid the note in installments over years–or by presentation of a deed in recent past. This could occur in connection with a DIL or short-sale. The maker tenders the payment–if it meets conditions in note or by agreement satisfies some or all terms of note,—then the noteholder has the duty to meet presenment duties under 3-501. Delivery of the deed and/or other form of payment [eg cash, check, or replaceent note] is triggers duty to present and reflect partial or complete saisfaction: discharge of debt.
    They could also do this by Affidavit amounting to a form of authentication. This must be accompanied by by a form of economic protection–the UCC MADATES that a Court aply prtective

    The maker has a right to receive presentment of either the original note and proof of authority by the presenter of authority to enforce the note –if the presenter is offering the maker only a copy, then that person is unable to demonstrate the right to enforce the note. If he is unable to enforce at the time he obtains title from the borrower-homeowner, then the failure to enforce the note runs back to the day the complaint was filed–the court lacked jurisdiction–so everyhting is reversable as far back as rhe homeowner seks to press it back.

    The homeowner faces a dilemna —If after she has transfered title by delivery of executed deed, what if the claimant is unable to provide an original note [ie be in possession] make a satisfactory proof by affidavit or unable to post a bond? If the claimant after winning MTDs —and never put to motion for summary judment on proof of right to enforce—then after having beat the homeowner by procedure—cannot meet the presentment duty? But the payment was aleardy received?

    Does the homeowner move to set aside all because there was no original jurisdiction?

    Or did the homeowner litigate the issue and get tangled up by not hitting that point?

    Seems like the matter should be raised by reopening the foreclosure to plead lack of effective presentment–move for rescission. The homeownrer has a problem, She may be worn out by the past struggle–but if she does not obtain the note or affidavit–then she has no defense against a future holder in due course.

    So in answer to Caries —they told me to shove it–maybe –and i know nothing of her case—she might move under a rule 60 —-or on basis of general due process argument–that the case reopen and claimant either meet presentment by putting up bond and affidavit or apply for rescission and/or breach of implied contract –or claim tort of misrepresntation [as to right to enforce note] to deceive to illegally obtain property—or took the proerty negligently?

    Upon proper presentment of either:

    Th if and when finally determined

  153. U are clueless because u don’t litigate. You don’t understand system and u bash it. Look for my new blight and website soon. I’ve had enough of the pontificating.

    Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

  154. U are still clueless. I’m starting a website and blight soon. Look for it. Its about real live law and not garbage venting

  155. U obviously have no understanding of discrimination laws. 1981.1983 title voice whistleblower. That’s the problem. U have no legal training and yet u bash those of us who do and are sling in the system to get results.

  156. What the he’ll does obamacare have to do w banksters. That’s idiotic

    Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

  157. When u do discrimination and antitrust its con law basically. Do u not understand the basics of these two areas of the law? Obviously not.

    Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

  158. U guys still font understand why the banks want the notes to be success 3. Because all they have to prv is they HAVE the note. Chain of title under 3 is irrelevant or so they argue to ct. Success 9 they have to prove up cot. Got it?@

  159. Really and what do u add.. more ponticating. More bashing Obama. Get in the stenches ans do a lawsuit

  160. @carie – imo there is truth in what gc said and I’ve thought it myself.
    Whether or not the actions (tarp) by the government were the right
    choices to avoid utter global chaos will remain speculative for most
    of us or maybe even all of us. But it’s what they did. So that’s what
    Obama was left to contend with. It’s been four years now and economies and countries still struggle to survive. We, the U.S. are probably still not out of the woods. I’m mad as hell that there have been no criminal prosecutions, so in regard to tbtf, I (the admitted novice on that stuff) have somewhat jokingly suggested shadow employees and ceo types to take the places in command of those ships so we can jail the current ones without panic. But to do something like would probably require seizures and that would probably cause the panic hoped to be avoided, anyway. Plus I think they’ve got us over some barrel or two (manipulation of markets comes to mind), which position to so do shouldn’t have been allowed, enabled in the firt place.
    Having said this, imo those businesses need to be dismantled yesterday in as orderly a fashion as possible. Any institution which is or could be perceived as tbtf shouldn’t be tolerated because if nothing else, and there’s a lot of “elses”, that status has become a get out of jail card and that obviously means they can do any manner of evils without recourse with the exception of civil proceedings based on contract by contracting parties (pension funds, etc) and those only because someone has the money to hire some talent(s). Those guys messed over the globe and we understandably want justice. There are no jobs and there is no
    money because apparently it’s been moved out of circulation. We need that money back. Can it be gotten? I sure hope so because we need it. What we really want is an end to our own victimization of their acts, partly by way of relief if not legitimate recompense as to our real estate, and we’re not getting it. We are left to our own devices to protect hearth and home from schemes that were implemented with no regard for law and our national security (a homeless, unrepresented, oppressed society is not safe nor is a scheme or even business plan which led or could lead to this kind of economic disaster). The very scheme of stocks operates on a win / lose platform – for a winner, there’s a loser. A gain is someone
    else’s loss. Securitization is a different animal AND what was done here is not the same as normal stocks because for one biggie, as carried out, it involved and still involves imo fraud and rico activities to get its win. The fans of the overrated Gordon Gekko had to cheat to get there. (He did, too, right? I forget) Americans are taking it on the chin and worse as the fraud and rico activities continue, with the only recourse to date being mostly toothless civil penalties which don’t even come close to nor can pretend to address the damage done and being done. In a way, and certainly as to some of us, the banksters activities have seen to it
    there is an “impossibility of performance” (which is a contractual defense) because thanks to their bullsh&t, we have no jobs and our savings accounts by any other names have been emaciated.
    But is four years long enough to stabilize what was done? I don’t know, but either way, four years, hmmmm… now, what about the law? Inherent in the civil proceedings by the 49 AGs is an acknowledgement that we have been screwed, blued, and tattoo’d.
    Yet, the bull continues.

    A huge and glaring manifestation of its continuance is in the form of
    SELF-INSTIGATED AND SELF-EXECUTED ASSIGNMENTS IN MERS’ NAME (and POST CONSENT-ORDER to boot).

    The gov might not have interferred per se in private contractual
    relations by the use of TARP funds, but it’s unavoidable that doing
    nothing of any substance about continuing fraudclosure is highly
    prejudicial to this country’s citizenry in favor of that same gang
    (and hence a continuation of propping them up) – for WHATever reasons, including a sincere (or insincere) belief or reality of too big too fail. Four years – is it time (past time?) to enforce the law on behalf of the people for whom those laws were enacted? That would take the form of arrests and criminal charges. In the interest of national security (no, I’m not kidding), should the government intervene in contractual disputes, (nasty precedent, even if necessary) at the heart of which are (some of) the issues recited (note: apparently as mere civil wrongs aka torts) in the 49 AG’s civil settlement? And what would that look like? Is busting chops going to get us the relief we need? (though they should be busted, anyway) And what is speculation of the fall-out to a fragile
    economy? Maybe such interference, along with busting the chops of perps, would do the opposite of the allegations by the banksters at this point (4 years on) and actually stimulate our economy. Without interference in contracts on some emergency basis, is busting chops going to get us the relief we want?
    I think a big problem to any solution is that it appears the money
    has left the building. The only way this plebe knows to recover it
    is through seizure of the institutions and (probably) prosecution of
    the perps. If the institutions are seized, we would (theoretically) not be fighting an element which will say or do anything to get what it wants.

  161. @JG
    “if I were in litigation and lost, I would ask the court to order the return of the cancelled original note or a bond or something. And good luck on that one.”

    Exactly—-in fact you should have a glimse before litigation–because if the claimant can produce the original—his right is only under UCC 3-309—-and if he cant get a surety –or something similar–he probably lacks standing—–and i do not see why a borrower should have to pay $50k or more—lose the case–then be unable to prove possession of the note—–or more properly possession of a right to enforce the note as an authorized person in possession or a bonded naked claimant not in possession

    The proper way to litigate this stuff is to test under 3-501 and 3-309 before the fight–as part of the borrowers MTD—-but borrowers are always on defense—

    If the claimant can come up with the note they have no business in that courthouse an—exception being 3-309

    and you absolutely have the right to demand the note—and if court wont give it–appeal

    we need more law on this issue—-it is so important—but the reason i have confidence in this aside from the plain language of UCC 3-501 3-301-309 etc is that it is a violation of due process of law for a court to deprive you of your property and leave you exposed to a 2nd claim on the same instrument

    problem for people is that they can certainly waive that right–like any other–and that is what happens every day a bebtor allows a default judgment–every time there is a settlement where no motion to present the authenticate note occurs—-you must raise it or waiuve it—whether you pay the npte off one moth at a time or by selling the house or by DIL –this is how theyv gotten away with it–no lawyer needed to simply pay off a note right?—just send money and theyll send you a note–but itll be a thankyou note –not the promissory note

  162. @GC
    “im a conlaw layer by training”

    on top of being a litigator–you are a conlaw lawyer too? after 35 years its possible–lot of water under a 35 yr old bridge—but my question is what training –you have an LLM is conlaw? Where Georgetown? Just an honest question

  163. Dc…I say..WE THE PEOPLE SUE THE CRAP OUT OF THE BANKSTERS…..We need a referendum on the 2012 ballot to ABOLISH OBAMACARE….. restore the Constitution and issue our own currency via state banks. We need to privatize our wealth.

  164. The real question is will WE THE PEOPLE ACCEPT WORLD GOVERNMENT that has been sneaked in under many guises…? They are trying to install COMPLETE COMMUNISM disguised as many things. They want COMPLETE CONTROL by DEFRAUDING THE PEOPLE OF EVERYTHING…… This is the final wake up call. Obama knows the only way to install COMPLETE COMMUNISM is by making US BELIEVE LIES BY KEEPING SECRETS,USING LIES and DECEPTION…BLACK IS WHITE…WHITE IS BLACK.

  165. @ET RE ESCHEATE BETTER THAN A SICK IN THE EYE

    I dont know what the range of options is: i think it goes like this though: there is a select group {IVENT CHIME IN HERE IF YOU SUBSCRIBE} that is of the opinion that everybody should get a free house because the entire US system is defective. I think the chances of that happening are pretty slim–fair to say?

    Then there are those that say if there was criminal behavior in the loan process–then the house should be free–this has some appeal in terms of creating a disincentive–until you take into account that the securitization schemes relied on the use of other peoples’ money —and i know im probably offending some that seem to be be of the opinion that there were never any loans–and i guess it just seemed like my bricklayers were getting paid when really the payments went to their banks or something???

    Then where: principal reductions? which i have always thought made sense because they result in less transaction costs and less human suffering—but im afraid that the folks that share in the receipt of those costs are the largest constituency against them.The lawyers. realtors, title insurers–and banks and securitization industry—-

    then there are short sales –these allow the constituency described above to continue their feeding frenzy—-so even if the current homeowner could carry the cost of a reduced debt -reduction not deferral—supposedly the investors should be better for having incurred less costs——-

    The HAMP and the $25 billion settlement—and other programs that i cant even name—all seemed to start with principal reduction because of the efficiences—and I might add no free house—-but somehow the “no free house” crowd have managed to generalize the concept to not even allowing a meanigful modification. This is one reason i do not think people that keep beating that drum –ie free house—-are doing nobody any favors—–and may actually be paid to say it by the vested interests. The vested interests are going to latch onto every free house comment and argue that ANY move that results in “moral hazard” will inevitably result in the end of civilization and anarchy brought on by the free house commie-socialists–[joke for you IVENT]

    I think its a nasty PR manipulation—especially if the free house crowd is paid to raise the spectre——–the best thing from all angles is clearly write down of principal–but the vested interest greed stands squarely in the way–and salt sites like this with comments that make any propenent of change look like a nutcase

    No offense intended IVENT—-

    At this point–Id just be happy if all of the self deception and manipulation would be cleared up long enough to give folks some simple guidance on how to leave the old debt behind when they try to move on with their lives. Why is that such an offensive idea to so many here? Is it the prosepect of the Collection agencies having to post bonds??? Or the fact that even the non-deadbeats are getting trapped in the debt trap?

    I fear the latter—-I think that politically speaking its a very good thing for the vested interests to divide and conquor—to feed the republican view that anybody that defaults is so bad that anything anybody does to them short of jail is vindicated. But the minute that it dawns on the average republican Joe Sixpack that —-damn–he didnt get his note back either come to think about it—-and that somebody could screw up his life based on a technicality——that is when the anything goes mentality will suddenly go out the window

    So if I were on the Obama re-elect campaign –id be publicing the fact that Joe Sixpack is in fact exposed to a junk debt buyer with that pesky old note that Joe sweated hard to pay off. I guess that would be most easily demonstrated if we had a couple instances headlined in NYT—say about October 1. A nice expose about how collection agencies and even some banks qiut giving back notes on homes—even while they give em back on cars—and the implications–and a couple examples would drive it home.

    We need a scandal of junk debt chasers screwing hard-working Joe Sixpack.

    Say Gwenn—after a number of years of litigation exposure i became so jaded and cynical by how unproductive it was–that I started doing legislative work —and PR is part of it—the trick is to make things just and practical—-and there is no nice set of simple rules to do that. As I dont like litigation–traps for unwary–not justice–unproductive–and more than anything I dont like formal discovery—you may be a bit old school—-play by the rules–tell the opposing people what you are looking for and beg them to give it to you—-iv played that game—its worse than the rest of unproductive litigation strategies. Much better to go interview the employees —ask their girlfriends—youd be surprised the internet capability for searches———-and the opposing counsel then has to hire PIs to follow you and intercept your materials to see what you are up to—-and they leave trails that real federal investigators can follow–kind of like what Nixon did to himself with his plumbers—-wheels inside wheels—-the hunter is actually the hunted

  166. dc says…out of academic curiosity he wants to know who I am mad at? Anyone who is engaged in this coverup. Those who are covering up secrets with lies and deceit. Why don’t I use my real name…? The TRUTH is the issue…not my name. Does that empower me? I am not here to take credit for sharing the TRUTH. Am I in litigation…? We are ALL IN LITIGATION, whether we realize it or not.

  167. @IVENT

    Just out of shere academic curiosity: Who are you directing all these tirades at? Are you in litigation? Although iv gotten some blitering comments out that Gwen person—-at least she uses her name—I have to agree with a couple remarks shes made about the useless venting—Why are you supposedly so very vocal —but you wont use your name? Have you got something to hide—-or does anonimity make you feel more bold? What if you were not really unknown–what if whoever you think you are deludiung or hiding from actually knows your name?

    Its just some collateral psych im curious about—and i figure you wont mind since weve heard you comment on everything from economics to electioneering–why not explain some phsychology? Im bored—im tired of untagling the UCC speak for a while–come on give it to me–why do people get on a specialty site like this and vent?

  168. Carie…. They don’t want you to see they never paid the Treasury back. They cashed those notes at the ORIGINATION FRAUD…..unindorsed notes are a scam to make you believe they never cashed those notes. They are deceptive liars.

  169. @JG

    Since the servicers are being allowed to get away with whatever they want, when I asked for my note they simply said:

    “We are not obligated to give you the note.”

    End of story. How nice for them.

  170. dc…unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction no matter how crazy it sounds. They designed it that way so they can call us nutjobs. Exposing them for what they really are is relevant. However, it is not easy if you do not have an open mind. I came across something last nite that should be a wake up call. Does anyone know ……THE SUPREME COURT RULED ANIMAL SACRIFICE PROTECTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION….? They call ANIMAL SACRIFICE a RELIGION…? In this case they used a loophole called RELIGION and they hid behind the CONSTITUTION to allow ANIMAL SACRIFICE under the guise of religion. Like how POLITICIANS turned people into Corporations with our BIRTH CERTIFICATES…ALL DONE WITH NO DISCLOSURE…..read about it here..LIVE ANIMAL SACRIFICE AS RELIGION….
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/shaman-in-chicago

  171. There are no free houses because the FED CORP….and I mean all of them…GM included rendered our property worthless by allowing WALL STREET to create a quadrillion dollars in derivatives fraud with our ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. The VALUATIONS ARE ZERO…AUDIT THE BANKS…YOU WILL SEE THERE IS NO COLLATERAL BACKING UP THEIR DEBTS TO INVESTORS…BOTH FOREIGN & DOMESTIC…..THEIR FRAUD IS HIDDEN IN THEIR ALGORITHMS AND THEIR ELECTRONIC BANKING SCAM.

  172. And we’re talking about apples and oranges in the first place. You are keen on the return of the orig note upon payment or maybe under other circumstances. I am looking at forfeiture v a proper claimant and why courts must look to the loss-causer as the party to take any loss it has caused. It IS apples and oranges. And I’m not sure that a full
    credit bid or the sale of the collateral at trustee’s sale at a price at or above the debt does not operate to retire the debt IF the party foreclosing is in fact the noteowner. Even a lesser amt may retire the debt dollar for dollar as a matter of law. (Obviously, the rub is if that party is not in fact the proper party.) Still, coming maybe full circle, it does seem like even if by operation of law (and as I said, I don’t know) the debt is retired this way (by foreclosure), the prudent borrower would demand the cancelled note to preclude further claims on that note. In fact, if I were in litigation and lost, I would ask the court to order the return of the cancelled original note or a bond or something. And good luck on that one. For one thing, if the proper party has the note, it isn’t known at the litigation proceeding how much the trustee’s sale will bring. But that number will be known soon enough, so the court could set a time certain for the receipt of the cancelled note as a condition of the lender’s relief. But one won’t get it for sure if one doesn’t try. There are some legal tenets involved with foreclosure, pieces which I can’t put together just now, but I do know the amt of any credit bid is very important and its significance has been overlooked.

  173. The U.S. GOVERNMENT under OBAMA is allowing the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to sell OUR ASSETS that WE THE PEOPLE PAID FOR TO THE FOREIGNORS….OBAMA is also still allowing FED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO INVEST IN INSOLVENT DEBT …..OBAMA is allowing the FED to collect TRILLIONS A MONTH in mortgage payments when the FED OWES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE….THE U.S. TREASURY GAZILLIONS…BLOOMBERG NEWS REPORTED THIS…BERNANKES RESPONSE…HE USES THAT MONEY TO BUY U.S. TREASURIES WITH…!!!! PAY US BACK YOU CROOKS…!

  174. @Gwen C.

    you said:

    “…And stop bashing Obama when you have not got a clue about the complexities of the financial world or how close this country came to going off a cliff financially but for his actions..”

    Respectfully—the BANKS didn’t go over the “self made” cliff…WE THE PEOPLE DID. The middle class DID. THERE ARE MORE POOR PEOPLE NOW THAN EVER BEFORE.
    Obama SAVED THE BANKS and let/is letting the American people DROWN after THEY fell over the “cliff” into quicksand…

    WHY is it OUR JOB to figure out how our rapists raped us AND got away with raping us and THEN we have to figure out how to prosecute said rapists?

    The only reason is because the debt buying industry is the LARGEST business IN THE WORLD.

    It’s all about saving the MONEY. SCREW THE PEOPLE.

  175. @jg

    the equity abhorrance things simply reflects the widely held view that there have not been and likely wont be free houses anytime soon—not some sort of deep seated rule of law–more a prediliction

    my points are that at thi point—-im thinking its a major feat simply to get a discharge on the note in connection with dot/foreclosure–or even a staraight payoff—–and i will repeat —i do not know a damn thing about dot processes–which seemingly may allow a split between the dot and note——which leaves me cold and completely confused—–im making sure i stay away from arizona—write down those houses by say 40%

  176. @gc

    im looking at several of your comments—–common thread “you dont like this or that”

    further you are assuming a lot that you really dont know a thing about—i would suggest that i doubt any of us who are receiving your attentions dont reallt care whether you like it or not—why dont you try sticking to some legal issue—explaining it and enlightening everybody rather than simply belittling everybody—and i do mean everybody—–

    im not sure what your point is in posting here—you have made clear that you are way more competent and experienced than anyone else here—maybe true—but unless you are going to do treatises —do you think that for examle im going to pay any attn to you at all?

    it seems that the highest horse around is the one you are perched upon

    i have to laugh at some of the extreme stuff–and wish it would tone down or stop—but i do not think there is any real value difference between those rants and yours—sorry

  177. @dcb – what does equity abhorring a forfeiture have to do with your
    statements regarding a reconveyance of a dot (which you refer to as a release) ? Is it to say that when a noteowner shows up with the note which was secured by the now released (I’ll use your word) dot, that tenet will be in the noteowner’s favor? Seems to me that even if that noteowner has a claim, that doctrine would not be in play because
    (purely) as an equitable consideration, the homeowner has had an
    expectation (right or wrong as a matter of law) that his note is retired by his payment and the ‘release’ of the coll instrument. Balancing the “equities” would not find in favor of the noteowner; only the law would, and in fact, the law which would afford the noteowner its right to payment must deny any equitable consideration.

  178. Get a grip Dc. The debt is insolvent. Obama had a chance to sign into law and allow this insolvent debt to be extinguished in bankruptcy. He FAILED to do that because the goal here is to OPPRESS THE PEOPLE.

  179. @Gwen…PUT QUITE SIMPLY…The financial world is insolvent. That is the result of KRONY KAPITALISM… too many investors, the rich….both foreign and domestic. The U.S. CONSTITUTION is being obliterated because it prevents the control freaks who want to own us from doing just that. There is EVIDENCE that Obama is aiding and abetting our demise. RE INSTITUTING INSOLVENT DEBT IS DESTROYING THE PEOPLES WEALTH.

  180. gc
    Im not selling anybody anything—-im not recommending defenses—litigation—spending money on securitization audits or any of that——i am telling them they better recover the original note –get it authenticated as best they can ——or get an affidavit of lost note and meaningful economic assurances

    1st the collection agencies state—trust me iv alleged i hold the note–and i have this really pretty assignment too—–albeit executed by a felon convicted of forgery—check forgery using multiple aliases—so lets just all pretend without more that standing exists—and so what if the assignment must be replaced by another a year later—it worked for awaile –and the existence and right under the UCC —the importance of the note gets pushed back

    Then after long and convoluted motion practice—collection agency says well thats enough of that —lets just move to enforce an agreement along the lines of what we want [actually exactly what we want]——now of course the several litigation specialists on the case did not realize that a verbal agreement by ones atty [especially an unauthorized one] that the client will sign a DIL for any purpose—did not recognize the statute of frauds issue–the implication of subornation of perjury

    I dont know how comprehensive your substanttive knowledge of the various devices that have been used to deceive investors and homeowners —i dont know—because i dont know if you have a business background—–or an undergrad in French Art—-

    I dont know if your discovery experience is targeting decision makers or searching thru mountains of useless docs dumped on the parties making discovery in order to conceal the docs in there of use–or conceal that theres nothing there—-i dont know —the mountain search was par for the course for decades especially in commercial litigation of the type you refeenced—-today they use Indians and search words—–its not exactly earth shaking highly respected work—

    Im not belitlling the concept of breadth of experience—–nor of what goes behind it–i just dont know what your real role was—were you ever a general counsel?

    as far as class actions go—-im sensing that you are involved in that? Maybe ?

    Frankly I understand why it happens—and i understand that really tough stuff must be undertaken that way—–because even the best single litigator—experienced substantive atty is heavily outgunned by the legion of collection agency attys

    But as far as actually improving anything for people ——my quick and dirty sense is that as soon as the class action firm gets some meat that would if put into an appeals decision give widespread benefit–they settle—they take the millions and give the class a few pennies—–

    But in this reputational attack on me for whatever reason motivated —all i am left with a desire to say–is its too bad you have some theory of case which for whatever reason is so important to you that you will not discuss it online or offline——and instead start attacking me personally and stating you dont like this ot you dont like that—–to which i can only say “frankly my dear I dont give a damn”———and as far as the reputational attacks —-again i know noting of you except just maybe and i dont really know for sure–but maybe your intolerance for people which you get vey upset about inexpicably—–contributed to your disbarment–if that is even true–which i cannot say

    I will say—people better be getting notes back or affs and surety bonds rather an a song and dance——and nowhere have i suggested any short hand or other way to get a free house–although others have—and im sorry if in your long and illustrious carrer you never learned anything about escheat—not likely if that carreer was spent sniffing through stuffy stacks documents in antiquated discovery processes

  181. there is nothing wrong with our constitution, it is people like you who yell and scream and don’t file lawsuits that can get it done. you just don’t know how, or don’t want the aggravatopn or just want to complain. It can be done if we fight one lawsuit at a time. But listening to you makes me sick to my stomach. You are clueless, You don’t know the law or understand the law or because you don’t know either you have to bash the law because it does not get you the result you want. You need to figure it out–I have spent 3000 hours figuring it out in three plus years and I have not paid my mortgage in all that time and I have been fighting and am still fighting a day at a time. Get off your high horse and use the system to get what you want and stop the bitch.

  182. you know i am tired of comments like yours that say obama or whoever is not doing their job. I am also tired of saying there needs to be audits. HAVE YOU DONE DISCOVERY IN ONE OF THESE CASES TO TRY TO GET AT THE NEEDED INFO? I sincerely doubt it as I have found almost no one at all who is asking for this information in any format whatsoever. Stop blustering and figure out HOW to get this information from the banks etc. I have 35 years of experience and trying to get this information without ten thousand objections gives new meaning to stalling and bad faith. So stop your pontificating and get into the action and figure out a way to get it done like I am–day by day, question by question, motion by motion. And stop bashing Obama when you have not got a clue about the complexities of the financial world or how close this country came to going off a clift financially but for his actions. I am sick and tired of people like you. file a lawsuit and ask in discovery for the info.

  183. We the People need to sue the FED…the private bank who robbed us.

  184. We also need to privatize our new wealth from investors. We need a referendum on the 2012 ballot to vote to restore our Constitution, our own currency, añd open State banks.

  185. What Obama and others do not want the people to realize is we need to create OUR OWN_ NEW _WORKING CAPITAL…..REDISTRIBUTING INSOLVENT DEBT ONTO THE PEOPLE DESTROYS THE WEALTH OF THE PEOPLE AND THE NATION.

  186. There needs to be audits of every aspect of these debts BEFORE FRAUDCLOSURE… because they are INSOLVENT…..ONGOING BAILOUTS AND FRAUDCLOSURE DOES NOT CURE MASSIVE INSOLVENT DEBT OF THE BANKSTERS…EITHER DO LOAN MODS, SHORT SALES, REFIS., RENTING, SELLING OUR PROPERTY TO THE FOREIGNERS…..BECAUSE…..IT IS UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT THAT CAN NEVER BE REPAID…

  187. DC…I DID NOT SAY RELEASE OF MORTGAGE…I SAID SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE….THEY ARE 2 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. A RELEASE OF MORTGAGE is a bank transfer…..a SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE means ONE OF THE DEBTS THEY CREATED was SATISFIED….IT DOES NOT GIVE YOU CLEAR TITLE…..AS MANY ARE TOLD TO BELIEVE. BECAUSE…THESE MORTGAGES ARE INSOLVENT BECAUSE OF A QUADRILLION DOLLARS IN FRAUD CREATED BY THE BANKSTERS.

  188. @IVENT AND OTHERS

    The looming misperception hit on here is the abandonment by the home-loan industry of the basic UCC standards. In the case IVENT describes–the “attorney friend’ was implicitly asked “whats been the recent local practice that you are familiar with”—–and the atty rightly responded –filing “release of mortgage”——however the release of mortgage could be made even if there was a deficiency judgment of a huge amount—–a release of mortgage is what it says it is—-the [purported] mortgage holder supposedly the same as the note holder——-has told the world that the mortgage is released and he the mortgage holder is noe ready to sell the property and pocket the cash

    reay–thats what a release of mortgage is—nothing more—it implies nothing about the borrower’s debt under general UCC law. Now a lot of confusion results if the home is in a non-recourse state and met the conditions for non-recourse——then more or less by coincidence —-the [authorized] release of mortgage——constitutes release of the only asset that can be used in that state to satisfy the debt–so by implication the note becomes uncollectible when the mortgage is released

    but that is far from the general rule—-a lawyer in such a state may by practice have become used to this shorthand——but that very same lawyer better be singing a different tune on commercial or investment properties–right?

    And im not sure what a lawyers defense wold be in a recourse judicial state if he was hired to represent you but neglected this aspect of discharge of a note [ ie recovery of original or lost note affidavit]—–except that homeowners dont get attorneys to help them settle up on a mortgage close out—–we dont use lawyers to pay off auto or home loans do we?

    The reason we dont is because the practice has been “In our banks and title companies we trust” thus people expected that when they pay off the note they get relieved of the debt—and what layman knows the UCC? Who would believe it possible that you might pay off your house—but have somebody come along later and claim you still owe the debt–because they have the original note–and you dont? Those of you who deride me for saying”Equity abhors a forfeiture” will be looking up cites and claiming that as you try to defend against that holder in due course—you will be saying;

    “But judge i did everything right—i just didnt know i needed to get the original note back to use as proof against this apparent crook– that getting the note back thing was just a harmless detail your honor —and all my firiends that work in banks told me that was an antiquated concept that nobody worries about in these modern times—in fact my good friend at the the title company across the street says she hasnt seen a note returned since 2008. Surely your honor I cant have my assets seized and be forced into bankruptcy and poverty just because of this monor detail??? Isnt this a forfeiture of everything I own over a mere detail???”

    whereupon the judge should state [in a recourse state] ” hey dummy—you are dealining here with the largest financial obligation in your life—-and everybody knows that the entire lending industry was sloppy on record keeping—–if not criminal about it—–what more warning do you need —-the price of freedom and capitalism is that you have some responsibility to look out for yourself—-and there were plenty of lawyers around that you couldv used to prevent this catastrophe—–its too late for me to save your sorry ass—–best i as a judge [hypotetical here] —is tell your friends so they dont get screwed too

    [and that my friends is where i am–and what im doing–listen up]

    Im not really here to promote lawyers—–but the servicers ans securitization activities have totally changed the world we grew up in—-now its absolute buyer beware —-i would not even consider talking to lender collection agency without a recording [disclosed]

    I guess a person should be a bit suspicious that if he buys anything else using a note–he gets the note back at the end of the day but “in our banks and title companies we trust” so it must be an insignificant detail—–or our entirely trustworthy bank and title agency wouldv made sure we are covered –right?

    —-well geez people—-what if i set up a nice caymani corp—–ill send a demand letter and offer

    I Caymani Trust bank am in possession of your note as a result of ABC home helpers program—-and ill make you the one time offer;

    -you send Caymani Trust your payoff money and we will send you a gold sealed embroidered copy of your promissory note marked paid in full” —–and a release of mortgage too—for an additional $50 we can have the note framed for you

    il even sweeten the deal—ill give you a 50% discount if you will do a wire transfer today only and ill add the following iron clad representation and guarantee;

    “Nobody is likely to come up with a copy of note which is better-looking than the one i sent you–and if somebody does i promise ill return your money plus shipping and handling and you can keep the fine piece of documentary art that we sent you earlier”

    And ill also promise to give you a really nice release of mortgage—ill even get it notarized by the grand duke of the cayman islands–and hes got a really pretty seal —-just like the ones in the tourist shops

    and in very small letters at the back of the offering package, in a footnote, the following, “notwitstanding any other wiritten or verbal statements; “if anything goes wrong —–catch me if you can”

  189. The way I understand it, Securitization is a failure because the physical transfer, delivery and acceptance of the loan file to the trust never occurred. That part did not occur because the originating bankster did borrow the funds from the Treasury but never paid back the ORIGINAL LOAN. What occurred after that was illegal transfers and sales on steroids ala MERS and others to hide the ORIGINATION FRAUD. Because of the ORIGINATION FRAUD they can never LEGALLY FORECLOSE. There is no legal or monetary fix for what never occurred 90 days after the closing. What has been going on in courtrooms across this country is despicable and the President, the Congress, law enforcement and the Judiciary should be held to account. 4 more years? I don’t think so. Obama believes his failures are successes because his goals are for the American People to fail by creating “new” debt. In reality he is cleverly re-socializing INSOLVENT debt via (HAMP), REFIS, the ongoing bailouts of the GSEs, FRAUDCLOSURE IS CREATING A NATION OF RENTERS, FED MONETARY POLICY and secret bailouts. OBAMACARE is Marxist Socialism…a set up to fail like Medicare and Medicare. It is a forced Ponzi Scheme that will be over invested in and destroyed. There are too many investors in everything we own. They are the enemies from within and from outside America.

  190. @SHAdOW
    Its hard to provide proof of payment to parties who were unknown to you

    Yes and its becoming difficult to prove you paid somebody yourslf

  191. @JG
    but it seems to me there has to be a determination that no one has a bonafide claim. What does one do?

    Yes actually a payer–or in this case maker who has reason to believe [solid stuff coming out of failed MTDs] notifies sec state and they take over and yes they publish —–check out escheat sites —–and after a year or so the note escheats to state finally and the state can sell it back to you

  192. These banks caused a real nationwide disaster with our land records. That is not even being properly addressed because most people don’t have a clue. I was talking to a friend who “paid off” her house a few years ago about the mortgage fraud I am dealing with. She was surprised to hear she was supposed to but never got back the original note and mortgage from CITI. She told me she has an attorney friend she will ask… Her Attorney friend told her all she needs is the Satisfaction of Mortgage. She wasn’t convinced so she called CITI and asked for the original note and mortgage. They told her they have no way of knowing where those are. Her title is not up to par either and she asked the ROD clerk why….? She was told its all fine ….don’t worry. The title co. admitted to committing fraud and her attorney friend told her…why go after the little guys? Needless to say…shes feels unsecure because she is not satisfied with what she was told. Sounds like ….
    We can’t get No Satisfaction.

  193. The Insurers are issueing policies with these unsatisfied, unreleased and unrecorded liens, MERS and loans sold on the secondary market as EXCLUSIONS to the policies.

    Sc – you made that up, right? That’s just hard to deal with. Have you actually seen one such policy?

  194. @dcb – re limbo – then you’ll have to fire up your research engine and look at the issues relevant to getting the heck our of limbo. You might do some review of cases in the last 6 years or so, but i would concentrate on older cases to get the gist and then apply to today’s bs. Walter Keene or Keenan or like that was doing qt’s in Utah until he fell prey to some bankster-insprired dribble. imo. I never could get copies of his pleadings because they weren’t you know where. It had something to do with (the reason he quit) the higher court finding the note follows the dot (as usual, as I recall). I thought the decision was not based in fact / law. I have a more recent Utah case which says the coll instr does not follow the note. gc might be trying a qt. not sure. Tough road to hoe, I would think, and just can’t be done half-a$$ or on a wing and a prayer. You know, actually, it could be easy for all I know, as I’ve never concentrated any efforts in that direction. So check it out and let us know!

  195. @dcb… Even when the legal note holder comes forward and is payed off in full by the borrower, the borrower is still not a Homeowner! Its the Title! Its the Title! Its the Title! No way is the borrowers going to pay the mortgage multiple times to get a clear title. And the banks are sure not going to give us proof (that we need to Transfer Title with a General Warrenty Deed) . i.e… their records. Its hard to provide proof of payment to parties who were unknown to you, and paid by another party unknown to you. The Insurers are issueing policies with these unsatisfied, unreleased and unrecorded liens, MERS and loans sold on the secondary market as EXCLUSIONS to the policies.

  196. dcb – No, waiting for the other shoe to drop is no fun. But you have to consider that if claimant A came in and were unsuccessful, he shouldn’t be off the hook. Abuse of process? Surely something. I pointed to Nosek wherein everyone (including the alleged real noteowner) was sanctioned for bull against the homeowner.
    No, it didn’t quiet title, but if B shows up as the rightful claimant, sure would be easier to fight with some money, right? I am no expert on quieting title when B hasn’t shown up. I know only what i’ve told you about escheat, which isn’t much, but it seems to me there has to be a determination that no one has a bonafide claim. What does one do?
    Run an ad in the local paper and the WSJ?
    I want to know why no one is challenging the issue of MERS’ membership by noteowners past and present. I really do. over the course of time I have brought this up numerous times. Still i don’t see it in litigation and I just don’t get it.

  197. @IVENT

    Ill ask Scottie after I beam up—

  198. You have to sue them. Maybe file a countercomplaint.

  199. @JG and Shadow
    you said shadow to jg
    ‘They continue to do this because the sucess rate is so high on those who just walk and never fight them. For those who do fight them … well they are left in limbo as to who they owe the debt and a corrupted title & credit report. Who wants to live In Limbo for years? ”

    This is the core of the problem and shadows comment resonates very strongly with me—-im tired a multi-year shell game—i want finality–i want them to guarantee their promises—–i want “peace of mind” i dont want my world to revolve around a foreclosure that i hoped was over 2 years ago—-shadow is exactly right—give me satisfaction and discharge —not limbo

  200. @JG

    Re the free house thing—-on this site there are many discussions appropriately about means used to defend against MTD or Summary Jugment–sadly rarely if ever do we see anything that gets past 12b6

    The arguments re MTD lak of standing by implication if reled upon 2 times—cuts off the claimant right?

    so if a borrower is successful twice on mtds —-the old claimant is out right?

    so if the notes rreally all tangled up and cannot be proven for whaever reason–and nobody has the brass to make an affidavit of lost note–and try for a bond—then the note is a orphan—not enforcible by anyone so far anyway—-so the homeowner can get a quiet title presumably—but cant cut off a sleeper noteholder—so where does this leave a person?
    in possession of a house
    no mortgage
    uncerain contingency debt

    this is better than sitting in the street but i do not thin that this really works in practice—who will fix the roof?

    how do you fill out a job app or credit app?

    how do you report the note thats missing unclaimed–do you really think theyll forget about it?

    the state escheat is designed to cut this off and cler the title—even if a person agrees to a principal reduction–what good is it if the person had no authority–how do you modify the note if you have no original—who is holder of the missing note that can amend its terms?

    inv just got lots of problems with the loose ends of even successful foreclosure defense—–i dont think we should have to dedicate our lives to simply wiping out debt on one lousey note–but thats where some of us are

  201. Who knows what MOM LOAN means…? I am taking a wild guess…it means MILITARY OF MALTA because the SMOM/VATICAN/JESUITS hijacked the TREASURY DEPT VIA THE FED. Any thoughts…?

  202. Look out world…! Bloomberg reporting K-MART will remove layaway fees for the holidays for the peasants….!

  203. Now Dc I never said anything about witches and UFOS. However, you do know that Ben Franklin was a member of the Hell Fire club and many of the founding fathers were freemasons……? All of the Presidents were freemasons but 2, Lincoln and Kennedy, the Bush Clan and many former Presidents and world leaders attend that satanic bohemian grove thing. Nixon described it as one of the faggiest things hes every seen. J.F.K wanted to know about the aliens but the CIA said uh-no. There are lots of secrets.

  204. @shadowcat……So you are saying that limbo is a place that does exist created by the Catholic Church…..? Some question that theory. Back to Bayview -v-Nelson and MERS. I did read that case a while back along with many others. I don’t remember the MERS aspect. However, I do have it filed away here someplace. I will have to dig it out and re read it.

  205. @ET
    “the only thing wrong with democracy/socialism/communism and even the caste system of ancient India is that eventually these systems all get gamed by those that tip the table in their direction.”

    While I do not want anywhere near that morass of political science spewing, SATAN—–witches——UFOs and mayan caldar prep.
    ET as I read your piece it sounded reminiscent of white pigs on their hind legs—–and Orwell—just been a long time since the “isms” dominated.

    I just had to smile at your comment—-although it is a matter of some concern that there are such extreme rants—-this is more a site to discuss statutes and cases—not political or religious extremism

  206. wrong bayview – the walker bayview is out of business.

    E. tolle – as i recall you’re an adv of the dot following the note. Would you mind telling what advantage you perceive, what if true it’s good for?

  207. @JG, Ivent is correct in Bayview vs Nelson in Illinois. However it is apparent that he/she is not familier with MERS involvement. MERS Major Involvement in the case. Anyways… as you stated, your state laws are differant than ours when it comes to MERS. Bayview looses in IL for lack of standing. Of course they are one of many. They continue to do this because the sucess rate is so high on those who just walk and never fight them. For those who do fight them … well they are left in limbo as to who they owe the debt and a corrupted title & credit report. Who wants to live In Limbo for years? Sorry Ivent, that is where you are.

  208. Bayview is a registered debt collector in my home state. Read the Illinois Appellate courts decision in…. BAYVIEW -V- NELSON 382 Ill. App. 3d 1184 (2008), Absent the transfer of the debt, the debt is a nullity.

  209. Well, actually there was one case which actually touched on, but not head on, MERS’ membership of the broker named on the note, and that was In re Walker, CA. As I recall, the dot was a ‘mom’ and XYZ (Baysomething) was the lender. Turns out, Baysomething’s appliction to MERS was two months after the mom mortgage. And as it also turns out as I recall, no one noticed. I hope I got that wrong when I saw it, because that is just too (*$#!* stupid. WHO is going to, under the rules of evidence, prove that the payee on your note was a MERS member when that business is now toast, aka who is going to authenticate the signature on that appliction? If you need some kind of demonstration that mistakes are made IF it would do any good with a court, look up Walker: a mom dot is not evidence of a payee’s membership. imo.
    I really do not want to be smarmy, but I can’t help feeling in regard to the notes and membership, this is in order: HELLLLLLLLLLOOOOOO! Okay, now that I got that out of my system (and thanks in advance for not getting miffed or otherwise giving it to me and in this instance unless someone tells me how this issue should have been overlooked all this time, I may lose it and give it back), what is the bar for this evidence? Is it preponderance, clear and convincing, what? Not a good idea to misdiagnose this or any other bar or standard (Oh, Bayview, maybe it was). And what can the other guys attempt to introduce in support of a prop that so and so was a mers’ member? And what might it actually mean if so and so weren’t. That’s one of the other very messed up parts of this deal: the worm turns on documents other than the dot, documents in the singular possession of the other party. So many things are being presumed by courts and, try not to yell, we have let them. I’m not being a jacka$$. Sometimes things learned the hard way are the ones remembered. And I’d bear in mind that the bankster might actually be able to get it in that the payee was a member (how hard you wanna fight – hard enough to break down and learn the rules of evidence – now you can yell, tho it won’t change anything) but then, what does one think a bankster would have to disclose about the note to demonstrate that all owners along the way were MERS’ members? (think assgts along the way and the ultimate one being used by “MERS”) Isn’t the answer the chain of ownership (and throw in custody) of the note? Would they not have to name names? If anyone thinks I’m high, I hope you would tell me why so I can pursue the reasoning or something ‘else’.

  210. E. Tolle…why did I lose you when I said the word Satan…..? Even if you don’t believe Satan exists..the luciferians hiding behind the scenes of this do. I believe that is why they want to overthrow our Constitution and destroy our genetic code, our moral code and all religions. Hitler was an occultist and so are the members of this cult. It doesn’t hurt to keep an open mind when dealing with these personages. They are not who they appear to be.

  211. E. Tolle…..I happen to disagree. I agree with Margaret Thatcher who said “Socialism is fine until you run out of other peoples money.”
    The result of that is Complete Communism…TOTALITARIANISM.
    That is called progress by Obama and his cohorts and minions.
    That is not freedom and independence for the people. That is COMPLETE CONTROL of everything by a small group of DICTATORS…NO THANKS.
    The liberals snuck in Marxist Socialism under many guises because they knew the American people would never willingly accept it. That’s why the INTENT TO DECEIVE IS CRIMINAL in the U.S.A..
    Marxist Socialism is the ideology of communism. It is just robbery of the people under the guise of many things. Secrets, lies and deception were used to defraud the people….THE FED…..
    NIETSZCHE…..KEYNES…ALINSKY….LENIN..9/11…..the stock market crash, the bailouts, fear and terrorism promoted by the lying media and other methods were used to DECEIVE THE MASSES and try to force US to accept Complete Communism….Deception is the devils work.

  212. OK, I’ll say it…..I want a free house! I’m sick and tired of the criminality running amuck and I’m calling for a debt jubilee….it’s the only way we’ll ever get through this mess and right the wrongs. Every single person outside of Wall Street and D.C. should get a free house as of right now. All those inside of those two areas should get free housing inside the nearest penitentiary.

    @ Ivent, while I agree with the world bank rant and the world takeover and all that, you might want to pay attention to one aspect of your argument….you keep slamming socialism and communism and so forth. The truth of the matter is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with those systems of government….save for the fact that we were taught by crazed politicians for generations that these were evil constructs that were out to kill us all and they must be stopped at all cost. It’s not at all like that.

    The reality is far different from their wild-eyed-mouth-frothing diatribes…the only thing wrong with democracy/socialism/communism and even the caste system of ancient India is that eventually these systems all get gamed by those that tip the table in their direction. Those that have an advantage or connections will inevitably take from the meeker folks, and after awhile the disparity becomes way significant, as is the case globally as we speak.

    That’s why Jefferson said, “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.”

    The biggest complaint I have about the so-called democracy that we live in today is that the spirit of resistance mentioned by Jefferson isn’t a practiced philosophy…..we should even have a holiday by that name. Only by letting it be known periodically and rhythmically that THEY will be cast aside and shunned if they go against our agreed upon constructs can we ever expect to get passed the system-gaming that THEY are so good at.

    Lastly, the best of arguments or convincing debate can be completely blown up simply by uttering that Satan has anything whatsoever to do with the problem. WTF is that all about? You lost my readership right then and there.

  213. @JG–exactly right!

  214. Ivent – and I respectfully saying that as to MERS, you’re preaching to the choir. (you’re new here, right?) I don’t know what you disagree about, actually. I’m not saying this whole thing isn’t a crock; In fact with the ‘MERS factor’ in the equation, I regularly say it is. I’m just saying people seem to be terrified of ‘equity abhorring a forfeiture’, but it does seem to be enforced by courts saying junk like “you’re not getting a free house!” Where did someone ask for a free house?
    For a court to say a party wants a free house, a court has to make
    certain presumptions which imo it shouldnt’ be making. How does wanting and having the right to pay the right party or to negotiate with the right party make it that one is demanding a free house? A borrower signed a contract (unless you go with other theories and I’m not tossing them, I’m just looking at courts’ positions), but clearly the party on the other end is not there, only a party who is claiming generally without bonafide evidence to be the successor in interest or that party demands the court look at no other factors regarding the alleged debt. Everything you said may well be true, but it’s not getting you anywhere in court. I tried to offer, on legal principles, an alternative to ‘you want a free house’ and what ‘equity’ allegedly demands. No, you don’t want a free house (wouldn’t hurt, tho); you want the law followed (which if followed finds a trail to the right party or at least must deny relief to the claimant) and if following the law leaves you with a windfall, any loss to anyone else must be born by the party who caused the loss. The guy who lost has recourse: he can sue the problem. That’s not a homeowner’s battle, but it appears courts need to be reminded of the ‘who must bear the loss’ principles. You have to stick that law in a court’s face. When a judge has a mind-set on one thing (and some of this is by manipulation of the banksters), she needs to be introduced to another of equal or greater import (read law) which legitimately undermines the one she’s hanging onto. Im lay opinion.

  215. @Gwen…Good God and the U.S. CONSTITUTION did warn us to watch for the signs. The New World Order is Communism in disguise. What they want is Complete Communism. Obama, Geithner, Bernanke and many politicians, law enforcement, and members of the judiciary are members even if by proxy. All roads lead to the owners of the World Bank.

  216. Especially this:
    ” It all boils down to this….Wall Street, and their minions in D.C., not only deal in derivatives, THEY ARE DERIVATIVES! Every single thing they do and touch was derived from us, from our sweat. They do nothing but create complex paperwork that fools individuals, corporations, and governments into thinking they have value and should be paid for what is ours to begin with. THEY NEED TO BE REMOVED, DELETED, plain and simple. Anything short of that is yet another fix orchestrated by them, for them, and against us. Death to Wall Street.

  217. E Tolle said it all at 6:39! My sentiments exactly.

  218. Obama just made a speech in New Hampshire. He said recklessness on Wall Street caused this and we need to move forward and work our way out of this. The truth is, we cannot move forward and work our way out of what has been stolen from us. Because you Obama, are aiding, abetting and allowing the criminals who robbed us, to steal our remaining wealth and hold it, and the American people hostage to their unsustainable debt fraud.

  219. Patriot b.s. Gwen…? Being a patriot is b.s…? You just revealed you are one of them. Patriots are not buying the commie b.s….at all.

  220. Sorry Gwen, that is not a valid argument. You can’t win arguments with those who know the truth. This IS an evil plan. All you have to do is you tube search WORLD LEADERS discuss the NEW WORLD ORDER or George Bush Sr speech about the NEW WORLD ORDER.. Google Agenda 21 and go to the U.N. website. They have no legal jurisdiction in the U.S. These people are not your friends. They are communists disguised as do gooders. If you are a Constitutional expert you should know …The U.S. CONSTITUTION gave no special powers to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

  221. O god a new world order person. You are wrong. No one ever said the con should be read work art. Read Madison v marbury 1803. I’m tired of new world order and patriot bs. I’ve represented the little guy 35 years. This stiff u quote is garbage.

    Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

  222. RE the link below…scroll down to the 7th story.

  223. Here is the link to that other article. These are well educated people who are not buying this garbage. http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/guest-expert/2012/09/01/03/m-coffman-t-deweese-k-schoen/agenda-21-what-is-it-how-is-it-being-implemented

  224. @gwen c…I can site many examples …..here are 2 that did it for me…. the NDAA and OBAMACARE. The U.S. CONSTITUTION is not a theory…it is the SUPREME RULE OF LAW IN THE U.S.A..The Constitution was written to be easy for the citizenry to understand so that the citizenry could use it to defend themselves WITHOUT an attorney or…… CUE THE SECOND AMENDMENT. You may want to read this interview…. John Cusack Interviews Law Professor Jonathon Turley About Obama’s War on The Constitution…… http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathon-turley-on-obamas-constitution
    and google search the words “AGENDA 21: The Plan to Destroy the Middle Class Is Part of The New World Order.”

  225. I’m tired of complaints about Obama abusing constitutiion. EXACTLY HOW? IM A constitutional lawyer by training. Stop saying things that are wrong or without basis which is what republicans and “patriots” do

  226. We shouldn’t settle for anything less than the rule of law being upheld. We are all being fed alot of nonsense. I am not Repub but I am not buying they want Obama to fail. If Obamacare, a $16 trillion dollar national debt, the ongoing bailouts of the TBTF, NDAA, HAMP…. the increasingly bad pay and loss of jobs is Obamas idea of sucess, I am not buying that argument. Re-socialism is weakening the people and that is all Obama has done. He has overidden the U.S. CONSTITUTION and Congress consistently. He is abusing his power where it suits HIS agenda. For example, the Supreme Congress, the signing of over 900 fascist executive orders in the last 40 months. Yet, he has done nothing to stop the fraud or the ongoing bailouts? Our enemies prey on our weaknesses.

  227. To say “Escheat is a far preferable alternative to whats happening now”, is like asking someone to roll up their pants leg and choose between a copperhead or a scorpion…..neither are acceptable in the least. I don’t believe anyone here is holding out for a “perfect solution”, just one that finally and concretely pulls the rug out from under the ongoing criminality and re-balances the judicial and legislative assault that’s been underway for a few decades now.

    As to MERS, I for one like hearing JG think out loud about its construct, and he hit on my biggest beef especially as it’s what has thrown countless victims under the bus in my own state, the nominee swapping that they like to pretend is all legit. A situation where Bank A, being long defunct, would have for centuries before us have to be dealt with in bankruptcy court or receivership constraints now becomes the circus that allows whatever entity that wants to lay claim to that borrowers property creating an assignment in their favor. WTF is that?

    What needs to be constantly remembered here is that back in the 1990’s, a bunch of billionaires got together in an ivory tower and decided that they would steal the recording platform that had been in place for hundreds of years in America. The amount of hubris and even more than that, the amount of obvious protection granted from our legislators is mind-numbing.

    They knew that all they had to do was to silently attack the status quo with their coup long and hard enough that one day we’d all wake up to the place we find ourselves in now, some 80+ million loans beholden to their criminal system of securitization run amuck, with all of the citizenry held captive to the whims of the rentier class. Another face of TBTF. We should, according to this new paradigm, be happy that we were able to bother them for a place to live, and, losing that and if we’re lucky, we may be allowed to live in a rental unit that they now own and manage from their distant offices in Grand Cayman.

    Fuck every single one of them. I’d rather go down fighting than crawl into one of their rental arrangements, which remember, are in reality simply the houses that we all built and maintained before being duped out of them by $5K per hour lawyers with fistfulls of cash.

    It all boils down to this….Wall Street, and their minions in D.C., not only deal in derivatives, THEY ARE DERIVATIVES! Every single thing they do and touch was derived from us, from our sweat. They do nothing but create complex paperwork that fools individuals, corporations, and governments into thinking they have value and should be paid for what is ours to begin with. THEY NEED TO BE REMOVED, DELETED, plain and simple. Anything short of that is yet another fix orchestrated by them, for them, and against us. Death to Wall Street.

  228. zurrenarh..the only losers here so far are…. WE THE PEOPLE. The Gov Corp have used secrets, lies and deception to defraud us out of everything. Too much trust and no verification. That is the problem. We will ALL wake up broke and homeless in a completely communist country one day soon, if we allow it to continue. Satan is right on our doorstep knocking. We better not let him in.

  229. Again John…MERS makes no sense ….MERS IS NOT A BANK. They cannot buy a loan or buy investments in a loan or legally transfer a loan. They can’t even be registered debt collectors…they are a computer data base that keeps track of servicers. Therefore MERS cannot have standing or be a holder or even be a third party debt collector. MERS IS A PART OF THEIR COVERUP….MERS IS A FARCE…A DECEPTIVE PRACTICE…A FRAUD…The whole nominee thing is complete nonsense. What do they think they are doing…? Holding a political election..?

  230. I respectfully disagree johngault. Like 9/11…NONE of this should have ever happened. IT MAKES NO SENSE…THEREFORE…IT IS FRAUD…It is a STAGED EVENT. …..This is out of control greed. For some it is being fueled by unjust monetary gain, some are just mind controlled slaves, some are complete communists. However, the agenda by a small cabal of psychopaths is, complete control of everyone and everything by robbery. Their system was set up for all of us to fail. The proof is the end doesn’t justify the means. There have been no audits of these failed corps and they are still being bailed out. There is 8 trillion in real estate and a quadrillion dollars in bankster debt. WE ALREADY PAID FOR EVERYTHING….YET…The national debt from the ongoing bailouts of these failed institutions now exceeds our GDP. They are simply robbing us out of our country. Obama has the arrogance to ask to be re-elected for trying to create complete communism…..and these judges are arrogant enough to still be taking our properties we already paid for…..and the politicians are arrogant enough to keep raising taxes and cutting services and programs we already paid for….and the FED and Wall Street are arrogant enough to inflate the cost of everything and debauch our currency…….and the media is still covering it all up. We The People are the idiots who are allowing it. There is no denying….this is WW III…the big one, and it began on 9/11…and it is being waged on all of the citizenry.

  231. gc – interesting deal about the FDIC. Very interesting. If there were 10 of me, I’d try to get to the bottom of it. If you hear more, hope you’ll share. As to the deactivation from Mers, imo that’s what they should have done, said they do, when the ben interest in a note is held by a non-member. Over four years now, and we still haven’t got a consensus: are the investors Mers’ members or not? I say they’re not. Is it of any consequence as a matter of law that the sec’n trust trustee is allegedly a MERS’ member (and for that matter, we never, ever see any evidence of that membership that I know of nor any evidence that all noteowners in the chain were all MERS’ members).
    You’re not the only one with aggrevations. I’ve never seen these
    salient issues challenged – not once. It may not be relevant to those claiming their loans didn’t make it to trusts, but it’s relevant to everybody else. And actually, even if one argues the loan didn’t make it to some trust, it’s still mightily relevant that ANY noteowners in the deal were MERS members, because if not, MERS was toast.
    An assignment of the dot must be ordered by the prior noteowner, not the current one and may certainly not be executed by the assignEE, as is being done. As I’ve said, and feel free to argue but please skip the smack, the demand for an assignment comes from the current noteowner If it’s not been tendered, but the order to an alleged agent or poa of the assignor for the assgt must come from the assignor. Period. The status of an alleged agent as an alleged mutual agent doesn’t change this.
    Don’t know why your investor field is blank. My first thought was that MERS wants the h out of it, but you said they’re already involved, so ??? I have seen an investor field once filled in now blank, come to think of it. I think it’s first of because MERS made a change to their deal and I believe that included the homeowner’s ability to see the investor field, but I may remember that incorrectly. But if I do remember correctly, I’d say they don’t want a record. And that’s just bull if not spoilation of sorts. Spoilation might be a leap – I don’t know. Or maybe it’s just an acknowledgment, because you’re an attorney with sharp teeth, that the party with the current ‘beneficial interest in the note’ (MERS’ phraseology) is not in fact a MERS’ member or, one more, someone thinks it’s beneficial to have it appear the noteowner is not a MERS’ member. Speculation, best one has just now.
    Btw, I do admire your efforts and tenacity, but didn’t think much of your attack on dcb, no matter your reasons. We’re all just doing the best we can here and batting things around. I think dcb asked some
    good questions, even if they’re not on your point. Apparently he’s a believer in escheat being possible and beneficial. Mostly beyond me. I’m hard pressed to think anyone gets any hopes up by the ideas batted around here. But clearly people haven’t lost hope in general, which is a miracle, or we wouldn’t be here. I also don’t agree that pro se’s make bad law. When pro se’s, or anyone, lose, it is likely on the wrong arguments (which doesn’t make bad law, it makes bad arguments) and the astute professional will win on the right ones.

  232. Also appreciate your most recent comment, JG! Especially this:
    “The long and short of what I’m trying to say is that the party who causes a loss must bear the loss and everyone in the judiciary knows or should know this imo. This isn’t just theory: it’s a maxim of the law which has been around probably longer than ‘equity abhorring a forfeiture’. “

  233. Equity abhorring a forfeiture imo is not the big stick some make it out to be. A problem is that there’s no doubt some judges like to believe it is. A competing if not senior tenet is that one who creates the problem, forget how it’s actually phrased, must bear the loss, not an innocent party. I’m not talking about yeahoos creating problems at origination with bs appraisals and jacked income, etc. That’s another story, though related. I’m talking about a business plan which makes it impossible for one with rights, or maybe more relevant here should have had rights, to exercise those should-have-had rights because the necessary and dispositive paperwork was messed up. It wasn’t the homeowner who was grossly negligent or who has and is engaging generally in that other word. Courts don’t have to believe that if the bankster in front of them can’t prove his claim that there’s going to be a forfeiture in the homeowner’s favor. That’s a choice courts are making if they do and it’s the wrong choice. It simply means the right party is not before the court.
    Outside theories which allege there’s no this or that, SOMEone
    either has a claim against the homeowner -or- has a fat claim against the party or parties who caused the someone to not have a claim.
    It isn’t like there’s no recourse available to the guy who didn’t get what he paid for. He has a remedy: sue the guy or guys who caused the problem and cause the right party to bear the loss. If it turns out to be the case, that the someone has no recourse against that party or parties whose actions or inactions caused his loss, than he made a poor deal, didn’t he? (and this may be why the investors are posturing their suits as they are – on what they can) The someone’s remedy may in fact result in a windfall to the homeowner, unless the party who might actually have retained the recourse against the homeowner, whether deliberately or as a result of gross negligence, comes calling. Tough. The long and short of what I’m trying to say is that the party who causes a loss must bear the loss and everyone in the judiciary knows or should know this imo. This isn’t just theory: it’s a maxim of the law which has been around probably longer than ‘equity abhorring a forfeiture’.

    In other swell news, MERS is apparently hooking up with a company which promises to fix the problems inherent to MERS’ system, the same ones MERS acknowledges in its Disclaimer (of the accuracy of the info in its database). This to me confirms that the inaccuracy of that data is part and parcel of MERS Consent Order. And apparently MERS needed a (justicially noticeable) Consent Order to stop foreclosures in its name. I have and do posit that allowing members to assign deeds of trust to themselves in MERS’ name is nothing but a continuation of prohibitted activities with a paint job.
    Lay opinions, as always

    You can read about the proposal to ‘clean up’ MERS system here:

    http://www.sourceoftitle.com/article.aspx?uniq=7354

    I don’t know anyone who will find comfort in this attempt, certainly not those who have already lost their homes. MERS has to go.
    And I still want to know what their doing with Genpact in that seven year contract.

  234. @guest…that is why a well informed public is important. This is a test we cannot fail. @Dc….how about making the crooks pay us back…and throw them in prison..? Escheat is for dead people. Dead Corps belong in bankruptcy court, not on the taxpayers dole… Criminals belong in prison, not on thrones. We need to restore the rule of law….not overthrow it.

  235. I second that emotion, E. Tolle!

  236. @ET
    Escheat is a far preferable alternative to whats happening now. People who hold out for a perfect solution are a big part of the problem—nobody can ever agree on the most perfect solution—while the grinder continues. There must be an emergency mentality take hold. The grinder is likely to speed up after election–if you do not see a solution you like on the horizon now trhen there is likey none coing.

    I believe escheat of seized homes is preferable to watching them turned into vacant deteriotating property–the state escheat clears the title—-that is a snowballing problem—-yes i agree that modification to reduce the high cost of changing possession of a home is logical—but in the aternative if people cant get that 1st–then after they see a few hundred houses disappear into escheat–theyll get serious about mods–in fact one could make escheat conditional upon a house becoming vacannt–dont let the servicers have the property is all im saying–if they cant figure oout how to collect insurance on it–they tun it over to salvage–new house—salvage

  237. Ivent: Psss!!! GC has to take a new oath to keep quiet about court corruption else no new bar-status!!! so, don’t force her to confess against the crooks who stole her license….

  238. @ dcbreidenbach,

    You might want to rethink that escheat idea and your underlying pretzel logic concerning possible moral hazard. The fact that the largest heist in the history of the planet has not only taken place, but continues unimpeded doesn’t sit well with those of us who have been fighting for half a decade against unbelievably brazen criminal elements who are undeniably guilty of serious offenses. Crimes that should not only strip them of any rights to property, but should put them away for many years in small confined spaces with metal furniture and sex-starved bunkmates.

    To even pretend there’s a danger that borrowers might collude with industry pros to rig a system to defraud is so disingenuous as to make you sound like a bankster yourself. No one, after witnessing the past five years of out and out battle between the citizenry and the banksters, should lose any sleep that borrowers could somehow come out ahead in this wholesale rape.

    Your proposition that the states should receive the bounty is also laughable, seeing as how they’re nearly all further raping the populace by diverting (stealing) the settlement funds for their own desires, NOT to aid the victims of the crimes.

    To argue otherwise is a foolish waste of otherwise useful debating skills.

  239. Just want to add Gwen..our Justice system is the best in the world by whose standard? Not by mine. By COLOR OF LAW….OUR GOVERNMENT IS STEALING PROPERTIES FROM THE PEOPLE THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO TAKE…..they are on par with Nazi Germany and nearly on par with Commie Russia. In fact, non judicial fraudclosures are right on par with commie Russia. Our property laws were strict and they were put in place to protect us from feudalism. The rule of law is not being upheld Gwen…otherwise there would be NO FRAUDCLOSURES and the CRIMINALS would be in PRISON…Instead…they are fat as hogs and WE THE PEOPLE are becoming more destitute by the minute. 16 TRILLION IN DEBT FRAUD AND COUNTING…AND OBAMA THINKS HE DESERVES TO BE ELECTED? That man and that entire regime are completely…maniacal, diabolical and insane.

  240. Sounds like Gwen has been working really hard to help restore justice for the American people. I respect anyone willing to go up against this corrupt and criminal Corporate Government machine. Every Judge is, lets just say, different. It all depends on what the Judge deems to be proof of fraud. The rule of law is almost non existent for the bank attorneys. In fact, the bank attorneys are telling some of the Judges how to rule. Oh yeah…it’s obscene. The discovery process is non productive. I have yet to see a legal transfer. The law in Illinois says they must record a legal assignment yet, IMFL says they can bring a foreclosure complaint if there is a LIEN…The recorded mortgage is a lien but it is not a LEGAL LIEN…AH..DECEPTION….those who know THE TRUTH know all of these unindorsed notes SHOULD BE ENDORSED………THE BANKS GOT PAID BY THE U.S. TREASURY AT THE ORIGINATION FRAUD..THESE NOTES ARE COUNTERFEITS…..HOW MANY TIMES CAN YOU CASH A CHECK……..? Problem for the Banksters is…instead of paying back the Treasury…they pocketed the payments and, without paying back the ORIGINAL DEBT TO THE TREASURY…THEY OVERSOLD INVESTMENTS IN THEIR DEBT BY A TOTAL OF A QUADRILLION DOLLARS. That is WHY there are NO LEGAL ASSIGNMENTS…THEY ARE COVERING UP FOR THE ORIGINATION FRAUD and the FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES…..AS WELL AS THE FACT THE DEBT THEY CREATED BY COMMITTING A QUADRILLION IN FRAUD IS INSOLVENT….OBAMA CALLS IT RECKLESS..NOT NECESSARILY CRIMINAL…YEAH RIGHT…! If we did that, we would be in prison. Here is an example of the ORIGINATION FRAUD..
    http://www.blm.gov/nils/AQ_handbook/h-2100-1/chapter-VII/chapVII-illus-18.htm
    THE MONEY THE BANKSTER NEVER REPAID TO THE TREASURY….THE BANKS CAUSED THE LOANS TO FAIL BY COMMITTING MASSIVE FRAUD WITH OUR SIGNATURES AND THE TRUTH IS…..THESE COMMUNISTS WHO HAVE HIJACKED THE GOVERNMENT…..WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO PAY FOR IT WITH EVERYTHING WE OWN….THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE… NO B.S….THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW AMERICA BY SECRETS, LIES and CRIMINAL DECEPTION TO DEFRAUD US…

  241. What’s going on in the courtrooms across America is down right creepy. Like the DEM convention and all this talk of FAILURE as ACCOMPLISHMENT. The TRUTH IS….THEY ARE MARXIST SOCIALISTS creating COMPLETE COMMUNISM RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES….by re-socializing unsustainable debt created by the criminal politicians and the FED and rewarding THE CROOKS…! These people ARE NOT NORMAL…AT ALL!

  242. Gretchen nails it as always. The bank in my commercial property fraudclosure is not even trying to srike or dispute my defenses of cause of action, Color of title or Civil Rico but they are trying to have my defenses of…STANDING…FRAUD and FORGERY thrown out. It is all the same thing. It is way past time for these judges to stop rewarding bank failure. The banks debts are insolvent…Obama and his Kronies are way too comfortable rewarding failure and calling that accomplishment ….I call that fraud by deception and that is criminal.

  243. @DC… your response to Mark earns you three points, you may move to the head of the class and get your Sticker! Muahhh!

  244. whatever you think of our judicial system, it is better than most in the world. I have my own opinion given what federal judges did to take my license which I have written a book about. My reinstatement is pending and I will work as a trial lawyer again to help people, just as I did as a discrmination lawyer and lawyer for whistleblowers. Bashing judges would not get me any points on my resinstatement requests! If I think a judge is biased, I file a motion to recuse and cite the reason(s) or I file a complaint with the judicial commission. Only did it on federal judges–never had cause in state court. Its hard. write me at gwencaranchini@sbcglobal.net and i will send you my disbarment story–you might find it “interesting” shall we say!

  245. GC: you’r a trial lawyer. so, you should know that the chief crook in court is the judge. so, here is a suggestion: quietly, pass an envelope with unmarked bills to judge titled “CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION” and he’ll quiet your title. Better yet, courts should order judges to post signs on their doors saying: “QUIET TITLE SOLD TO ORIGINAL HOMEOWNERS AT 1% PREMIUM”. If IRS & our phony law-enforcement officially close their eyes to this “legal rebellion” judges & people would get richer at expense of BankGsters crimes, so they can go take it on each other instead. Agree?

  246. Play nice kids or I will get my switch after your britches. *heehe*. @DC, Gwen is correct (as far as our state laws are concerned). Oh Look …. I have White Out in my Crayon Box. Time to clean up the mess and start with a clean slate (and title). Many Blessings to All!

  247. I have litigated against the likes of GM, Sprint, every government agency including eveery military branch, the FBI, the catholic church and every city unit within 100 miles of K.C. I also was the only woman litigator in the Hyatt Regency collapse and did extensive plaintiff antitrust work. In short I have extensive complex litigation exp. In addition since 2009 I have worked with Dave Krieger on Clouded Titles and spent over 2500 hours of research on foreclosoure matters working with lawyers around the country and other paralegals developing theories, writing briefs in addition to suing BOA, BAC, WIlshire, Countrywide, Merrell Lynch. MERS, MERSCORP, and Citi as Trustee in both federal and state court. I have worked with numerous Mo and Ks. lawyers on multiple issues in bankrtupcy court as well as doing affirmative case and cases in defense in both a judicial and non judicial state. So get off my case. I find your writing, stilted and your information wrong. You are not aware of the complex discovery issues that are currently going on that are keeping 30b6 dep from going forward and other discovery from going forward. What I deetest among the people writing on these blogs is that their theories have no practical application. Securitization is a wonderful theory but it does not win cases that I can see. Attacking the note and notarials and jurats is wonderful but is it ALWAYS getting the note set aside? Are the class actions or mass joinders getting more footing than individual lawsuits and if so why? Are pro se’s screwing up the courts with their nonsensical arguments (I saw one guy in ks actually throw 7 pieces of silver at a judge! I’ve seen judges in these cases attacked by some Patriot theory that if they are not correctly sworn in the whole thing can be washed.) What are you nuts? My federal court consolidated cases have over 400 entries already and we are just starting discovery. As far as I know, I am one of the few people getting requests for admissions and docs from MERS maybe because I have 30 years of doing discovery and have taken over 4000 depositions in my career. So, get off your high horse and your theory and write in a way that is written in a court room and tell me what case you have accomplished with your theory. Don’t sell these folks a bunch of baloney that does not translate into actual wins and give them hope. It ticks me off to no end when I see this garbage and people who do not have a clue how a case is won in a federal or state court and pontificate to no end. If you want to see real live discovery and responses and what follow up is being done to get answers write me at gwencaranchini@sbcglobal.net. But don’t sell garbage theories to people who are desperate.

  248. Louder Neil! say it Louder! … “IT’S THE TITLE” … Ignorance of the Law is a nice way of saying Stupid …. Just Sayin …. (Loudly) ..”IT’S THE TITLE” …

  249. @GC
    I do not know who you are—what your case is –what facts are disputed—i do not even know what particular legal argument that you find so offensive. I do not think im anywhere near thin ice by quoting the maxim equity abhors a forfeiture——

    By process of eliination–since you have simply voiced a rather shrill and accusatory utterance that is not framed to provide notice as to what your specific bone of contention is, I can hardly argue with you–or determine maybe I agree with you on the particular legal effect or facts–but you havent done that—merely stating that 35 years as a trial litigator involved apparently in one foreclosure case –your own?—and recently attentive to this site gives you a protected right to make a general denial and attack me personally for having suggested that lawyers should be aware of basic legal maxims–i guess–im not sure actually what is bothering you.

    I stand by my statement http://law.justia.com/cases/california/caapp4th/93/791.html
    Even if it would be nice to hand out free houses upon legal technicalities—it has not happened and its not likely to happen.

    Im no lover of collection agencies to be sure—but it seems that in this pocket of law trhere are altogether too many opinions driven by self-interest rather than legal support. And while I very much respect the specialized competencies of trial lawyers—they can quote chapter and verse of intricate procedural and evidentiary rules—-sure a trial lawyer would have no qualms about forfeiture of rights for a minor procedural flaw–thats the coolaid you sold for 35 years–apparently

    Thats what a trial lawyer tries to do —bury the substantice law and equity under mats of procedure and evidence gimmicks. and as several of the many trial lawyers that I managed over 35 years as a counselor express —” a good trial lawyer does not need to know any substantive law on a case to win the case” –on one day you chase an ambullance–next day you kick out evidence of a murder because of a slight technical issue. i can well understand your lack of appreciation for my respect for equity—but i could never have been a member of oj simpsons defense team

    please specify the issues that bother you so i can see the error of my ways??? otherwise im not impressed

  250. if you are not a lawyer, stop telling people what those of us trained in the law would do. you have not got a clue and i find a lot of your information disinformative and not relevant to actual litigation in this area. As a former 35 year trial lawyer i have been pursuing my own real live case and doing the research and I work with many attorneys. you are wrong.

  251. @MARK BOWEN

    Yes you are absolutely correct: anybody trained in law is going to struggle very hard with the concept that a technical error–such as lost note or defective notarization should allow a borrower to experience a windfall There is an old phrase–widely used on topics such as this: “Equity abhors a forfeiture”. Thus a court will struggle to find a procedural route to prevent the forfeiture of the property right as a result of technicalities–and many see false notarizations and delivery of copies of notes vs the originals as being technical issues.

    In order to justify the forfeiture it must be presented as a matter of public policy. The public policy that justifies forfeiture of a property right here because collection agencies lost track of notes–and needed to cover up the loss with fake assignments etc—is clear. If such important “details” of compliance with notary law and UCC rules requiring presentment of the ORIGINAL NOTE–or an affidavit and surety bond—then thieves will take advantage of the perceived loophole and next thing —nobody will be able to prove who owns the notes well enough to clear titles to property and clear debt from credit records. These are serious harms to the general public which speak in favor of forfeiture for failure to abide by the rules closely.

    Thieves love laxity–and they exploit it–will expand the confusion and laxity to cover up intentional frauds. But the opposite side of the coin is that borrowers might operate in conspiracy with collection agency personnel to create little process errors that will give big windfalls to the homeowners—this also creates an incentive for fraud that is contrary to public policy. Then the 2nd aspect is that even without collusion a homeowner might intentionally default to attempt to get a free house—like a chance on the lottery.

    This is the well-known moral hazard issue.

    The answer both in terms of public policy and legal rules of ancient application is that a technically driven forefeiture may be necessary to preserve the integrity of the collector side of things—but the moral hazard counter-policy needs to be stripped out of the solution. These are the factors which militate towards the application of the ancient escheat rules. Thus for public policy reasons the procedural defects should not be overlooked to avoid forfeitures—but the windfall should go to all the citizens of the state–not just the lucky homeowner who proved up the technical defect.. That is what escheat is all about–why if a collection agency cant prove the right to enforce a note under UCC art 3 and/or 9—then the taxpayers should get the windfall. The judges would no longer be allowing forfeitures and bad public policy–no more moral hazard. The escheat rules are already supposed to be applicable but neither the homeowner nor the collector with a weak or non-existent right want to give up the opportunity to get an unearned windfall. Both parties are equally guilty of greed—however few homeowners will engage in criminal activity to get that windfall.

    Those people on this and other sites that attempt to rationalize a free house due to bank error or outright thievery refuse to engage in the discussion of escheat because there is no money in it for the lawyers and service providers and the homeowners themselves—-thus the real and appropriate solution is simply ignored. And things get worse because unlike you—others buy into the siren song–give me a free house if the bank fails to do this or that–or did do these bad acts.

    Now im not saying that many homeowners that have suffered unusually at the hands of collection agencies acting without solid legal basis should be unable to get the house without cash payment of the note. May have suffered and spent small fortunes of money and large amounts of time defending against patently unjust actions by collection agencies. But not every homeowner fits this description–some standard bearers who have provided great public service at their own sufferance are very much entitled to offset against amounts owed as a counterclaim. It is fair and equitable–it is not a forfeiture –it is a taking with due process for bad actions or sloppiness which hurts public policy.

    People such as Paula Rush and Lynn Szymoniak fall into this category–although i dont think they got free houses–there is nothing inequitable about them getting one if that is the what they want. They earned it. Others may complain a lot but have not actively resisted overreaching and have not suffered retaliation—if a person has done a public service and has suffered for it–then that person is owed something by society, govt and the collectors.

    The courts are quite familiar with offset–it is not inequitable.

  252. Judges will never come to any conclusion other than “the equities are with the Plaintiff” (in Judicicial foreclosure states). One of the reasons for this in Florida is that the Florida Treasury is heavily invested in Mortgage Backed Securities, and those judges are made to believe that to give a home to a homeowner, in the course of adjudicating cases according to law, then the economy will never recover, not realizing that when a bank takes a home through foreclosure, the investors of those MBS’s are never made whole, as it is the Trustee Bank’s that reap all of the benefits.

  253. @CARIE
    Under the http://www.ali.org/00021333/PEB%20Report%20-%20November%202011.pdf —-the issue is whether there was an authorized transfer of actual possession to the claimant–for that person to have enforcement rights—-

    or aff and bond –protection–did your parties proffer anything –a purported original? how did they assert enforcement rights?

  254. LDean TX

    Appointment of Substitute Trustee filed in Harris County Land Records, my record reads: The current mortgagee under said Deed of Trust, according to the provisions therein set out does hereby remove the original Trustee and all successor substitute trustees and appoints in their stead, Jeff Leva, Audrey Lewis, Patricia Poston. Theresa Perales or Recontrust Company, N.A., as Substitute Trustee, who shall hereafter exercise all powers and duties set aside to the said original Trustee under the said Deed of Trust; and further, does hereby request authorize, and instruct said Substitute Trustee to conduct and direct the execution of remedies set aside to the Mortgagee therein Dated 1-31-2012 By: The Bank of New York Mellon FKA The Bank of New York, As Trustee for the CertificateHolders of CWABS Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-2 by It’s Attorney in Fact, Bank of America, N.A. As Successor By Merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (then handwritten) fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP then signed by Robosigner Melanie D Cowan Vice President and notarized by Robosigner Leslie Jo Lovell. I am still in my home, Bank of America has not foreclosed but did on my Credit Report file a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure as though I signed over and coveyed property rights to Bank of America.
    I have a copy of a promissory note dated May 18, 2012 with my signature, no dates no nothing on it but a rubber stamping that reads pay to the order without recourse to Michele Sjolander. Bank of America has never answered any questions pertaining to the fact that the promissory note has the Lender as America’s Wholesale Lender, the trust CWABS 2007-2 closed February 28, 2007 which was a month after I closed on the property. All I know is I smell some dirty rats. The property was purchased January 2007 and now after 5 years a scanned copy of a promissory note pops up with a copy of a stamp Michele Sjolander. Bank of America is sending me notices that I have a limited time to apply for a load modification. What? To cover their dirty hands? I think not.

  255. @ whoever re rt 9 v art 3 –im not sure that the grave concern you voice is applicable–im referencing an authoritative study that makes sense to me in that it provides clarity in allocating burden of proof–and allows a borrower tio be freed of his obligation in a predicatable manner–and how it fits with mers assignments is a narrow question–but if the study undermines the point id like to know how or why–or am i just supposed to keep on accepting no proof of the right of a claimant–and no satisgfaction of debt–id so maybe you argument is a little weak –it must fit in all situations

    The Uniform Commercial Code provides four sets of rules that determine matters that are important in the context of enforcement of mortgage notes and the mortgages that secure them:

    First, in the case of a mortgage note that is a negotiable instrument, Article 3 of the UCC determines the identity of the person who is entitled to enforce the note and to whom the maker owes its payment obligation; payment to the person entitled to enforce the note discharges the maker’s obligation, but failure to pay that party when the note is due constitutes dishonor.

    Second, for both negotiable and non-negotiable mortgage notes, Article 9 of the UCC determines whether a transferee of the note from its owner has obtained an attached property right in the note.

    Third, Article 9 of the UCC provides that a transferee of a mortgage note whose property right in the note has attached also automatically has an attached property right in the mortgage that secures the note.

    Finally, Article 9 of the UCC provides a mechanism by which the owner of a note and the mortgage securing it may, upon default of the maker of the note, record its interest in the mortgage in the realty records in order to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure.
    As noted previously, these UCC rules do not resolve all issues in this field. The enforcement

    http://www.ali.org/00021333/PEB%20Report%20-%20November%202011.pdf

  256. @DCB

    My “players” were IndyMac/OneWest…with Deutsche as bogus trustee to bogus MBS…they would never tell me who “real creditor” was—I guess because they simply bought the unsecured debt and pretended it was securitized—so they could take my home.

  257. @ CARIE

    Similar story on bankunited -at a high level—seems like they went too far and would not disclose info requested in dec2011 by fed reserve etc—-offshore hedge funds engaged in activties they wanted to be secret—i wonder if they liked credit bids?

  258. @HMANN

    Even the Az cts and AZ legislature lacks power to trample due process. Standing is implicit as a jurisdictional matter—if there is risk of dual recoveries then due process is tramplled

    I suspect that this is the price you pay for non-recourse debt—–you are not at risk of a double recovery? I dont know–if you are protected one way then you are not being denied fairness —the situation and due process inspeak to where UCC is invilable is to avoid dual recovery–it may apply where non-recourse does not—but no matter–it encourages theft of az notes and claims—

    i do not agree with concept of homeowner getting a free house if the note is lost and cannot be addressed because of fraud–
    the lost note escheates to the state—az ct is abandoning escheat assets to frauders—somebody should point that out to az public service unions that are losing pensions and benefits because the state budget is not hot——-why give away escheat assets?

  259. @JG
    one has to have both the right to payment and the right to enforce in order to enforce,

    yes its not as self evident as it may look suoerficially–there was noise over time, a comment UCC footnotes that a thief could be a claimant —the clarifinfg remarks do not allow that when there is no exception to the provision which states there must be an intended transfer to one who is entitled to enforce. This lays to rest the sham that a loose note–unclaimed for whatever reason–eg frauds during origination]—–could be collected by a collection agency sweeping the floor or stealing off the shelf—-this description does not encourage theft of notes –or -purported destruction with subsequent discovery as a junk bond w/o security.

    If you test this recent opinion against an unauthorized claimant–you can see the thief would want to forge a document or steal it rather than do a bond which would invite a surety audit—and price–what happens if the lost note claimant cant post a surety bond–he cant demand payment –he cant meet standards of presentation

  260. @JG re ——“WHO made the credit bid on “MERS” foreclosures?”

    Is this one or many? On auditors records right? Why not sample the area of interest–check out random sample of foreclosure doceted case say 2 years ago–or one year—-then check tranfer taxes and real estate values—if there is a big divergence itll pop up—look at stuff in 500 k up for them taking trophy homes –and you can define whos who in the local realtors–bankers and realtors like foreclosures

    but you are looking for a foreign hedge fund—-limited partnerships in caymans etcsearch for some exotic offshore companies–i think they are so brassy they wont even launder through delaware—or nevada —probably have instances of direct ownership by these entities at least transitionally—or they are partners in som LP in your state–its offshore money coming in at the bottom to flip

  261. U are wrong. The notes should be art 9 if u read the note w Dt but banks have figured out if they argue they are 3,s they avoid chain of title issues.

    Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

  262. Listen up folks. The banks are claiming they are 3s so they can get away w broken chains of title. That’s what they are arguing and sometimes winning. We need to argue they are 9,s otherwise u are precluded From arguing the bogus assignments. This is where the argument in Dis is now. We loose this argument and Mers wins and so do the banks.

    Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

  263. @JG

    I made a typo—among other—in my example collector A was collecting for ABC trust 2004-4: Collector B for ABC trust 2005-1

    Neither met the standard of proof to acieve secirity under ART 9 because neither filed a loan scgedule as required by SEC and art 9

    So basically its up in the air which trust it was owned by–vbecause sold to both—-who can enforce the note?

    the guy that can come up with a good authenticated original—or will swear they have it and obtain a bond—-this is 3-501 and other art 3 basics;

    What rights does a maker have vis multiple potential claimants —this alligns with standing and with void judgments–reopener–its got to be addressed

    if someone does not allow clear proof of satisfaction–especially in contested default situations—then the debt continues and the releases on note aand mortgage fail—cloud on next buyers title–he cant passalong general warrantee deed—–will it reduce his resale value if he cant execute a general warrantee—will it raise title insurance costs–pay them forever for being sloppy recordkeepers

    thats where we are–people afraid of losses–turning to title insuers that helped create the clouds—shake down—avoidable—it hurt the homeowners now and future to allow MERS and the inattention to UCC—–this must stop

    Homeowners –even those in default should be entitled by statute to protections of UCC copliance under consumer protection laws–it is intolerable that individuals should be left with huge contingent liabilities–because of administrative experdiances of collection agencies

  264. I need to do a memo in support of motion —the securitizers in the indentures and PSAs specified that the notes were assigned to the trustee and memorialized by filing a financing statement with Sec State Del. or NY—–and that financing statement per common law and UCC 9 must have an adequate description of the intagible assets–in this case negotiable instruments —or if you like contracts—yes this is where 9 comes into play. It mandates the loan schedule–which was ignored 60% of the time by some private label issuers Thus in these instances where the asses were not scheduled they were not properly transferred. This laxity enabled unlisted notes be sold multiple times,
    In these missing loan list cases there would be a missing schedule in both SEC filing itself [eg header “loan schedule” blank page in lieu of missing 17000 lines –and in the art 9 financing statement file [“available on request”]

    So in this type case—-missing loan schedule–surely these loans were not security or owned by that trust–if the trust existed at all–ie was there any asset actually transferred to it–or was it a com-lete sham]
    These loans may have been sold and/or used as collateral in another filing –duplicated–iv seen disclosed in bankrupt AHM 10k–
    So there is a loan file in a warehouse with the closing documents—-maybe. The loan files would be made available to the trusts based on the trust demonstration of tthe loan schedule

    this is where the collection agency hits some difficulty—if the notes were left as an unallocated batch—-can allocate it by vintage only—-date of note? but may be referenced in internal documents twice say for an originator–securitizer, could sell into the 4th quater of 2004—-and again into the 1st quater 2005—no loan schedules on back to back filings invites duplication—-so which trust owns the note?

    Art 9 is not helping you here abit—-neither does limit recordation to the noinee mers—-and that could be assigned by multiple collection agencies—-they just need access to the data

    The trusts and servicers have assemnbled a database—a property apparently can turn up as serviced by multiple primary servicers—it causes them anguish if you point up a duplication.

    But the issue is who do you pay:
    One trust officer says pay collectorB on behalf of ABC trust 2005-1
    but you are being sued on the note by collector A on behalf of ABC trust 2005-1… hmmmm….who do i pay?

    Collector A hands me a very nice copy marked paid in full—and asks for $1 million–and if you just pay me or give me your house i will not bother you anymore–you can buy “peace of mind”—after you agree on his way out of the room collector A adds gratuitously Oh by the way;
    “im pretty sure noboby else has the right to collect on this very fine copy. I promise–and anyway you will be happy until somebody else comes along with the original”-

    Collector B denies knowledge of the loan by phone [2005-1 was also missing a loan schedule] by phone–

    -would you pay collector A if he told you before you handed over your check for $1 million??
    If he already paid him by check–a negotiable instrument that you made–would you dishonor the check or just go along? How do you dishonor? Stop payment?

    What if collector A persuaded you to give him the deed to your house before he told you he was pretty sure that nobody would ever find the real original?

    What then?

    Now the issue of whether you can defend on a copy of note vs the real original really rases its ugly head right?

    Where does one look to decide what to do—-what good is my copy when Collector B wakes up to his missing loan? Oh and Collector A went through a reorganization a few months later—-

    Now what do you say to Collector B when he shows up with a detailed description of the way he recvd the original note–ie authenticated his note and his claim—-maybe he can come up with a record in another statehouse—and he has a former FBI lan guy state in affidavit that his analysis proves absolutely that the Collector B documented original is THE orginal—-although after he examed yours he is very impressed by how good the forgery equipment was—and if he didnt have a high intensity super duper electron microscope machine that can detect a really good autopen wth really good copy regeneration software—but for that hed have been unable to say which ws which

    So I believe you pay B and file a claim against A’s bankruptcy estate

    This is the level at which we must look at these negotiable instruments–at Art 3—3-301–501 etc –wat are your rights under 501?

  265. In AZ courts have ruled that the UCC does not apply to DOT’s. The DOT is the instrument used to foreclosed in AZ, not the note(Non Judicial). The courts have stated that the trustee sale is meant to expedite the foreclosure process and not provide delays. The courts have said that the DOT automatically follows the note and presentment (under the UCC) isn’t required in the non judicial foreclosure process.

    They’ve also determined MERS is a valid beneficiary.

    AZ is brutal. You can’t rely soley on assignments and a faulty Deed of trust or I think you won’t survive. The burden of proof is solely on you not the bank,servicer, or trustee.

    Trust me my “lender” closed up shop 4 years ago. The assignment came years after he was closed. Next followed the substitution of trustee. (O and by the way the deed doesn’t need to be recorded prior to a trustee sale and the trustee sale only needs to be recorded once. So if the trustee sale is postponed again it is the homeowners responsibility to find out when the next sale is scheduled).

    After the SOT was done my loan was sold to a new servicer (probably at a huge discount). So the servicer that initiated the foreclosure isn’t even the servicer on record (o but wait it doesn’t matter in AZ).

    It seems as if the judges don’t care. Luckily I’ve been able to fend them off for a couple of years but we’ll see what happens soon. Yes our due process rights are being trampled.

    However, I’d rather fight and lose than not fight and lose. I’d like to set an example to my kids to stand up to the “big” guy and stand up for your beliefs.

    The preliminary injunction process is also a joke. You can win at the hearing and still lose. The judge can set the bond amount at a ridiculous amount. It’s not that I won’t post a $30k bond but I’m personally liable if the bank wins. (Ever see dawg the bounty hunter). The bond company will pay the bank and come after me. Yes sometimes by winning you still lose. I’d rather take the $30k and start over. I feel as this go around I know so much more…

    good luck everybody

  266. @CARIE

    At what stage did you “ask” —-I would expect tat you would frame your request as a motion to compel proof —-add legal memorandum re UCC ——state any unique facts –cite the state version of UCC –in context your particular case/state—–but UCC sets out the duty

  267. @dcb – make it easy on me? What’s a pledge: A cdo? a hypothecation? I mean, one could say I pledge my this or that as security for my obligation to you, right? No matter how you get there, tho you must, it seems to me it’s all about who has the right of recourse against the borrower (‘s property). I just think it’s possible because of the way things were done the answer might be no one.
    I tried that trail last year, but I’m clearly limited on some stuff (and here I don’t mind saying I’m in good company), so in that regard, I do hope the draft provides some clues for dummies. All I can remember (I think) is that one has to have both the right to payment and the right to enforce in order to enforce, as weird as that sounds. It gets more complicated because of the specific recourse for non-payment of a note secured by real property. These aren’t just “any old notes”. I’m still trying to prove that one in possession of a bearer note may be entitled to enforce but is not a holder with a right to an assgt of the collateral instrument. And that proposition, that one in poss of a bearer note is entitled to an assgt of the coll instrument, is singularly what the banksters rely on.

  268. @dcb – yes, many want to learn what must be learned by as you say starting with calculus in place of math. I am sticking to math and trying to work my way up to calc. In other words, what is the law first and foremost governing notes and dots (and contracts and laws of agency) and then enter the mechanisms of sec’n and see how those issues are impacted by those laws or vice-versa even.
    But I don’t agree that treating notes as assignable and transferring by assignment v. endorsement perhaps pursuant to ART 9 is of no consequence (if that’s what you said), esp if done electronically and I’m not getting off that just now for whatever comes of it, fwiw. For one thing, if notes were transferred by assignment (electronically to boot) using digital copies and a “controller” , that probably has ramifications to now trying to enforce as if that didn’t happen and revert to reliance on the bearer provisons of Art 3 (and the appearance of ends which under the actual mechanisms used for transfer wouldn’t be there) I believe the notes were treated as if they were subject to Article 9, not 3, and further that they were converted to electronic format for the purpose of trading electronically. MERS appears to have been used as the e-registry for these digital notes, with allegedly only one party being the “controller” of the “authoritative copy”. Somebody (actually, as I’ve said, lots of somebodies) readily know the rams of treating notes as under one article of the UCC and then trying to enforce under another (not to mention the illegality
    of suddenly appearing endorsements if not the now-paper notes themselves) Unfortunately for me, until I find him or them, I’m left to follow my nose. Have to admit I haven’t read the board’s UCC deal, which I know might be informative. Only 24 hrs in a day. Good thing for me, or I’d be dead. And let’s not forget that with MERS as the ben, as a matter of law, MERS became the title holder to all those properties foreclosed in its name by the merger of interests doctrine. Or you could go another route and say MERS, the alleged beneficiary, ben being the party with the right to make a credit bid (ben formerly known as the stinking lender) had no right to make a credit bid, so the f/c done that way is bogus. Messed up titles any way you look at it. Mess any way you look at it. Sorry times for Americans.

  269. Before the Consent Order and MERS (read members) was foreclosing in its name, who was (allegedly) making the credit bids? Only the
    beneficiary may make a credit bid. If the lender / creditor were not the ben, then it needed to become the ben to make the credit bid. So who made them on all those foreclosures? If MERS WERE the ben, were those credit bids made by MERS? WHO made the credit bid on “MERS” foreclosures?
    Does anyone know the amts of those bids in general compared to the amt of the (alleged) indebtedness – or – the amts of bids these days relative to the (alleged) indebtedness?

  270. @JG

    Art 9 deals with the pledge of [homeowner] notes in connection with securitization——how to create a security interest in an intangible asset——art 3 is dealing with the basics of how do you discharge a negotiable instrument etc—my quotes and references are from the recent UCC draft report on notes and mortgages–art 9 has the provisions about describing the intangibles—aka the “mortgage loan schedule”—-they ignored that also in case of many private label issuers of mbs

    the securitization stuff is a lot of smoke as far as me and my collection agency—it is not irrelevant i grant you–but its like learning math by starting with calculus–all of these commentators need to start with simple addition—–how do you prove the claimant s have an interest in a note and how do you prove its satified when paid–leave the intricacies of securotization to the side—-they only come into play when rebutting the assertions made as a prima facie matter

    the burden of proof of enforcement of the note is on the person who presents it for payment–it is simply wrong for a party to say pay me without “presenting” the note to the maker [homeowner] –and that presentment puts the burden of proof on the claimant–in the old days this was no big deal –the presenter was in all liklihood the originator-lender aka your neighborhood bank—probably not even indorsed—payee=presenter———all that changes with securitization

    and as far as conversion to electronic credits–thats also smoke—–in babylon they had cuneiform clay tablets that recorded how many sheep i may owe somebody———-but that does not obviate my duty to deliver a sheep at the end of the day—i cant get by handing him a shard of cuneiform tablet with a mark on it—–even if it has a really nice pricture of a sheep on the shard too

    it doesnt matter how i chose to record the transaction in my internal records–at the end of the day i must use legally acceptable business practices–which is what the UCC is all about—just cause bankers dont like it doesnt mean they can ignore it—if so why not just let anybody sign on the notary line—who needs notaries anyway—just a burden–rthey tried that ploy with me and it blew up in their faces to the tune of $200 million—i deny the method of dropping notes as well

  271. @JG

    I asked for the original note. The servicer told me they had no obligation to show it to me…

  272. I believe the notes were treated as if they were subject to Article 9, not 3, and further that they were converted to electronic format for the purpose of trading electronically. MERS appears to have been used as the e-registry for these digital notes, with allegedly only one party being the “controller” of the “authoritative copy”.

  273. tO GUEST: I have been quieting title since 2010 with a declaratory judgment action appended. I know something of litigation having done it for 35 years. I am tired of all the theories etc. I want to see case law. BAIN does not give us anything we already did not know or have at the lower levels of the court. Its a great Supreme Court decision but when all is said and done you still need to make this an Article 9 nnote not a 3 note so you can get at the assignments. What don’t you guys get about that????

  274. That’s all well and good but I am a 35 year trial lawyer and nothing you said gets me to where you need to go. For exam. You do not want to be an art. 3 note; you want to be an art 9 note otherwise you don’t get to attack assignments. That’s the law plain and simple. Next, you have to ask for a declaratory judgment to get valuation. The judges are having a difficult time wrapping their heads about different valuations for different purposes. Anyone seen any case law on discovery????? Don’t give me a bunch of pontificating or a bunch of theory–give me CASE LAW TO GET THE MASTER SERVICER’S REPORT AND THE TRUSTEE WHO FOR ALL INTENT AND PURPOSES IN MY CASE DOES NOT EXIST.

  275. @ALL

    The author cogently describes the implications of the quick and very dirty loan tracking process–as viewed with the benefit of recent caselaw, including Bain V MERS, and clarifications offered by the UCC 2011 draft report.

    The author states among other things; a couple particularly noteworthy facts.

    “The borrower is left in purgatory with no knowledge of the proper party to whom they can submit a proper proposal for modification, with principal loan r eduction or actually principal loan correction since the original appraisal was false and procured by the bank. Judges like settlements. But they can’t get it if they keep siding with the banks that the identity of the lender and the actual accounting for all money paid in or paid out of the loan receivable account is irrelevant.”

    AND,

    “it is highly probable that the title to potentially tens of millions of properties have clouds either because the foreclosure was wrongful or because the wrong party executed the satisfaction of mortgage or both.”

    The author has understated the magnitude of the problem, In 2009, there were widespread ‘rumors’ of defective documents being created–using the MERS rented name etc. These rumors were vindicated by an investigation of activities carried on at DOCx Alpharetta georgia office disclosed to LPS Board of Directors in late November 2009. LPS itself verified those rumors as to its participation in its 10K for 2009, wherein it admitted regulatory issues relating to improprieties vis notarizations carried on at that office and reported by the private investigator to Fulton County Clerk of Courts and various federal agencies–including SEC and FBI. More such revelations were made and the widespread natiure of these abuses became well-recognixed by election day in November 2010. Thereafter the $25 billion settlement attempted to cope with fallout from the abuse, LPS itself has disclosed past and prospective legal costs exceeding $200 million associated with the robosigning issue. In 2009, simply suggesting the possibility of the problem–much less its magnitude was often treated as the stuff of wild-eyed conspiracy theorists. But with benefit of hindsight via depositions and substantial work by people such as Ms Szymoniak http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-22/whistle-blower-lynn-szymoniak-beats-the-banks, the accuracy and magnitude became more credible–albeit not yet fully plumbed. Official criminal Investigations by Nevada and Missouri targeted specifically at LPS have demonstrated added facts. A wider examination by the Department of Justice is a hoped for next step.

    All of this is background to support the credibility of assertions made by the author herein–who had similarly alleged the issues now well-known as robosigning. It is the title very certainly that was placed in doubt by the shortcuts or outright intentional falsification of documents alleged in these criminal investigations.

    However, the recent cases, private investigations and UCC report point toward the problens described by the author. Only with much worse implications on a broader crossection of US citizens. The author largely confines his commentary to the fairly obvious [now] damage to title and problems faced by citizens in the throes of financial problems. These unhappy wretches are often dismissed as having contributed to their own miseries—and thus by collection agency logic—no longer entitled to normal legal protections. Thus in the view of the collection agency industry these people are fair game with an “open season” and can be dealt with by any means–without regard to legal protections. The law applied over the past three years –or longer–has basically been as if the bill of Rights –from the 1st amendment to the 14th amendment were suspended if a citizen was charged with default on a note. A reasonable demonstration of standing was not important. A claimant with a sufficiently complicated name [ie trust] was deemed by most courts to own an irrebtable right to sieze property at will-no questions asked. This much is not much contested these days–albeit people hope that the courts are today better informed and more sketptical of the assertions made by parties seeking to sieze homes and obtain deficiency judgments.

    The generally agreed part of the problem however is the tip of the iceberg–and the unseen ice extends to reach even those who never missed a payment–to the middle class homeowner.

    A reason which underlies the dependence on created and/or forged documents was the very real inability of the collection agencies/servicers to actually demonstrate proof of the right to enforce the original promissory notes executed by homeowners. This simple issue has often been lost amidst the complexities of internal bank cash management processes and the intricacies of securitization and layered upon that double recoveries from credit default swaps and myriad other smokescreens erected by the financial industry to obstruct investigations and prosecutions. thus complexity has become the primary affirmative defense of the collection agencies–

    In fact at the end of the day the question has been defined by the UCC and cases such as Bain v. MERS. It is simple. Does the claimant under DOT or mortgage actually have a demonstrable right to enforce the homeowner promissory note? The UCC has a clear standard to answer this question. Bain clarified that no security interest can be enforced by any person other than the party with demonstrable right to enforce the note. UCC 3-501.

    And in the end it is a matter of “put up or shut up” for the collection agencies where the UCC is applied. The collectioon agencies make every conceivable effort–every excuse–every slight of hand to avoid the simple UCC tests. The tests require the claimant to prove to the maker-homeowner the claimant’s authority to enforce the note–not the converse. If he cannot show the original note and his authority to enforce it he must in lieu execute an affidavit of lost note under penalty of perjury—and provide financial protection to the maker if a subsequent holder should pop up with the “lost” original.

    Some materials suggest that as many as 60% of original notes were destroyed—the touchstone of collectors rights is thus destroyed and the lost note affidavit and a surety bond are necessary to fill the hole. The creation of false assignments etc was a means employed to bridge the gap. even if the collection agency could physically obtain the original note–UCC 3-510 still required he provide reasonable proof of his entitlement to enforce it. This is similar to authentication of that document–where has it been –who owned–how did the collector obtain it–from whom. discovery is not required–because the burden of proof 1st lays with the claimant–discovery may be necessary to demonstrate that the claimant has committed perjury attempting to prove it.

    Worse for the false claimant, the affidavit of lost note and associated surety bond puts him at real risk of perjury and a cost of procuring a bond–or providing a real indemity from a big bank.
    This is obviously a costly measure if it involves 60% of the notes–and will result in more fabrications–forgeries of the actual purported original notes, if past performance is a guide.

    What is affected by the failure to be able to prove up the note?
    if at the end of the day, the claimant is unable to provide the actual authenticated “original note”, or the lost note procedure-bond then the entire precedding legal proceeding is voidable by the homeowner —possibly void. Even a settlement agreement implemented by a court order is void–because the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter ab initio.

    If a property was siezed –the note should have been delivered to the homeowner-maker —as part of the process to extinguish the debt and establish that the claimant was rightfully entitled to enforce the note-and thence the DOT/mortgage. If the claimant cannot produce the authenticated note, then he cant discharge the debt–he cannot agree to release the debtor in part or in full. He has to have demonstrable authority as laid out in the UCC to do this. If he cannot release the debt–he cant release the mortgage or sustain the DOT. He counts on victims to default–a homeowner that defaults does not get relieved of any portion of the debt. It may come back to haunt him much later–even in a non-recourse state—-if a homeowner allows a thief to take her home–is she off the hook? What about the innocent holder in due course? The maker bears responsibility to the HDC to act in accordance with the UCC–as a general proposition–which of course is varied case by case–state by state–in the current state of confusion over notes and security interests.

    If the maker conveys the deed in lieu of foreclosure—–did she recover the original note? If not the note cannot be satisfied—she has none of the evidence required under the UCC to defend against a future claim by a holder in due course. all she can say is –sorry i guess i gave my home to the wrong claimant???

    The UCC does not allow the borrower to be so cavalier—although the collection agencies would have all believe that this might be the case–but as any who have faced them in court know full well–when it suits their purposes–they will quote UCC 3-501 ad naseum in support of the propsition that the homeowner who lost her home to the wrong claimant—should pay the current HDC out of her pension–instead of paying for childrens college—instead of buying food–if the homeowner cannot seek the proper protection under the bankruptcy code–in its weakened state.

    But does it end with continuing loability for persons who lost or surrendered their homes –there is also the short sale. Did the seller recover the note? Why not? This is the sweetest route for the false collector–him with no right to enforce the note—the deed does not pass through his hands—the transfer is cleaner. however, the debt is not discharged and the mortgage may not in fact be released. The title may be subject to attack–it may be uninsurable just as if a foreclosure occurred.

    The selling homeowner must not agree to give a general Warranty deed in any situation where the claimant has not proven himself to be able to release the debt. Current practice appears to be trending toward limited warranty deeds for new buyers on their resale–thus if a 3rd generation homeowner is attacked on a failed release of mortgage by a frauder that defauded the original homeowner. The newest homeowner has recorse back to you the defrauded homeowner–who foolishly gave the last general warranty deed on the property.

    What of the retiring pensioner–who sold her home and remitted the proceeds to the collection agency to whom her payments were previously directed–or otherwise paid off the note–or thought she did. If she has not recovered her original note–she stands in the same shoes as the homeowners whose homes were wrongfully siezed by the pretender without the right to enforce–or release–the promissory note.

    For any who question these allegations, who among you would pay off your car without recovering your note and original title? Why is it possible for a bank to keep track of these original auto titles and consumer notes–but not a note for a home? The simple answer is that the collectors assert that all will be well if they simply file a release of mortgage. In fact that is merely a document which facilitates their ability to liquidate the property –to pass on damaged title subject to a live note—to another unsuspecting victimized homeowner. You the current homeowner should not become an accessory to this fraud–you must demand your rights under the UCC—dont just show me the note–give t to me marked paid in full with a decent proof of right to enforce it. That is a homeowners inalienable right under the US Constitution–Due Process clause–a homeowner is absolutely entitled to proof that she will not be held accountable on that note in the future. It is her absolute right. Exercise your rights people. Demand the authenticated notes and cut off this fraud–dont facilitate it by accepting a standard that does not accord with UCC 3-501.

  276. @ gwen and guest

    It’s all just smoke and mirrors from debt collectors. There are no notes, there are no securitized loans in mbs trusts. It’s like they are all playing hot potato with these fake loans until they push through the foreclosure—then they drink to another victory and job well done…

  277. Deutsche /GMAC also thinks it is irrelevant for the accounting info…has anyone research the Bankers Trust inventory and filings at the time Deutsche bought out the almost defunct trust ? I understand that a bank of NY also bought out some of the inventory…there was some sanction against Banker’s trust by the Sec at the time in NY…I believe that Deutsche is still using some dead/inactive/or non existent loans from that with no proof of owning those…also, how can deutsche call itself trustee and also bought out Bankers trust? And why is everyone referring to Deutsche as formerly Bankers Trust when it never was Banker’s Trust and only a part of bankers Trust was purchased by Deutsche? What am i missing here?

  278. @gw: In which state? & your note is probably history & can probably quiet your title because they won’t be able to contest it!!!

  279. Two comments: First anyone doing a Reg Z inquiry to the FDIC like Tighe Johnson in Cook County, Ill. Tighe says u send a letter to the FDIC telling them you or your client is in arrears two years. The bank then has to post a 7.5 timex the amount of the loan to their balance sheet as in “default” which forces them to settle. Anyone heard of this or done this?

    Second, in my quiet title lawsuit BOA claims it holds a piece of paper that permits it to act for Citi as Trustee for MLMI 2006 HE-5 who they claim own the note. MERS in the same lawsuit says Citi does not own the note, BOA owns the note. The title on record shows Citi as TRustee not BOA and the MERS report shows as of Jan 26, 2012 an “unknown investor” owns the note and the note has been deactivated as the unknown not a mers member. Anyone seen this?

    Likewise, I have pending a request for accounting but the defendant Citi claims it is irrelevant.

  280. Playing some Conway Twitty

    George E. Babcock, Esquire

    Law Office of George E. Babcock

    574 Central Ave

    Pawtucket, RI 02861

    Phone (401) 724 – 1904

    Fax (401) 724 – 1906

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: