Deny and Discover Strategy Working

For representation in South Florida, where I am both licensed and familiar with the courts and Judges, call 520-405-1688. If you live in another state we provide direct support to attorneys. call the same number.

Having watched botched cases work their way to losing conclusions and knowing there is a better way, I have been getting more involved in individual cases — pleading, memos, motions, strategies and tactics — and we are already seeing some good results. Getting into discovery levels the playing field and forces the other side to put up or shut up. Since they can’t put up, they must shut up.

If you start with the premise that the original mortgage was defective for the primary reason that it was unfunded by the payee on the note, the party identified as “Lender” or the mortgagee or beneficiary, we are denying the transaction, denying the signature where possible (or pleading that the signature was procured by fraud), and thus denying that any “transfer” afterwards could not have conveyed any more than what the “originator” had, which is nothing.

This is not a new concept. Investors are suing the investment banks saying exactly what we have been saying on these pages — that the origination process was fatally defective, the notes and mortgages unenforceable and the predatory lending practices lowering the value of even being a “lender.”

We’ve see hostile judges turn on the banks and rule for the homeowner thus getting past motions to lift stay, motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment in the last week.

The best line we have been using is “Judge, if you were lending the money wouldn’t you want YOUR name on the note and mortgage?” Getting the wire transfer instructions often is the kiss of death for the banks because the originator of the wire transfer is not the payee and the instructions do not say that this is for benefit of the “originator.”

As far as I can tell there is no legal definition of “originator.” It is one step DOWN from mortgage broker whose name should also not be on the note or mortgage. An originator is a salesman, and if you look behind the scenes at SEC filings or other regulatory filings you will see your “lender” identified not as a lender, which is what they told you, but as an originator. That means they were a placeholder or nominee just like the MERS situation.

TILA and Regulation Z make it clear that even if there was nexus of connection between the source of funds and the originator, it would till be an improper predatory table-funded loan where the borrower was denied the disclosure and information to know and choose the source of a loan, thus enabling consumers to shop around.

In order of importance, we are demanding through subpoena duces tecum, that parties involved in the fake securitization chain come for examination of the wire transfer, check, ACH or other money transfer showing the original funding of the loan and any other money transactions in which the loan was involved INCLUDING but not limited to transactions with or for the fake pool of mortgages that seems to always be empty with no bank account, no trustee account, and no actual trustee with any powers. These transactions don’t exist. The red herring is that the money showed up at closing which led everyone to the mistaken conclusion that the originator made the loan.

Second we ask for the accounting records showing the establishment on the books and records of the originator, and any assignees, of a loan receivable together with the name and address of the bookkeeper and the auditing firm for that entity. No such entries exist because the loan receivable was converted into a bond receivable, but he bond was worthless because it was based on an empty pool.

And third we ask for the documentation, correspondence and all other communications between the originator and the closing agent and between each “assignor” and “assignee” which, as we have seen they are only too happy to fabricate and produce. But the documentation is NOT supported by underlying transactions where money exchanged hands.

The net goals are to attack the mortgage as not having been perfected because the transaction was and remains incomplete as recited in the note, mortgage and other “closing” documents. The “lender” never fulfilled their part of the bargain — loaning the money. Hence the mortgage secures an obligation that does not exist. The note is then attacked as being fatally defective partly because the names were used as nominees leaving the borrower with nobody to talk to about the loan status — there being a nominee payee, nominee lender, and nominee mortgagee or beneficiary.

The other part, just as serious is that the terms of repayment on the note do NOT match up to the terms agreed upon with the institutional investors that purchased mortgage bonds to which the borrower was NOT a party and did not issue. Hence the basic tenets of contract law — offer, acceptance and consideration are all missing.

The Deny and Discover strategy is better because it attacks the root of the transaction and enables the borrower to deny everything the forecloser is trying to put over on the Court with the appearance of reality but nothing to back it up.

The attacks on the foreclosers based upon faulty or fraudulent or even forged documentation make for interesting reading but if in the final analysis the borrower is admitting the loan, admitting the note and mortgage, admitting the default then all the other stuff leads a Judge to conclude that there is error in the ways of the banks but no harm because they were entitled to foreclose anyway.

People are getting on board with this strategy and they have the support from an unlikely source — the investors who thought they were purchasing mortgage bonds with value instead of a sham bond based upon an empty pool with no money and no assets and no loans. Their allegation of damages is based upon the fact that despite the provisions of the pooling and servicing agreement, the prospectus and their reasonable expectations, that the closings were defective, the underwriting was defective and that there is no way to legally enforce the notes and mortgages, notwithstanding the fact that so many foreclosures have been allowed to proceed.

Call 520-405-1688 for customer service and you will get guidance on how to get help.

  1. Do we agree that creditors should be paid only once?
  2. Do we agree that pretending to borrow money for mortgages sand then using it at the race track is wrong?
  3. Do we agree that if the lender and the borrower sign two different documents each containing different terms, they don’t have a deal?
  4. Can we agree that if you were lending money you would want your name on the note and mortgage and not someone else’s?
  5. Can we agree that banks who loaned nothing and bought nothing should be worth nothing when the chips are counted in mortgage assets?


39 Responses

  1. im thinking the same, but isnt the IRS in on the almighty scam? youve heard the saying, “the wal lstreet way” god i hope not because isnt that how Capone was nailed. side note, i found a list of banks in the Caymans- and there they all are, so when the proverbial hits the fan im movng there.

  2. JG,

    You read Barofsky exactly right: banks who were willing to modify had to give up all the late fees and such. Foreclosing, on the other hand, allowed them to keep those fees piling.

    For the past 3 or 4 years, Bill Black has been claiming “Perverse incentives” for a reason: it has, all along, been perverted. Banks were rewarded for taking the house after having already collected insurance, bailout and stacking up fees while they were punished if they helped homeowners.

    You need to get Barofsky’s book.

  3. @enraged – I’m going to read your last comment carefully – I only read the beginning. But, at least purchase money loans in most if not all states are non-recourse, meaning the bankster gets what he gets from the f/c sale. I was hoping to get a list of (any) recourse v nonrecourse situations (refi? non-owner occupied?) state by state, but that’s a lot of work. What is recourse and what is non-recourse to me is very
    significant other than for the obvious reason. And I’m no expert even if I knew the situations regarding recourse v non-recourse. But, if a debt is non-recourse, and the bankster has gotten its recourse (f/c), the bankster has no right to a deficiency. If the bankster has no right, has it suffered a (deductible) loss, and if so, does it matter (why should they get a deduction?) since they knew this could happen going in; the non-recourse is mol one of the trades for non-j foreclosure (the borrower lost his right of redemption). If there is no RIGHT to a claim for deficiency, under what premise should the homeowner be taxed for debt “forgiveness”? It isn’t forgiven; any deficiency has been contractually and legally abandoned before it even existed.

    Oh my gosh! I just read all your comment and see we are on the same page. This can’t be first impression …there must be some cases with the IRS on point.

  4. NG had a post -yesterday, I think – including parts of an interview with Barofsky about dragging out and then denying HAMP mods.

    “The servicers could make more money doing that then by doing mortgage modifications. If they had done permanent mortgage modifications, the banks couldn’t have kept the late fees.”

    I’m reading this wrong, right? He doesn’t mean to say that a servicer which collects late fees during the ‘trial period’ has to abandon those late fees if the trial results in a modification? We care because if a servicer drags it out forstinkingever and then modifies, the servicer keeps the late fees during that time, I would think. So I can see why a rat b svcr would drag it out before modifying, but I don’t see the adv
    to dragging it out and then denying it for the reason I’m getting that
    Barofsky gave. UNLESS he has it right and the late fees are considered unearned during the mod period (and where, btw, is this provision, along with the mod right, to be found – svcing agreement / master scving agreement? – let’s see it). If Barofsky is correct, it presents such a patent conflict of interest as to be unconscionable. Agreements which are unconscionable are ((generally) not enforceable, like the free-for-all MERS’ dot with its unconscionable, false reliance inducement and the material non-disclosure(s) of the real m.o. of this outfit. Well, put it on the heap. I’ve already mentioned my beliefs (aka imo) about HAMP, but I’m gong to do it again:

    The party for whom a servicer purports to act is unknown.
    There is no evidence of the servicer’s authority to act for that other:
    the government turning over (carte blanche) funds to servicers is NOT evidence of a servicer’s authority.
    Loan modifications require a lending license or should.
    Loan modifications are subject to TILA (disclosure of amt financed, a.p.r., total of payments, late fee – i.e., a new REG Z form) if not RESPA. The amt of any balloon payment (which is a crock itself) must be calculated in the a.p.r. and would significantly impact the a.p.r.

    The old note should be marked (‘modified by such and such’?) and returned to the maker and a new note executed to take its place.
    The old dot should be reconveyed with a new one executed and recorded, the former at 10:00 and the latter at 10:01. The new
    dot should NOT be a MOM and the borrower should only agree that the new note and dot travel together and not thru MERS in any way, shape, or form, and that all assignments must be to (true) principal bens only and recorded by a time certain after execution.
    Any agency or poa to be relied on in regard to the rights of the principal / ben must be recorded prior to any agent / poa acts. The authority for any act of an agent or poa must be apparent. I actually believe this part about agents / poa’s is the law today.
    There should be a public registry of loan modifications.

    I’d be very interested in the details (i.e., paperwork) of actual “modifications” if anyone knows them. Surely someone here does?
    I have no doubt nothing is done in such an open manner in modifications because, if for no other reason, it would expose the whole securitization.

    When the gov forked over these HAMP and other funds to be used to assist homeowners, were these banksters even required to show
    an offsetting liability (the modifications) on their balance sheets or did they just, and were they allowed to just, take the billions (and prop up their already suspect net worths)? The answer to this question imo is or at least may be dispositive of the govt’s complicity in the matter.

  5. @Chas404 and Hman,

    I knew I had read something on it recently. Mark Stopa did write an extensive article that ex[plains why you’re off the hook.

    Here it is.

    Expiration of the Mortgage Debt Relief Act … Is it a Problem?

    Posted on August 14th, 2012 by Mark Stopa

    In recent weeks, many clients have asked that I share my views about the impending expiration of the Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007. It’s probably past time that I do so.

    To understand how this works, one has to first understand what a deficiency is. The best way to explain that is to give an example. Suppose the total amount you owe your bank is $300,000, but the house is worth only $125,000 when the bank forecloses. (Unfortunately, that type of ratio is common nowadays.) Many homeowners are willing to “walk away” from that house, and understandably so. Unfortunately, however, the law, at least in Florida, generally entitles the bank to pursue collection of the entire $300,000 that is owed to it, even though the house is worth just $125,000. The extra $175,000 – the difference between what is owed ($300,000) and what the house is worth ($125,000) – is called a deficiency.

    Many homeowners can accept that a foreclosure may happen at some point, but they don’t want to get foreclosed and still owe the bank money. They want the deficiency to be waived. Sometimes, banks are willing to do so, particularly if the homeowner consents to a foreclosure. That sounds great – the $175,000 owed is no longer owed! But here’s the problem. Even if the bank agrees that the homeowner doesn’t owe that $175,000, the Internal Revenue Service may treat that $175,000 as income. In the IRS’s eyes, forgiving $175,000 of debt is the same as that homeowner earning $175,000 in income, so that homeowner has to pay taxes on the $175,000. Depending on your tax bracket, that could necessitate a payment of $45,000 or more – a prohibitive amount for anyone, especially homeowners in foreclosure.

    To help the economy, our government passed a law (one of the few that has actually helped middle class America during foreclosure-gate) called the Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007. Basically, it says that when a bank forgives a deficiency on a homeowner’s primary residence, the debt forgiveness is not taxable. Hence, in my example above, if the bank is willing to waive the $175,000 deficiency, the homeowner doesn’t have to pay the $45,000 in taxes to the IRS.

    Sounds good, right? Well, here’s the problem there. The Act is set to expire at the end of 2012, and it’s unclear whether it will be extended. This has caused many homeowners to openly wonder:

    Should I try to get a deficiency waiver now, while the Mortgage Debt Relief Act is still in effect?

    I certainly see the logic in this. However, I generally think that concerns of these types are overplayed – not the sort of thing that should be driving a homeowner’s decision-making process with respect to his/her residence (generally speaking). Here’s why.

    First, the Act has been extended before, and I’d be surprised if it’s not extended again. Remember, this is an election year.

    Second, the Act only applies if we’re talking about a homeowner’s primary residence. So if we’re not talking about debt on your primary residence, the expiration of the Act does not affect you.

    Third, even if we’re talking about your primary residence and even if the Act is not extended, there’s another significant exception to a homeowner’s obligation to pay taxes upon a deficiency waiver – insolvency. If you’re insolvent, as defined by IRS Code, then you have no tax liability on any deficiency waiver. What does it mean to be “insolvent”? I’m no tax expert (and anyone in this situation should seek advice from an accountant). However, it’s simpler than it sounds – you’re insolvent when your total debts exceed the total fair market value of all of your assets. Yes, “assets” includes everything you own, but if we’re talking about someone facing foreclosure on their primary residence (which, by definition, we are) then many homeowners don’t have many assets, so they’ll fit the bill. Just think about it. Using my example, above, if your house is worth $125,000 and you owe $300,000 and you’re getting foreclosed on that house, you’d have to have at least $175,000 in other assets – without any other debts – not to be insolvent.

    For example, suppose you have no other debts and have $25,000 in the bank, $100,000 in IRAs and 401(k)s, two vehicles worth $20,000, and your furniture and all other personal property is worth $25,000. That would be far better than most homeowners I’ve encountered in this type of situation – most have many other debts (e.g. credit card debts) and not nearly that much in the way of assets. (Bear in mind, your personal property may be worth a lot to you, but the fair market value of the used possessions in your house is probably much less than you think.) Anyway, using those numbers, that’s $170,000 in assets, plus the $125,000 house, for a total of $295,000 – still less than the $300,000 in debts, so you’d still be insolvent, so you’d have no tax liability. Think about that – someone with no debt except the house and $170,000 in other assets is still deemed insolvent for purposes of owing taxes on the deficiency waiver.

    If you’re trying to figure out if you are insolvent, but aren’t sure because you don’t know how much you owe or what your house is worth, bear this in mind … the amount you owe is almost always greater than what you think. By the time the bank includes the bogus charges, costs, and fees they always include, plus 18% default interest, the amount owed is invariably higher than most homeowners realize. (Fortunately, this is one time where it pays to owe more, and the banks’ crooked inclusion of bogus charges actually helps.) As for what the house is worth, just go to – it typically provides a decent estimate.

    So if you’re insolvent, whether the Act is extended is irrelevant – you won’t owe taxes.

    Fourth, I’m going to share the way I’ve handled this situation on many occasions.

    Under the IRS Code, tax liability flows from a deficiency waiver because of debt forgiveness. The term “waiver” says it all – the bank is “waiving” its right to collect the deficiency, and by waiving the homeowner’s obligation to pay, the bank is forgiving the debt. That debt forgiveness is what creates tax liability under IRS Code. Deficiency waiver = debt forgiveness = tax liability.

    But what if there was no obligation to pay the deficiency in the first place? What if there was no entitlement to a deficiency at all? As I see it, if there’s no entitlement to a deficiency, then there’s no “waiver,” no debt forgiveness, and, hence, no tax liability. No deficiency waiver = no debt forgiveness = no tax liability.

    How is that possible? How could that be? It’s actually quite simple. Mortgage foreclosure cases – at least the ones in my office – are contested. We contest the amount of the debt and we challenge the bank’s entitlement to anything at all, much less the full amount sought. When we’re making these challenges, this can easily create a situation where the parties are willing to compromise – by entering a Final Judgment of Foreclosure, one which waives the deficiency. We consent to a foreclosure, and the bank agrees to waive the deficiency … everyone wins. Except I don’t call it a ”waiver,” as it’s not a “waiver.” Instead, I want that Final Judgment to say “Plaintiff is not entitled to a deficiency against any defendants.”

    The distinction may appear subtle, but I think it makes all the difference in the world. Think about it. If a Final Judgment says Plaintiff is “not entitled to a deficiency against any defendants,” then how could there be any tax liability? No entitlement to a deficiency = no debt forgiveness = no tax liability.

    How can this argument possibly fly? For me, it’s a compilation of factors. First, we are challenging the debt – both the amount owed and that creditor’s right to collect. The Final Judgment represents a compromise of that settlement. We don’t think we owed that bank anything, but to resolve the dispute, we’ll agree we owe the bank the house – but nothing else. When both sides agree that is all that was owed, and there was no deficiency, how can the IRS possibly disagree? In that same vein, if the court which presided over the dispute rules that the bank is not owed a deficiency, and the parties so agreed, how can the IRS possibly disagree?

    I suppose the IRS might disagree, and might try to pursue a claim for taxes. But guess what that means? In my view, that means they’d have to prove that XYZ Bank, as Trustee for the ABC Trust (or whatever alphabet soup trust was suing for foreclosure) was actually entitled to more money than the house was worth. After all, for the IRS to be owed anything, they’d have to prove debt forgiveness, which would require proof that the homeowner owed more to that plaintiff than the house was actually worth. Now, think about that for a minute … the banks themselves are having a miserable enough time as it is proving what they are owed. Do we really think the IRS is going to try to start proving what these banks were/are owed? I don’t. I’m certainly skeptical, anyway.

    If this sounds like a cheap lawyer trick, think about it like this … there are many, many instances (not just in foreclosure cases) where parties disagree about the amount owed. Reaching a compromise of that dispute is routinely encouraged … in many walks of life. I suppose it’s possible, but it’s hard for me to imagine that the IRS will start going behind an agreement of the parties, and a Final Judgment of a court, and take the position “even though the parties agreed and even though the court ruled there was no debt forgiveness, there actually was debt forgiveness, so you owe taxes.”

    Is this foolproof? Probably not. But do I like it? Absolutely.

    Fifth … if somehow all of that doesn’t work, there’s always bankruptcy.

    So there you have it, folks. Do I hope the Mortgage Debt Relief Act is extended another year (or more)? Yes. But even if it’s not extended, should everyone be petrified that they’ll owe a bunch of money to the IRS? I’d say no. Chances are, you’re either insolvent, can file bankruptcy, or can settle the dispute in a way that won’t create any tax consequences.

    Might I be wrong? Sure, maybe. Can this work out for 100% of the people reading this? Probably not. But what’s the alternative? In case you didn’t realize, it’s not exactly easy to get a bank on the phone to try to agree to a short sale (with a deficiency waiver), especially quickly. So don’t fret. There are ways around a deficiency short of owing the IRS a bunch of money.
    Mark Stopa

  6. interesting point enraged.

    are you speaking of when they file the 1099 later? owing the back taxes on forgiven debt is something that has us trapped in our homes. even if you wanted to short pay, short sale etc or move on cant because you get whopped by the IRS.

  7. @Hman,

    Did you fight in court and did you deny in different motions that you owed anything to the forecloser and were waiting to know who the actual trustee, trust, investors are? If I recall, either Barnes or Stopa had a long piece on that exact subject a few weeks ago.

    The reasoning went something like this: if the homeowner denied in court papers from the get go owing anything to the forecloser and he still ended up losing the house, since he objected owing anything to that entity, it becomes up to the IRS to investigate where the money originally came from. According to the author of that piece, IRS won’t and will be more than happy to cut you enormous slacks, especially if you fight them in court.

    The key is: did you fight it in court and are there documents confirming that your questioned ownership of the note?

  8. Good Morning,

    I’ve been reading IRS Rule 860 and my heads been spinning. Does anybody know which IRS regulation exactly states that the “Trust” is not/can not be the owner of the loans.

    The loan was canceled vacated voided derecognized -stripped from title ….does not exist . it was swapped out for the corpus paid in capital

    I’m struggling with FAS 140 under gaap?

    1099 C derecognition 1099 A abandoned claims …its called washing back assets msoliman


    ..But can the unsecured creditor take your home if it has a judgment?

    Your Homestead Protections

    “…When a creditor has a judgment it does allow for them to place a lien against your home. With a lien against your home the creditor can then foreclose against the property. The creditor will then sell the property. Out of those sales proceeds, the creditor then gets the dollar amount it was owed and the remaining amounts are given to you, the former homeowner.

    However, almost all states have what are commonly known as a homestead protection. If you live in a state with a homestead protection, the creditor is not allowed to have up to the amount listed in your state’s homestead statute, but the remaining amount of equity in the home is subject to collection by the creditor.

    For example, Nevada has a very generous homestead exemption: $550,000 of equity. (Texas has UNLIMITED homestead exemption! Lucky if you live in Texas…?!?) Therefore, if I have a home with a value of $300,000 my entire house is protected and the creditor cannot take it. The problem for many people is that the homestead exemption may be very paltry, with some states having exemptions as low as a few thousand dollars of equity! Check with your state’s laws to see how well this will protect you.

    With all this in mind, the answer to the question can a debt collector take my house is “it depends”. Be aware of your rights and state exemptions to be sure of your protections…”

  10. The American people need to get educated about this evil plan…the FEDSTERS are on the prowl and are trying to finish us off by using more deceptive lies to rob the American people into poverty….in reality ….they are openly committing more fraud….they are hiding behind their cohorts & minions ……their bank attorney network….and using more scams to rob the American people. Like the so called doctrine of conventional subrogation…its more fraud to deceive & rob us. If we accept their fixes for fraud with more fraud they will say that is our willing acceptance of Complete Communism….like Obamacare….fraudclosure, short sales, progressive taxation, the ongoing bailouts causing inflation, deflation., renting, food stamps…..they are using deceptive force to make it appear as if we are accepting Complete Communism as a fix for fraud…..if we refuse… these imposters are planning to impose the fraud of martial law to openly force Complete Communism….accept no fixes for fraud & vote out these IMPOSTERS….their claims of failure as progress….are in reality…nazism..they are using what we don’t know to create Complete Communism.. that is what they want…..TOTALITARIANISM …..

  11. From the article I linked:

    …The lender on his primary loan, Wells Fargo, offered him a series of trial loan modifications, including through the Obama administration’s signature program. But the bank repeatedly turned him down for permanent relief, he says. The documents of two-plus years of futile exchanges with Wells lie scattered across his kitchen counter. He is facing a September court date, on which he assumes the bank will take the property.

    “This fight, it’s such a detriment to my soul that it’s hard to explain,” he says. “You can’t imagine the stress, the anger and frustration that you go through. You’ve got hopes for your life and these people are putting them on hold. Fighting the bank, it’s like David and Goliath, only David doesn’t even have a stone.”

  12. @Hman

    Not sure if this helps you, but I got a tax form from my servicer (1099 A) after foreclosure and they have themselves (the servicer) listed as LENDER.
    They had previously answered my questions regarding “ownership” this way:
    “Your loan was pooled into (blah blah securitization trust), and we service it…”
    “…we have the right to foreclose on behalf of the securitization…”
    “…we service on behalf of the investor who owns your loan…”

    When I asked repeatedly for an accounting ledger of any money going to the “investor”, or the sec. trust, they would only send me accounting of my payments to them—and ignore the other questions regarding the MBS.

    I always wondered about the IRS situation, becuase it’s an outright lie when it says on my tax form that they are the LENDER.
    How do they get away with that?

  13. Good Morning,

    I’ve been reading IRS Rule 860 and my heads been spinning. Does anybody know which IRS regulation exactly states that the “Trust” is not/can not be the owner of the loans. I’m searching for the rule that states the remic can’t own the loans otherwise it would forefeit it’s favorable tax status.

    Also, call me dense. I’m struggling with FAS 140 under gap? Can anyone explain this simply. I know I’m supposed to obtain the general ledger somehow but how is this done? Do you request this from the servicer? Trustee? I’m confused. Thanks in advance for any info.

  14. “crimes against the public” if the attorney generals settlements arnt crimes against the public too….i dont know what is, that was a huge oppertunity to help their states recover. If the county recorders office used their noggin, that is also a huge oppertunity to help the state recover, if each state representatives did the job their were SUPPOSED to do then we will be moving forward and not sidewards, if we are moving at all in the right direction. I read and read from different sources and for every positive theres a negative. i guess its how its supposed to be until man makes the right choices. choice- one god, man can not serve the devil and love god, the choice is one or the other. i am glad that there are individuals fighting hard and i hope you all receive many blessings, and i know you will.

  15. Steve Nagy : CDS, Inc.

  16. If a Senior (retired) Judge is brought in on Foreclosure case (SJ trial), isn’t that a conflict?? Are all Judges retirement pensions (related to alleged MBS???)

    Should retired judges be recused from deciding these cases?

  17. @tresspass

    Your link doesn’t seem to be working…even with the (dot) replaced with a “period”.

  18. So the mortgage task force was not only real but are getting ready to take ‘civil actions’.
    Black’s Law 5th edition
    Civil action. Action brought to enforce, redress, or protect private rights. In general, all types of actions other than criminal proceedings.

    This is good news.
    In criminal proceedings people have to plea guilty or not guilty and then there is the trial and such. During those pleadings, they can spend a lot of money and get off with very little in fines, fees, etc.

    Criminal actions are crimes against the public, the one charged is brought to trial and found not guilty, or guilty and sentenced, and outlined in rules and codes of Criminal Procedures.

    A civil action where a wrongdoer is subject to a fine or penalty payable to the aggrieved party.

    Wrongdoer. One who commits an injury; (a tort-feasor). The term ordinarily imports an invasion of right to the damage of the party who suffers such invasion.

    Now we are getting somewhere.
    (notice they didn’t call it a person which is a corporation…they called it a wrongdoer and these are acts done by those that know better)

    This is what we’ve been waiting on
    I hope the judges who helped the wrongdoers and are also wrongdoers are not provided any immunity in their judicial capacity.

    Their first duty is to the state, and the state is the people, and if they don’t know how to rule on a real estate case they should have recused their self and allowed someone else to view the case, or act like the supreme court justices do, and reserve judgment until they can make a proper determination according to the rule of law.

    This is getting good.
    Game over. Our domestic terrorists, the ones who caused the evacuation of a building….someone’s gonna pay, and they will pay to those they harmed, not some state government who signed some agreement to let them off the hook

    That’s how I’m reading this, and that’s my reality for now.
    As it is written, so shall it be done.



    Thank you Barack and the Mortgage Task Force, I hope you are better than the mortgage settlement, and the OCC fake review.

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, a free and independent state, people, by Divine Right, in One’s own Right

  19. The best line we have been using is “Judge, if you were lending the money wouldn’t you want YOUR name on the note and mortgage?” Getting the wire transfer instructions often is the kiss of death for the banks because the originator of the wire transfer is not the payee and the instructions do not say that this is for benefit of the “originator.”

    …“certificate purchasers” are the banks themselves (security underwriters), and they only purchase a “pro-rata” share to a “pool” of cash flows —- that is all — they are NOT the mortgagee/creditor—the trust is assigned the loans from which the pass-through cash flows are derived—it is the DEPOSITOR (subsidiary), that owns the collections rights (they are not mortgage loans), and the Trust itself. The “certificate purchasers” (the bank security underwriters (another subsidiary) themselves) then repackage the certificates to “pro-rata” cash flows into CDOs that are marketed to security investors — who are also never the mortgagee/creditor. According to all PSAs — there must be a documented valid sale of the “loans”, with supporting Mortgage Schedule to the Depositor in order for any Trust to be valid. There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.”

    “…since the “loan” refinances (subprime/alt-a), and jumbo new purchases were non-compliant and non-performing manufactured defaults, no funding at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferred any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor” would provide to their correspondent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance origination was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspondent (originator). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.”

  20. In Illinois the County sells your property tax bill (the buyer pays the county for you). The buyer of your taxes can charge you intrest and late fees. After buying your tax bill for #3 years without any payment back from the homeowner the buyer of your tax bill can file a 1st lien and forclose on you and the bank. The bank only gets the proceeds over what the forcloser is owed plus fees. Soo Sad for the Banks! 🙁

  21. Enraged,
    no i am talking about property taxes and the property tax sale (lien) that would put the servicer/collection agency (dont call them banks) in 2nd position…..i am just understand the reasoning/thinking of them paying the property tax bill very quarter when they can pay it in full in 2 years and still have control of the house…..i just think there must another reason why they pay them each quarter (save interest, late fees ???)

  22. I have so much evidence to prove how I have been robbed of my home and my business (where my biz had lease on portion of property and interest in the property made nearly 2 yrs prior to BOA refinance) yet here in Northern California I can’t even find an attorney that will return a phone call. I have managed to get my cases to Federal Court but now my disabilities have been made worse by the stress and I am homeless since August 9 2012 when BofA/Freddie Mac/criminals raped my home of 27 yrs.
    Any attorneys that want to help. I’m not completely broke as most beleive when you tell them you’re disabled.

  23. Java,

    I’m afraid you’re getting confused between sales tax and property tax. Those a different. Sale tax, you pay when you sell. Real estate tax, you pay twice a year usually (monthly to the servicer with the mortgage if they are in escrow).

    Unpaid real estate tax keep piling up if they’re not paid. And they pile up with interest. The country has that lien on the property and they must be paid by the servicer if he tries to sell the house after foreclosing.

    Is it because I made a typo and wrote “deal with the sate (instead of state) on the back end”?

  24. Then what i dont gets is lets say tax sale is for $20,000 cant the bank in second position just pay 20k taxx lien and take the house and save the quarterly cash outflow? …..just trying to understand how best to find their weakness and beat the lying frauds

  25. @Hman, you are correct. 1st lien position makes the banks a 2nd position lien and a dischargeable debt in Bk ..(if you choose BK). Soo Sad 🙁 for the Banks! On the other hand a Homeowner who Owns the property should be paying their own taxes and not someone else who can come in and fc. Right? So sad 🙁 for the Banks! Cant get the tax lien and wont take’em (the homeowner) to court because they have to Prove Up … and the Homeowner wont take them to court because then the Homeowner has to Prove Up. Its an American Stand Off between Good vs Evil. 🙂

  26. @hman,

    Absolutely! The last thing any foreclosing servicer wants is to be on the hook for unpaid real estate taxes. Especially because they have priority over anything else. So, in the end, they either pay yearly and can sell the house as soon as they foreclose or they deal with the sate on the back end.

    Since it is one of those things they can’t avoid paying, they have that contract with Corelogic, a creation of the banks (look up who created it and how incorporated it is). Corelogic advances the funds and resolves that problem.

    Folks, appeal your real estate taxes, even if you haven’t paid your mortgage/escrow account in years. The bank’s money came out of your pocket. Get it back by any legal way you can. Appealing taxes is one of them and it yields a result immediately.

  27. It’s moving in the right direction. In a very short time, our representative elects will come to the realization that their job ain’t so secure after all. Cleaning up continues.

    Your morning jolt: Give home foreclosures their day in court, says Glenn Richardson

    10:22 am September 20, 2012, by jgalloway

    You knew that if former House speaker Glenn Richardson were to revive his political career, he would have to go where no Republican has gone before. And now he has.

    In a friendly 34-minute interview first posted at, Richardson – now looking to win a seat in the state Senate – discusses depression and his 2009 attempted suicide, transportation, ethics, and has some indirect criticism of the Legislature’s decision to change the terms of the HOPE scholarship.

    But the former speaker also said he’s ready to look at slowing down home foreclosures in Georgia by bringing the courts into the process. This is important, given that District 30 is a largely exurban district that has more than its share of zombie subdivisions – particularly in Paulding County, where Richardson lives.

    Four years into a massive housing crisis that has crippled the metro Atlanta economy, Richardson may be the first Republican legislative candidate to seriously raise the topic of giving beleaguered homeowners the right to take their cases to a judge. The discussion happens at about the 11:00 mark below:

    Says Richardson:

    ”There are people that are upside-down. Then there are people that are upside down and backwards. I’m upside down and backwards. Upside down just means you can’t sell your house for what it’s owed for. Upside down and backwards means you can’t sell your house for what’s owed, and you’re struggling to make your payments.

    “There are millions of people in this nation, hundreds of thousands in Georgia and this Senate district, that are struggling to make their house payments. I think that there are a couple things that we can do. I believe it may be time for the state to start looking at what I’ll call slowing down the mortgage foreclosure process. Georgia has non-judicial foreclosure…

    “As long as there were only a few foreclosures going on, the balance was good. But what’s happening is, every time these big mega-mortgage companies – I call them the Bank of Americas, the Well Fargos – every time they foreclose on a house that was worth [$200,000], they foreclose on it for [$70,000], and they sell it. The person’s house right beside it goes down in value, and then they can’t sell.

    “Wells Fargo, or Bank of America, or these big banking entities, they just gobble it up. Why do they gobble it up? Because they’ve got federal taxpayer backing them, because they’re too big to fail. So they just keep getting more money from the federal government, from me and you. They keep foreclosing on the people and destroying the market.

    “I think it’s time to slow it down, and I’m going to seriously look at putting a check on the foreclosure process in Georgia….We need to slow it down, or this market’s never going to recover. As long as the boat’s taking on water, we’re never going to get it to float….”

    At the tail end of the interview, Richardson – who was forced to resign in part because of an affair he had with an AGL lobbyist — comes to the topic of ethics. He promises to support a $100 cap on gifts from lobbyists to legislators.

    “People need to believe in their elected officials,” Richardson said. “My pledge is that I’ve learned from my mistakes. And every decision I make, I’m going to try to do something better for Georgia.”

    Three other Republicans are in the special primary for the Senate seat on Nov. 6: Mike Dugan of Carrollton, a general contractor; state Rep. Bill Hembree of Winson; and James Naughton, a business consultant from Carrollton.

    Earlier this month, in a cheeky campaign TV ad, U.S. Rep. John Barrow, the Democrat of Augusta, pointed to a bill that he had co-sponsored to cut the size of the federal government’s motor fleet.

    On Wednesday afternoon, House Republican leaders did Barrow — locked in a tough race against GOP challenger Lee Anderson — a great favor and brought the measure up for a vote. It passed on voice vote, over the objection of one Democrat, according to my AJC colleague Daniel Malloy in Washington.

  28. Javagold,

    I’ve been advised that the servicers pay your taxes because they don’t want a tax lien put on the property and be pushed out of first position.

  29. @Rabi…Agreed!

  30. Of course there is no legal definition of “originator”. The term is cut from whole cloth for the purpose of deception. The originator is the maker of the note. They (the gov’t and banks) don’t want people to know that issuing a promissory note is issuing money. They don’t want people to know the so-called loan is really a currency exchange . The notes of one maker (the FED) in exchange for the notes of another (you).

  31. Neil has been saying for years that investors and home owners have much in common. Go back to reading past posts. For he is a jolly good fella………!!!!!

  32. The best strategy is to deny and request discovery before the Turkeys have a chance to do anything… Knowledge is Power and it keeps you out of court… “Right Neil”? @Javagold. silly boy, They are paying your taxes via Corelodgic because You( the Property Owner) are not Paying the taxes and they plan to get the title and property back thru the Tax Sale. They do not want someone else buying it at a tax sale.. right?

  33. Why does the servicer/collection agency continue to pay the property taxes

  34. Where did my $100K hard cash deposit go?

  35. Does this inlcude Fannie and Freddie?

  36. YES!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: