Does the Trust Exist? Did it Ever Exist?

Based upon the latest info coming into us I have no doubt that in most cases there was no trust and that no court would find that there was a trust. There is no  trustor, beneficiary, funding, assets, bank accounts or even the appearance of being managed by the trust departments of banks whose trust departments fill multiple floors of their buildings. The trust was an excellent sham (even I fell for it for a long while) when in fact, nobody was moving the money through or even with reference to the trust or its “holders.”

I would challenge whether ASBC 1234-1 exists and therefore whether there could be holders. Despite your previous statutory requests for information there is no trail of MONEY in which the loan was originated with the ASBC name attached to it and no assignment where money was transferred. On the contrary, it appears as though they are claiming ownership by a trustee that was never funded and may never have actually been created where, for example, US Bank is a self appointed “trustee” with no duties, powers or obligations. Note that US Bank like Deutsch Bank does not administer this trust through its “trust department” indicating that there was nothing to exercise control over.

Also the PSA and the note do not state the same repayment terms. Hence, the basic ingredients of a written contract — offer, acceptance of the offer and consideration are all absent. That means there is a common law duty to repay, the terms of which might be that it is a demand loan, meaning the total is due now, but it is not secured by a mortgage — particularly in this case where you didn’t sign the mortgage.

The point needs to be made that the investors are suing US Bank in dozens of cases stating the same thing. That they have no way to enforce notes and mortgages with fatal defects, where the notes do not properly recite the terms of the actual money transaction, name the wrong payee, lender and beneficiary. The fact that the investors refuse to attempt to enforce what they contend, as we contend, instruments that are fatally defective is NOT a license for a stranger to the transaction to claim collection or mortgage enforcement rights.

The chain of participants in this sham securitization have failed to show a nexus between the money and the documents. Instead they have papered over the fatal defects with more defective, fabricated and forged documents. This in fact worked initially as the debtor was unaware of the reality of the transaction in which her name was being used by these chain participants in order to trade, sell and hedge the loan that they had neither funded nor purchased.

If they received money on these trades or sales, then they did so without accounting to this court or the investors as to their receipt, which would decrease the amount due to the creditor and hence decrease the amount due from the borrower — albeit with the possibility that that payors might have a common law contribution claim against the debtor that is also unsecured.

But these parties — AIG, AMBAC as insurers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and other counter-parties to credit default swaps, insurance, and federal purchase bailouts are suing the investment bank who received this money under false pretenses and failed to apply it against the loan balance.

Like the investor-lenders, they have concluded that they were defrauded by false origination claims, with fatally defective underwriting and fatally defective instruments, exacerbated in this case that the debtor never signed the deed of trust. finding that the debtor had not signed the deed of trust and that the deal was not yet complete, they intentionally forged a signature badly in a way that was easily perceived by the debtor and easily corroborated by the handwriting expert.

Like the investor-lenders they allege that there is no way for them to collect on this fake chain of documents from anyone other than the investment bank that sold them on the idea that the investment bank was the owner of the mortgage bonds and hence was the owner of fractional shares of the loans, when nothing could have been further from the truth. These cases are being settled with hundreds of millions of dollars in each suit corroborating the fact that the investment bank received money under false pretenses and failed to account for the money properly, to wit: that the loans might well have been paid in whole or in part but not reflected on any statements sent to the investor-lenders.

My information, especially where US bank is concerned is that there is no bank account, brokerage account or any other account held by “U.S. Bank as Trustee for ASBC” You are basically saying that they filed for the wrong creditors because they didn’t due their due diligence. Either another pool is the proper claimant or no pool is the claimant, in which case it would be up to the Master Service to provide a nexus between individual investor-lenders and this loan. They can’t do it because the funds were commingled in a single account with the “holders” of other pools who were similarly fooled. These investors thought they were getting a mortgage bond issued by a pool that owned loans or would have acquired them before the cutoff date and if acquired would have done so with the required signatures, delivery, payment, and assignment recordable and recorded in the county records.

84 Responses

  1. […] Read More…….. […]

  2. They don’t negotiate …they dictate…? I am not buying the argument that America is a Complete Communist country. However, it is obvious that is what they are trying to accomplish. It is true, many, but not all Americans believe their lies. I was listening to Thom Hartman tonight..what a commie…! He said Obama wants to “save ” the middle class..! How…by allowing the FED to create a welfare nation…? Hartman said the only way to “save ” the middle class is by “new social safety nets ” Deceptive huh….? The truth is….Obama wants RE-SOCIALISM….OF INSOLVENT DEBTS…..THAT BANKRUPTS THE PEOPLE AND THE “FIX ” FOR THAT IS COMPLETE COMMUNISM…The crooks will seize everything under the BIG LIE America is broke…when the truth is….THE FED CREDIT SYSTEM IS INSOLVENT…BECAUSE THEIR PERPS COMMITTED A QUADRILLION DOLLARS IN CREDIT DERIVATIVES FRAUD….VOTE OBAMA AND HIS KRONY KAPITALIST FRIENDS OUT AMERICA…!

  3. Dc….these notes were never securitized. That is the Origination Fraud. That is why that fraud created more fraud such as securities fraud..fraud in the sale of securities…counterfeiting of fraudulent securities, wire fraud, mail fraud, uttering of forged instruments..etc…all felonies because of the ORIGINATION FRAUD…

  4. Dc……you are really overreaching now… I did not disparage you..I questioned your accusatory statement that my statements are inflamatory and that I need to prove my statements….That is not my job, that is your job, and the readers job to check the facts. I have no need to be noticed. I do believe there is a need for full exposure about all of the cover ups for all of the fraud, lies and deception we have been told to believe our entire lives. The truth is, these things are no longer hidden and we need alot more honesty and a lot less b.s.

  5. if you don’t agree to negotiate with these crooks.

    they dont “negotiate”; not in good faith–they dictate–if you dont agree to the dictate they agree to something else—then do what they dictated in the 1st place–breach–sure but what does that do for you?

    if they offer to x y or z demand presenrtment—you are negotiating with yourself–because they may have real problems with trustee bank affidavit

    how to get release of mortgage ? quiet title—-how to get release on debt on securitized instrument–no way–not possible

    train off track—no way back on–no way to return to pre-debt status–absent somebody posting a bond

    no agreement is worth squat without a performance bond —they do not keep promises period

    if the big banks and treasury dont like that characterization—then they should restore some measure of integrity to the market for mortgages and notes and housing——who in his right mind would enter into a lending transaction now if they know they cant get free of the debt even if there is a cash payoff

  6. Shadowcat…..Appeal the notice of default turkeys…?! Are you saying that will work because they denied the loan mod..? Then what..? You will be right back in fraudclosure soon after if you don’t agree to negotiate with these crooks. The truth is…the loan mods were not approved because the mortgage was insolvent. They couldn’t collect enough money from us any longer to cover all of their fraudulent sales. I’m not signing or agreeing to allowing these crooks to pocket any more of my hard earned money. They have pocketed gazillions already and they still are.

  7. challenge the note —
    was allonge affixed to note–where did allonge come from–cant have allonge floating around with no attached note–fails proper indorsement test–no standing
    Adams v. Madison Realty & Dev., Inc., 853 F.2d 163, 169 (C.A.3d 1988).

    § 3-501. PRESENTMENT.
    •(a) “Presentment” means a demand made by or on behalf of a person entitled to enforce an instrument (i) to pay the instrument made to the drawee or a party obliged to pay the instrument or, in the case of a note or accepted draft payable at a bank, to the bank, or (ii) to accept a draft made to the drawee.

  8. I posted this on another topic – but I think it got lost – it was directed at a Shadowcat post but it is an open question to anyone who can explain to me what to look for in “wire information” for the start of my loan.
    @ Shadowcat RE: 6:53 post
    I have “incoming wire notification” info from my closing in 2005 Not sure how that info helps – SENDER – they list my “Lender” ORIGINATOR – they list me
    Allonge did not turn up until 2010 and I have noticed an intentional marker slash on the bar code on the copy of the Note – but I have seen 2 different versions of this – wierd

  9. under UCC you can also demand presentment of note–then they must allow examination and face trail of custody affs –as well as proof of indorsement authority

  10. See what happens to honest hard working folks who didnt want , didnt need and refused numerous loan mod and refi offers from BAC …. if they can not get your signature giving them the old loan/title or creating a new loan to replace the oldloan/title …. Well Then …… your dispolable. …. Appeal the notice of default .. before they tie you up in court! Turkeys!

  11. duplicated records of loan?

    seen it —

    appears servicer provides purported trustee with some data—but keeps a shadow account —trustee bank denies responsibility for any misleading info on investor records—theres an instance where its obvious the only group they deem lower than borrowers is dumb investors, pension funds–of course thats the same people isnt it?

  12. DC, … for several years Countrywide (and others) filed affidivits with the courts in Judicial States stating they owned the loan and had the right to default and fc… they filed LP on title. No release thru Mers giving CW title… not proof to the court of their claim of ownership. They could clean that up after fc. Those borrowers who paid current, reinstated or redeemed were left with tainted titles (2 claims of ownership with no releases from either party on title). But they were Greedy and CW said why spend money on recording the recording fees to fix it .. they will default again and we will get the house anyway. But what happens if the homeowner does not Re-Default? I’ll tell you … Years later BAC fka CW created the defaults ….. the one that strikes me the most was the borrower who recieved bills from BAC for the property taxes and the borrower did not pay them. BAC files notice of default on the in the amount of the taxes. Funny Thing Thou …. borrower had escrow and paid into it with P&I payments monthly. Why would BAC do That? Oh yeah … somebody would have to repay all the ins proceeds they recieved. BAC could not affford that…. so B of A absorbed BAC,.. as successor to BAC fka CW B of A NA is now exposed to those liabilites along with the homeowner ….. aka Toxic Assets. Toxic Assets are not in a Trust ….. Pools of something… but not a Trust!

  13. @ER
    Well—-whilst you are surfing–please keep in mind any proof of note cases—-the Countrywide case supposedly had some Ohio cases that would be useful–i know there are a gazillion cases where they talk about affidavits up front —–in context of standing —loosely refer to what appears to be chain of custody —and ownership–2 sets of criteria upon affidavit of employees with business records

    But I can find few cases that speak to the intricacies of UCC proofs by section where the note is purportedly produced albeit a magic note springing into being spontaneously.on a lawyers desk

    this is basic stolen note —similar to the implicatios that garfield is referencing of a single massed pool of notes controlled by one bank–no trusts —truth at last but not setting us free

  14. DCB,

    I don’t even want to consider anything other than my winning my case in federal court, one way or the other. Every single morning, I get up thi9nking; “Today is the day it all comes down crashing. It will be a good day, indeed!” And I spend the rest of the day looking for signs that it’s happening.

    Because i only look for those, those are the only ones I see. I don’t consider the alternative. For me, it doesn’t exist. That’s why i keep posting good things. Uplifting things. Like all the misery Chase is going through. All the homeowners’ wins i come across.

    There are enough angry, hopeless people out there. Don’t want to join them. Life’s too precious.

  15. @ER re current case progress in ohio

    Ill be cynical ER—Ohio is a swing state. If you wanted to keep federas off your back—would you be pushing cases or sitting on em–they arent dropping tem–

    After election they will redouble efforts. I think part of the Fed Reserve $$$ are going to provide stimuls to foreclose and get large fees for converting REO to RENTAL-REITs. They will be shovelling homes into that pool—in the nonjudicial states they will simply send you a notice to vacate–your loan now a lease and pay this much or get out in 60 days. The waivers will paper the walls. I hope they publish a form lease —probably net net—–who pays for repairs ?

    If repairs are necessary the new tenant will be liable for them—-that means the tenant must pay a deposit in efect of several thousands but be subject to termination at will if a sale turns up–maybe a bonus to get out—

    They really should do a swap program if something must give —Fed has decided that you must become a tenant? I guess is at least you stay in the home—maybe good for some—there would be a de facto write down —so why could they not have reduced principal to get to the same end. Easy answer –no fees there–and clear title out of federal reserve entity for purchasing and running MBS collections

    It seems a simple writedown would save a lot of money and grief. They do not want to encourage wider writedowns of performing loans–so in order to get house payment relief you must become a tenant—I reiterate –it all depends on repair .

  16. Thanks ER et al——please keep em coming.

    Huntington National Bank v. Brown, Case No. CV-09-702894),

    On authority of cases such as: CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY v MCCLELLAND, New York State Supreme Court dealing with routine proof of note issues common to this case;
    “This court recognizes the authority of Quicken Loans to physically transfer the mortgage and note to the plaintiff…”

    But MERS, not Central, employees made unsubstantiated statements about the disposition of the note which was presumed to exist;

    “Furthermore, Ms. Swayze’s affidavit makes no reference as to how MERS [AHMSI-here] obtained the physical note, nor does she reference when, if ever, Quicken Loans granted MERS any authority of the note it held in connection with the mortgage on 230 Natick Street, Staten Island, New York in order to effectuate the purported physical transfer of the mortgage and note.

    The foreclosing party must prove not only proper possession and ownership of the Note and the rights under it, but also intent of delivery, manner of delivery, and actual delivery of the mortgage instrument under Article 9 of the UCC. See In Re Veal case from the 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, see also Dec 7, 2011 … In the Cuyahoga County, Ohio case (Huntington National Bank v. Brown, Case No. CV-09-702894

    The formulaic proof of note in Central offers a guide as to acceptable compliance and requires affidavits—of

  17. “I would not want to be assignee or successor to “Fraud”… would you?”

    No but certain unscrupulous bottom-feeder offshore hedge fund operators would be shocked that you even made that comment. Their retort: well lady we are engaged in about 100 activities that you in your overly legalistic constitutional govt nation would call “fraudulent”

    if we could never do those arguably fraudulent things –wed never have made billionaire status–and theres more to be had so take it and shove it—worst thing that can happen is our lender attys get sanctions–and we investors dont like them much either–they cut into our cash flow —they will pay on our behalf–like the robosigners

  18. @SC
    Its fairly obvious that they double sold the notes to multiple serial trusts sponsored by a single private label. How do I KNOW —because the failure to file back to back trusts with unfiled misrepresented mortgage loan schedlues made it possible—and at least one Old American Home got a write up 2004 for doubling up on 4th quarter sales —it most likely was industry practice among those ilk.

    Only the servicer would know —–if it looked—-

    So somebody sat down and said this trust gets this–and that one gets those—-do they expect borrowers to believe that the cover up is not ongoing–that in about a year Fed Reserve has bought all the crap—including a bunch of redundant already claimed mortgages—anything not already collected–seized

    Wow –how would you like to have that long-missing note you left 5 years ago turn up in a collectors hands via Fed Reserve–establishing immunity and HDC under shelter rules

  19. Yeah the mods line 1 was release —-everything line 1 is a release –then paragraph 2 secrecy 6 different ways–

  20. @SC I think you have the essence of it—-only twist is how and why they use the RENTAL REITS to re-securitize REO —

  21. DCB,

    About that NY case (and I meant to say MSJ dismissed…), recall the Huntington v. Brown (OH) ruling:

    “MERS not being a payee on the note, it may not assign nor transfer the note.”

    So, it’s starting to move in a uniform direction. One case at a time, one state at a time. And by the way, contested cases in OH appear to be… dormant. Not much activity going on. As though servicers can’t be bothered right now spending money on cases they are having an increasingly difficult time winning.

    It’s all good! Disclosure in full blast!

  22. @ER
    Thanks for that MERS case——-i think it can be modified a bit for general guidance:

    Please comment on following
    “York State Supreme Court dealing with routine proof of note issues common to this case;
    “This court recognizes the authority of Quicken Loans to physically transfer the mortgage and note to the plaintiff…”

    But MERS, not Central, employees made unsubstantiated statements about the disposition of the note which was presumed to exist;

    “Furthermore, Ms. Swayze’s affidavit makes no reference as to how MERS [AHMSI-here] obtained the physical note, nor does she reference when, if ever, Quicken Loans granted MERS any authority of the note it held in connection with the mortgage on 230 Natick Street, Staten Island, New York in order to effectuate the purported physical transfer of the mortgage and note.

    The formulaic proof of note in Central offers a guide as to acceptable compliance and requires affidavits—of BANK TRUSTEE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES –followed by deposition if needed.

    My thought is if one does not do this–the debt is not released–live by the sword/law or die by it.

  23. I dont know about the rest of you folks, but I would not want to be assignee or successor to “Fraud”… would you? Especially if it were brought to my attention BEFORE legal action commensed. I’d drop my claim and leave the room with my tail between my legs and hope like hell the victims do not come after more than the house. Happy New Year! To New Beginnings ……

  24. @ER Thats an interesting case.
    “The plaintiff’s attorney states that the recording of this assignment was done to
    memorialize the physical transfer of the documents.”

    Basically it looks like the people claiming tey had the note in the bottom drawer werent credible to talk about it? Is that a correct reading please anyone?

    What does this court want to see?

    It appears to me that the note itself was never presented. Now these people have SAID they have the physical note. So now what if they walk into court waving it?

  25. You nailed it Enraged! ….. Impossible!

  26. What was that? ….. MERS never owned the Note, Oh Heavens…. Could that mean if they assigned/transferred/sold the Note without owning it ….. its a Fraud? What? You can not profit from a Fraud …… Really? WOW! I just thought you got fined. ~~Chuckles~~

  27. So, how much do you want to keep your mouth shut? Is a mod worth your silence?

    @Ivent: I hope you’re not fighting B of A. ‘Cuz if you are, you blew it…

    Monday, September 24, 2012
    Bank of America Offers Mods with a Gag Order to Buy Silence

    It’s hard to tell whether the situation described in an article the New Haven Register is very unusual, or just under the radar by design. But either way, it does not pass the smell test.

    The story is not as detailed as one would like, but in short form, a couple in West Haven, the Mandells, are facing foreclosure on a home they bought in 2000. George Mandell lost his job in 2010 and the couple tried getting a mod. They article report that they didn’t qualify for “certain modifications” yet later quotes Bank of America (their servicer; it’s not clear whether their loan is bank owned or securitized) saying that they made “several attempts” to assist them and they defaulted on past mods. Yet the article also says the Mandells haven’t made a payment since 2010 yet Bank of America says they have too much income to qualify for mods for customers “in need of assistance”. So it sounds as if basic facts are in dispute and the writer didn’t get to the bottom of it (for instance, did BofA offer past mods that the Mundells rejected, such as a catch-up mod that would have them paying more than their old mortgage amount for a period of time? That might square this circle).

    The real nugget of this situation is that the Mundells have taken to criticizing Bank of America on all sorts of social media, and it appears they’ve become enough of a nuisance that the bank offered a mod, with a gag order attached, or more accurately, the bank wants them to sign a gag order, with a mod provided as inducement. From the New Haven Register (hat tip Deontos):

    Bank of America offered the couple a chance to modify the loan on the Jones Street house they’ve owned for 10 years in order to make payments more manageable, but only with conditions that include essentially agreeing to a gag-order when it comes to the deal and the financial institution. That means keeping quiet about opinions of the bank on Facebook, blogs, websites and in the media, and taking down any existing postings — something that may be unexpected in a document relating to a financial matter.

    The Mandells rejected the settlement.

    “I cherish my rights to free speech,” George Mandell said. “We’re prepared to lose the house if we have to, but we’re going to fight it. We’re standing firm not just for ourselves, but hopefully for the rest of the people in the country. Because it’s gotta be cleaned up.”

    The Mandells say people across the country are being presented with offers like this one from Bank of America and worry some aren’t reading the fine print. They’ve called or written to just about every agency out there that oversees banks and consumer affairs, as well as politicians, and expect the bank to begin foreclosure proceedings on their home in the next few weeks.

    Bank of America’s comment is sufficiently convoluted so as to raise eyebrows:

    But the bank says the terms are offered only to people who do not qualify for extreme modifications and that the non-disparagement clause is not commonly offered.

    Huh? Are “the terms offered” the gag order? It appears so, since the last half of the sentence describes the non-disparagement clause as “offered” as opposed to “required”. Talk about double-speak. And what is an “extreme modification”? A hardship case? So they don’t seek to silence the really broke pains in the ass, only the ones with at least a little in the way of means?

    “Not commonly offered” still sounds a lot more common than the Charlotte bank would have you believe. Earlier in the article, it notes:

    The Arizona attorney general’s office had filed a lawsuit on mortgage-related matters against Bank of America and said the bank’s gag-order provision would prevent borrowers from speaking to investigators about their experiences, according to published reports.

    That would seem to suggest these non-disparagement clauses are common in Arizona, or at least common enough to interfere with enforcement. Yet the Bank of American spokeswoman, Jumana Bauwens, maintained that these gag orders are not part of loan modification offered to customers “in need of assistance”. There is no way of verifying the accuracy of that statement, since anyone who has signed the non-disparagement clause will not be able to discuss it. And if it is to be taken at face value, this means that BofA is offering mods to people just to shut them up. Tell me how that squares with their servicing obligations under their Pooling and Servicing Agreements.

    Even if this is just a one-off with some particularly loudmouthed borrowers (and the Arizona AG’s suit says probably not), this stinks. Even if the Mandells and the folks subject to gag orders in Arizona are crazies, it’s certain that some, if not all of these mods for silence deals are yet another rip-off of investors (as in it is highly improbable that they’d be “offered” only on bank-owned loans). And if this, contrary to Bank of America’s claims, is not all that unusual, it says that BofA has such deeply seated servicing problems that it prefers to bribe unhappy borrowers rather than clean up the rot. After all, if borrowers can’t talk to regulators about abuses they’ve suffered at the hands of Bank of America, those problems have effectively been expunged from the record.

  28. All this money being spent buying MBS each month is a crock of doodoo Its a way to transfer liability from the bank to the homeowner and taxpayer. They (the servicers) are refinancing old loans they screwed up and had to buy back. With all those waivers and liability releases signed by the borrowers, where the borrower is now responsible for those claims and then add a good valid lien on a bad title. Basically taking a bad loan..pushing the liabilities on the borrower, getting another lien and re-selling it to the taxpayers.

  29. ALL,

    Again, it is court-by-court, state-by-state. MJS dismissed. McClalland’s counter granted. Case dismissed w/o prejudice.

    Central Mtge. Co. v. McClelland

    [b]ecause MERS was never the lawful holder of the notes described and identified in the consolidation agreement, the corrected assignment of mortgage is a nullity, and MERS was without authority to assign the power to foreclose to the plaintiff.”

    The entire court decision can be found here.

  30. At the end of preceeding post was a paragraph –not mine–copied somewhere

  31. Subject:
    Sufficiency of holder claim upon challenge to meet standards of proof required by UCC:

    In a negotiate contract setting a clause that states homeowner demands that the ORIGINAL note be presented as a condition to technical dishonor. Unless its dishonored upon presentment theoretically the plaintiff lacks standing—the manner and timing of examination and surrender and acceptance of the note.

    This is where standing should be attacked 1st. If a person demands the plaintiff meet UCC presentment, if you are facing foreclosure especially —any time they are seeking anything in writing waiving rights such as to examine and evaluate the note’s status before your home is seized. This is a fundamental Due Process right. If a person does not follow this process they may be deemed to waive these valuable rights.

    Do you waive your right to determine a note is a forgery once they manage to hand it off to you months after seizing your property? Is the answer different If there has been substantial reliance by the crook—? Should the court enforce a note at the behest of an admitted thief?

    Technically the gyration must occur otherwise there will be reliance by an individual and the court will be defensive of his interest—the new REO-RENTAL REITs should not be immune –unless federal reserve is cleansing the notes to create holders in due course status for the rental reits–to cut off the lingering title issue of foreclosures undertaken by non-holders without presentment and surrender—

    The manner by which the transactions are achieved by the servicer –without surrender on notes–allows contingent liability by the borrower.
    The borrower does not have a closed transaction–hes not out of the woods—another debt collector with a note could turn up anytime.
    Would such a condition be compatable with a representation in an agreement that it is to resolve differences and achieve peace of mind? Any contract made under such circumstances of substantial failure of consideration becomes unenforceable in a just world.

    If the foreclosing bank says that the original promissory note had a clause waiving the right of presentment, I would demand to see the note as proof of that assertion. If the foreclosing entity cannot produce the original promissory note, how do we know what it says? Even if the court is convinced that the right of presentment was waived, that does not have anything to do with the other requirement of dishonor of the note in the hands of a PETE. Until such a dishonor occurs per §3-502, the underlying obligation is still suspended as an independent cause of action

  32. @dc.. the answer is YES!. When they merged (not sure about the BK ones thou) as assignee they aslo accapted the liabilities. That is what I have been trying to say all along …. that is why they pushed refis and loan mods …. liability releases and waivers.

  33. @ALL
    Let me propose a simple game: Share cases on a topic. The topic I propose at this time is cases that involve a note-holder claimant [ie plaintiff has alleged in some way its a holder] has to show proof of elements of indorsement or document authenticity?

    Ill start with an easy one: proof of indorsement fails if indorsements by detached allonge rather than on the document itself or upon attached allonges.

    Hypothetical case:
    note supposedly indorsed in blank at some point prior to negotiation by further indorsement by addition of the plaintiff’s name stamp upon bearer paper, —2 steps undated prior to 12/10—the actual date of indorsement determines authority of the signer a bankrupt in 2007.
    Does plaintiff have any duty to prove anything about that “document” ?

    I think this is a very important question that each person going through ANY transaction refi–mod-FC-DIL; any “deal” to be valid must involve the pwrson entitled to enforce mortgage–smoky in california, arizona, nv———-but law pretty much everywhere else.

    My case is Adams v. Madison Realty & Dev., Inc., 853 F.2d 163, 169 (C.A.3d 1988).

    I hope somebody else can add to this skinny pot.

  34. @dc … no its not filed. I forgot to mention MERS was recorded on title as Nominee. Heck No they are not going to file it. Mortgage never recorded with SEC and was never Securitized. It has never gone to Fannie or Freddie … this has been verified. The Warehouse Funding Line closed down the same week the loan was funded. Property was mortgage free when purchased from origional owner (via Family trust after he passed away). It was a full cash out to the owners trust, no existing mortgage to be paid off.

  35. @SC
    ” $149,000 in favor of broker as lender. Yet .. to date hundreds of refi offers on the “Broker* owned loan of 243,000 ”

    Let me restate facts I think you describe:
    promissory note alleged to exist in amt $243,000, and alleged “holder” is the “originator-lender” and also

    there is a recorded mortgage at $149,000

    So speculation is :
    there is an unrecorded mortgage which is good against the maker for the whole 243k———there is other debt added, they tack on the accrued underpaid interest on a negative amort. loan—one lump sum as much as 10% —carrying fees?

    is it filed? .

  36. …. Yeee Haaw! or was that Heeee Haaw? Dag gone it Enraged I’m roflmao … and I think I lost a marble.

  37. @dc you are onto something with the merging of the hands…. Makes me wonder what happened to those than never made it to any hands they were just there floating …. broker sold for almost double the principal amount of the note to a party (they dont recall who it was) …they do not keep records past 5 years. One set of public records show the Mortgage was recorded for $149,000 in favor of broker as lender. Yet .. to date hundreds of refi offers on the “Broker* owned loan of 243,000 .. law firms/refi offer fraudsters, everybody.. claiming they got the mortgage info from public records. (mortgage is a purchase loan … no refis or load mods) . Can you believe this broker (who funded thru closed warehouse line) is still in business and has vender operating under dba as them. We still have more house cleaning to do …….

  38. @DCB,

    Unfortunately, not yet. No public MSM (main street media) announcement. Then again, it took a few years for robo-signers to come out. LL was pretty fringe for a long time with its “No trust”, “no money in trusts”, “no PSA” theories and if you base everything on MSM announcing anything, not only will you have to wait for the fat lady to sing but hell will have to freeze over, the chickens will have to roost and… the cows will have to come home.

    In other words, pigs will be flying…

    You gotta love English language! 🙂

  39. @IVENT

    I debated whether to bother to reply—knowing it feeds your need to be noticed. Or will validate your charge for sucking up a targeted victims time–whichever the case may be.

    You have now disparaged me for no particular purpose–upon no particular set of disputed facts. And you have attacked my real name–and I have economic interests involved.

    You have wrongfully and wilfully caused damage to my reputation.

    If you are employed/contracted for this and related purposes, then your principal is also liable. There appears to be malicious intent if it does involve a principal.

    If you are simply a maladjusted psuedo-libertarian, I ask you to contemplate [pls dont attempt to answer] how you square this sort of publication of adverse statements harmful to someone upon undisputed facts with the 1st amendent?

    You are a distraction. You arent that good at it though—maybe you could be of benefit to the great world order by grabbing yourself a plastic trash bag and going out and pick it off the streets rather than sowing the garbage here.

  40. @dc. I got my printouts before that happened. And I am Happy I did.

  41. @neidermeyer, on September 24, 2012 at 7:40 am said:

    Neil ,

    ” if someone were in litigation against “WF as Trustee” and that person held wire instructions from the closing agent showing payment from a BAC table account via a fed sub (Mellon) and no involvement by the named (conduit/corridor only) “bank” and no assignments (although they claim to have a blank one somewhere , someplace , maybe .. if they can find it ..) …”

    ditto – except for the “litigation” …not yet…..forced to do this pro se (because no money) and motivated to do it anyway even if futile – I wish the right to due process to put it in the courts anyway…..and CA may really be futile…..wish to do it anyway…..wish Neil would give us specifically the discovery items exactly that need to be compelled – thinking serve it simultaneously with the complaint (have to be Plaintiff in non-judicial and burden of proof is on you….feel I have enough specific evidence though to compel discovery even if a CA judge doesn’t see it that way…..wish to file it anyway).

  42. hahaha .. Mr Know It All is here again! It first must stand before it can fly. Give Me a Break!

  43. Stop trying to be coy dc, It’s way to late in the game to act naive….The truth is…nothing you say is credible if you dont know who the WORLD BANK, THE IMF OR THE U.N. ARE….

  44. Why is my statement about the World Bank inflamatory if you are asking me who they are? You dont know who they are but you are accusing me of making inflamatory statements …?? Therefore, I doubt you dont know who they are. I doubt that you could have came this far without finding out who they are….. However, if that is the case then you folks better do your homework..

  45. @IVENT
    To whom did you address this message?
    “What fringe stuff? You are quite deceptively lying and stating A LIE…AS A MATTER OF FACT…THE TRUTH IS…. the FED was NEVER the title holder of record…BECAUSE OF THE ORIGINATION FRAUD…. I will not allow you to enter FICTION AS you can try and blur the line yet again between truth & fiction.”

  46. Years ago while tossing around the idea or using Federal Courts to our Advantage. We took the means test and the insolvancy test …. We all know failing tests is a Bad thing, definatly not anything to bragg about. Right? Those who failed the test had to file CH 13 (only debt is balance of mortgage less than 10% of mo income). Balance of mortgage paid in full in less than 36months when all disposable income was applied). Only 33% of CH13 succeded before the New BK laws and the disposable income percentage is a killer……. SET UP TO FAIL. What I am saying is Federal Courts and laws were not set up to protect everybody …. and were NOT an option for everyone. There are those left in the cracks … Noone signed up for a lawsuit wether in State or Federal Courts ….. The Plaintiff has the burden of proof …. if you file, you have the burden of proof. If the Servicer files they not only have the buren of proof but they have to swear to it under oath and prove up. If they Lie …. they will be wearing custom made uniforms for a long time to come. Makes those Forclosure Mill Attorneys Shake in the Boots! Its called an “American StandOff”…..

  47. Were the TBTF EVER AUDITED…? NO…How do you rob a nation of all of its wealth…? Distract from the truth and make the people believe the lie the people caused this…!

  48. What fringe stuff? You are quite deceptively lying and stating A LIE…AS A MATTER OF FACT…THE TRUTH IS…. the FED was NEVER the title holder of record…BECAUSE OF THE ORIGINATION FRAUD…. I will not allow you to enter FICTION AS you can try and blur the line yet again between truth & fiction.

  49. @SC —yes

  50. @ER re IVENT DITTO

  51. @ER
    The “fringe” stuff is far off-topic from my narrow perspective which is very much more focused on provable facts–hard enough. Stating fring stuff as you describe it may undermine one’s credibility as a witness as well. Ill say no more.

  52. The FED were never audited BEFORE the bailouts were PERMANENTLY INSTITUTED….The FED are obviously insolvent because they have received TRILLIONS IN U.S. TAXPAYER WEALTH AND PROPERTY AND THERE IS NO END IN SIGHT…The FED are simply committing acts of RICO because of the ORIGINATION FRAUD committed by their perps… by “buying back” debt their perps never held legal title to and rendered insolvent by committing a quadrillion dollars in investment fraud the FED are laundering insolvent debt created by their perps. They are also creating more insolvent debt that is very deceptively bankrupting the American people. That is criminal…AUDIT THEM…!

  53. No official announcements or news articles?

  54. @ER

    Im not disputing your assertion—-the stuff I saw on Maryland was not self-explanatory–to me anyway—i was hoping you had something more detailed

  55. @dc, state laws vary. The Mortgage/Security Instrument flow together. One is no good without the other. That is why the debts became unsecured and the loan mod refi scam went into full Force to get Liability and Release Waivers, Homestead Waivers etc… all while NEVER disclosing to the borrower/homeowner the Title has already been tained and they were modifying a unsecurted debt by getting your admission and signature for the collateral(titlelien), pretending to know nothing about it ……. while you sign away your life and release them from any liability of previous parties actions or Fraud, Damages etc…. now who are you gonna blame SUE for damages.. the defuct company that disappeared? They knew this years ago … why do you think they Changed the Bankrupty Laws and created the Means Test?

  56. DCB,

    If you’re referring to that UCC MD thing, I do have a link quoting all those facts and sending to the links I posted for Guest but… you’re an old-fashion guy very set in your ways and you don’t warm up to fringe easily.

    I read fringe quite a bit. Most of those guys sound very strange but… then again, so do Mitt, Newt, Cain, Lou Dobbs, O’Reilley and they are considered “normal”. So, I keep an open mind and tolerate that weirdness if it makes me think.

    Are you up for that “fringe” site? Or are you going to turn on me and call me names…?

  57. I should add the politicians pass the laws & tax loopholes for this giant foreign controlled Corp. They are the INSIDE JOB traitors & IMPOSTERS who allowed this robbery to happen by covering up for the foreignors who are hiding behind the scenes of the biggest hijacking and robbery of our wealth in history. These foreign investors don’t own us because not only did their perps never hold legal title to our property in the first place but, they sold them investments in things that never existed… The investors should be focusing on their perps….they screwed them by overselling them phony investments in things that not only never existed but, because of the ORIGINATION FRAUD, their perps NEVER held legal title to our properties in the first place.

  58. So best way to cleanse title is for Fed Reserve to buy up all MBS and close trusts–liquidate into its hands so it can take title for all the fractured interests that you describe—–merge them in its hands——then sell the cleansed stuff en masse to REO-rental REITS—that is what is happening in my guestimation

  59. Engrage: Great job. For quick verification, I suggest you always copy paste link to where you quote from. IRS agent of IMF and IMF fabricated out of fraud in 1944:

  60. if you have a link somewhere that describes the entire thing i might have an observation—????

  61. @Ivent,

    If you’re going to post anything inflammatory, the least you can do is quote your sources. As long as you just shoot off your mouth via posts, you have absolutely no credibility whatsoever and you’re wasting everyone’s time.

    I, for one, don’t read you. Know why? You’ve got nothing to teach me.

  62. The IMF is the WORLD BANK in disguise. So is the FED RESERVE and the so called private side of the GSE’s. They are simply investment fraudsters who pose as different entities but are all one massive Govt Corp who work in concert with each other to deceive the American people. How else would these Corps get away with paying virtually no tax to do business in America.. ? The truth is, they are all foreign controlled corps who write their own laws & tax loopholes to allow them to hide their true identity. Imagine is small business owners were afforded the same luxuries as these foreign IMPOSTERS…? We wouldn’t be here right now that’s for sure. There is always a method to their cover ups that involves making the American people believe the opposite of what the truth is…that they are American institutions…they are NOT…THEY ARE FOREIGN IMPOSTERS POSING AS AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS AND THEY ARE ONE GIANT GOVT CORP OF IMPOSTERS AND FRAUDSTERS.

    The intent to deceive is criminal in the U.S.A…

  63. @CARIE

    that is a nice write-up —-the inner workings of the purported trust structures. I dont recall you referring to waterfall but to clarify for others; the subordinate tranches of MBS were supposedly dedicated subpools of mortgage notes—- Loan GROUPS vs MBS CLASSES.

    The most senior tranche was backed by subprime loan GROUPs. These tranch MBS were sold to inside players that understood the nature of the priority—I found one with both far Easetern investors along with Bill Gates Foundation coming up on CUSIP.

    Subordinate tranches were often backed —superficially subject to the waterfall effect—by safe low LTV 30 year fixed rate mortgage notes. These were not high yield. They were not internaly credit supported —–the target market for these was pension funds. So lets just say the great philanthropist knowingly or unknowingly assisted in transferring value from pension fund investments in junior tranches to the benefit of his personal trust—-sure its charitable.

    The only thing I would say about your piece from a critical perspective is that it is overly sweaping—-and Im sure you know that——-the deals are riddled with opportunity for divergence. This outfit did things one way –another maybe a bit different. I continue to use the litmus test for evildoing—if they made material misrepresentations in SEC filings –there was probably a reason—the worst violation is failure to file loan schedules and also that issue was apparently so awful that SEC felt it had to remodel its site to conceal the misrepresentations.

    So I would focus efforts in seeking out fraud upon the non-filed trusts—-those also most in need of fake documentation to enforce notes to foreclose—-with the caveat that any real estate ever subjected to one of these mortgage liens is forever tainted–because the claiming servicers absolutely cannot discharge the debt or release the mortgage lien —both rights belong to unknown others.

    If there be doubt on this score–go get the original notes recovered by the borrowers and check the indorsements —the authenticity of te document–the authority of the signers at the time the indorsement was made—-of course very few supposed originals have been recovered–therefore those poor souls remain on the hook and their former homes are title damaged–only the noteholder can release the mortgage–a simple axiom

    who is the noteholder if no loan schedule list filed with SEC much less UCC Delaware, no trust came into being because no corpus–the securitizer is bankrupt? the trustee disavows accuracy of its records? etc Who is entitled to enforce the note and release the mortgage?

  64. Very interesting article.

    Sorry to be Off topic I have a question. Does anybody have or know where to find a copy of the 2008 MERS shareholder stock report? I read here sometime ago that somebody had a copy and it showed that MERS was only registered to conduct business in a handful of states.

    I’ve been unable to find it anywhere online.

    Thank you,

  65. Shadowcat says “the trusts were set up but …..they only held title.” The only trusts that were ever set up were used to deceive and commit fraud. The trusts were in fact an illusion…These banks NEVER HELD LEGAL TITLE because of the ORIGINATION FRAUD..IT SAYS RIGHT ON THE FORECLOSURE LIS PENDS….THE HOMEOWNER IS THE TITLE HOLDER OF RECORD….Yet the crooks still recorded on my public property records a bogus assignment of a dot from MERS to themselves nearly a year AFTER the foreclosure lis pends was recorded…They are simply very deceptive crooks.

  66. What about that? Again, i don’t draw any conclusion one way or the other. But i sure as hell will put a good spin on it: a lot of time and effort went into putting this together and it comes with quite a bit of supporting evidence (which i haven’t checked out yet. No time and still trying to make a living. Takes precedence over figuring out what’s what!)

    And if anything, it’s a pretty good conversation piece…

    Any comments?

    1. The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF.
    (Diversified Metal Products v.
    IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report
    94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization
    Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)

    2. The IMF is an Agency of the UN. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. Pg. 816)

    3. The U.S. Has not had a Treasury since 1921. (41 Stat. Ch.214 pg. 654)

    4. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF. (Presidential Documents Volume
    29-No.4 pg. 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-288)

    5. The United States does not have any employees because there is no
    longer a United States. No more
    reorganizations. After over 200 years of operating under bankruptcy its
    finally over. (Executive Order
    12803) Do not personate one of the creditors or share holders or you
    will go to Prison.18 U.S.C. 914

    6. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were
    never part of the United States
    government. Even though the ^US Government^ held shares of stock in the
    various Agencies. (U.S. V.
    Strang , 254 US 491, Lewis v. US, 680 F.2d, 1239)

    7. Social Security Numbers are issued by the UN through the IMF. The
    Application for a Social Security
    Number is the SS5 form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the
    SS5 not the Social Security
    Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who or what publishes
    them, the earlier SS5 forms state
    that they are Department of the Treasury forms. You can get a copy of
    the SS5 you filled out by sending
    form SSA-L996 to the SS Administration. (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B
    422.103 (b) (2) (2) Read the cites

    8. There are no Judicial courts in America and there has not been since
    1789. Judges do not enforce
    Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes.
    (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller
    v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)

    9. There have not been any Judges in America since 1789. There have just
    been Administrators. (FRC v.
    GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1Stat. 138-178)

    10. According to the GATT you must have a Social Security number. House
    Report (103-826)

    11. We have One World Government, One World Law and a One World Monetary
    System. (Get the Disks)

    12. The UN is a One World Super Government. (Get the Disks)

    13. No one on this planet has ever been free. This planet is a Slave
    Colony. There has always been a One
    World Government. It is just that now it is much better organized and
    has changed its name as of 1945 to
    the United Nations. (Get the Disks)

    14. New York City is defined in the Federal Regulations as the United
    Nations. Rudolph Gulliani stated on
    C-Span that “New York City was the capital of the World” and he was
    correct. (20 CFR chapter 111,
    subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2)

    15. Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust
    Fund. (Helvering v. Davis 301 US
    619, Steward Co. V. Davis 301 US 548.)

    16. Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF which is an
    Agency of the UN. (Look at it if
    you receive one. It should have written on the top left United States

    17. You own no property, slaves can^t own property. Read the Deed to the
    property that you think is
    yours. You are listed as a Tenant. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress
    1st Session)

    18. The most powerful court in America is not the United States Supreme
    Court but, the Supreme Court of
    Pennsylvania. (42 Pa.C.S.A. 502)

    19. The Revolutionary War was a fraud. See (22, 23 and 24)

    20. The King of England financially backed both sides of the
    Revolutionary war. (Treaty at Versailles July
    16, 1782, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80)

    21. You can not use the Constitution to defend yourself because you are
    not a party to it. (Padelford Fay
    & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of The City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438,

    22. America is a British Colony. (THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION,
    NOT LEAVE UNTIL 1796.) Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce
    8 Stat 116, The Society for
    Propagating the Gospel, &c. V. New Haven 8 Wheat 464, Treaty of Peace
    8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209,
    Articles of Association October 20, 1774.)

    23. Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213)

    24. The Pope can abolish any law in the United States. (Elements of
    Ecclesiastical Law Vol.1 53-54)

    25. A 1040 form is for tribute paid to Britain. (IRS Publication 6209)

    26. The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of
    conquest and discovery. (Papal Bulls of
    1455 and 1493)

    27. The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of
    people.(Papal Bulls of 1455 and

    28. The Popes laws are obligatory on everyone. (Bened. XIV., De Syn.
    Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4. Prati,
    1844)(Syllabus, prop 28, 29, 44)

    29. We are slaves and own absolutely nothing not even what we think are
    our children.(Tillman v. Roberts
    108 So. 62, Van Koten v. Van Koten 154 N.E. 146, Senate Document 43 &
    73rd Congress 1st Session,
    Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481)

    30. Military Dictator George Washington divided the States (Estates)
    into Districts. (Messages and
    papers of the Presidents Vo 1, pg 99. Websters 1828 dictionary for
    definition of Estate.)

    31.^ The People^ does not include you and me. (Barron v. Mayor & City
    Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243)

    32. The United States Government was not founded upon Christianity.
    (Treaty of Tripoli 8 Stat 154.)

    33. It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to
    protect the Corporation and arrest code
    breakers. Sapp v. Tallahasee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of
    Philadelphia, 477 F.Supp. 1262, Lynch v.
    N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.

    34. Everything in the ^United States^ is For Sale: roads, bridges,
    schools, hospitals, water, prisons airports
    etc. I wonder who bought Klamath lake. Did anyone take the time to
    check? (Executive Order 12803)

    35. We are Human capital. (Executive Order 13037)

    36. The UN has financed the operations of the United States government
    for over 50 years and now owns
    every man, women and child in America. The UN also holds all of the Land
    in America in Fee Simple. (Get
    the Disks for the Essay and Documents.)

    37. The good news is we don^t have to fulfill ^our^ fictitious
    obligations. You can discharge a fictitious
    obligation with another^s fictitious obligation. (Get the Disks)

    38. The depression and World War II were a total farce. The United
    States and various other companies
    were making loans to others all over the World during the Depression.
    The building of Germanys
    infrastructure in the 1930^s including the Railroads was financed by the
    United States. That way those
    who call themselves ^Kings,^ ^Prime Ministers,^ and ^Furor.^etc could
    sit back and play a game of chess
    using real people. Think of all of the Americans, Germans etc. who gave
    their lives thinking they were
    defending their Countries which didn^t even exist. The millions of
    innocent people who died for nothing.
    Isn^t it obvious why Switzerland is never involved in these fiascoes?
    That is where the ^Bank of
    International Settlements^is located.Wars are manufactured to keep your
    eye off the ball. You have to
    have an enemy to keep the illusion of ^Government^ in place. (Get the
    Disks and see the Documents for

    39. The “United States” did not declare Independence from Great Britian
    or King George. (Get the Disks
    for Documents and Essay.)

    40. Guess who owns the UN?

  67. DCB,

    Nope. The two other links are posted here to Guest and I can’t really check the actual filings (don’t want to spend $1 for each).

    Anonymous was going to check that but hasn’t gotten back to me on it yet. If anyone can dig into it, it would be Anon…

  68. @ER
    I know nothing about this lien–do you have a link somewhere? other than this maryland thing?

  69. Deborah,

    You bet I’ll stay positive!

    The way i see it is really simple: either Gawd created us and we are his kids, all of us. Or we were genetically manufactured by the little green guys. I don’t know, i wasn’t there when it happened and I have never seen either. All i know is that we didn’t just appear out of nowhere and there’s that little matter of the “missing link” and our human DNA being only 95 to 98 5 related to primates. What’s with the other 2 to 5%?

    In any event, if we are Gawd’s or little green guys’ kids, neither will let us down. Would you let your kids down? Of course not! Why would they? Why would anyone create something and tear it down or allow it to self-destruct? Makes absolutely no sense. If it makes no sense, it can’t be true.

    Call me naive… I’d rather be naive and optimistic than an all-doom-and-gloom, despondent realist! 🙂

  70. Guest,

    I didn’t want this to be blocked. So, once you get to that link I just posted, click on this one:
    Where you can enter the file number : 0000000181425776
    then click Search (Current) then click on View Document.
    Looks pretty legit to me.

  71. @guest,

    For those interested in verfication :
    Here is the official MD gov page for UCC info :

    Acknowledgement Filing Type Date Film Folio Pages
    1000362002066027 PF-ORIG FIN STM 07/28/2011 5
    1000362002066696 ASSIGNMENT 07/28/2011 2
    1000362002135657 DEBTOR ADDED 08/12/2011 2
    Shows amount going up from $14t to $14.3T plus all men and real estate are collateral.

  72. @enraged. Upbeat as usual that’s great
    We create our own reality stay positive it’s a wonderful quality and spreads like ripples on the ocean and keeps the devil behind you .

  73. Engrage: do you have link to $14 trillion IRS lien (ie: Rockefeller lien) on the FED?? (at minute 9)

  74. The Trusts were set up … but they only held title. They never recieved the notes. Title went one direction while the notes went the other. The Security is of no value to the Trust without the Notes. So Along comes the big bad Greedy wolf and claims it holds the note and is entitled to the security. It reaps profits in mass portion then it trys to dump the note back into the trust after default via forclosure. While the banks rolled in dough .. the homeowners got left with a Non-Marketable titles and the investor get left with the losses. years later when the homeowners went to market the home ….. well”… I think you get my point. What a Mess!

  75. DCB,

    Someone has brought up a very interesting point about that lien:

    If you look at it, it names the IRS and North American Water and Power as assignors and the feds as assignee.

    Might it be conceivable that the feds money is going to be confiscated and invested in a huge water-energy redevelopment plan for the North American continent? That would take care of a few systemic and endemic problems this country has by:
    1) cleaning up the country;
    2) developing all the alternative energy discovered by Tessla in the early 1900s (and occulted when JP Morgan told him: “If we can’t put a meter on it, it will never see the light of day!”)
    3) giving work to everyone in this country!

    What say you?

  76. No, Neil—not “investor-lenders”:

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

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

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

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

    12) Back to #1 — why the assignment to the purchasing bank is never apparent — because in real securitization, the asset/liability balance sheet receivables are removed from the balance sheet to an off-balance sheet conduit (such as a REMIC). BUT, THE SUBPRIME WAS NOT REAL MORTGAGES, THEY WERE GSE CHARGE OFFS, WITH ONLY COLLECTION RIGHTS SURVIVING. Collection rights are not reported as “receivables” on an asset balance sheet. Any pass-through of cash is considered income, not collection of receivables (you can not have receivables when the loan was previously charged-off). Thus, the subprime REMICs were never “true sales” of anything. They were not legitimate balance sheet transfers.

    13) Many of the original tranches to the bogus REMICs have been paid off. At the very least, by the TILA amendment, the remaining certificate holders to the REMICs could be considered your creditor (remember there are only about 15 tranches to begin with). Creditor is NOT the derivative security investors. According to the Fed Res Opinion to the TILA Amendment, when there are multiple creditors, the creditor who holds the largest percentage interest in the loan, must identify itself to the borrower. Thus, the tranche holder with the largest position in your loan — should be identified. This is not happening — foreclosures continue under the bogus name of the trustee to the trust. Again, and again, security investors, trusts, trustees, and servicers are not the creditor. And, Neil is on bad track when he starts saying that “security investors” funded the loan. This is in gross error, and has caused more harm than good.

    Security investors were chasing high yields — they expected the subprime borrowers to fund their pensions. I find outrage in this. Interest rates on these loans could go as high as what one might consider “usury.” And, the further outrage is that the properties that funded the bogus subprime were inflated to make these bogus loans higher and higher — which would generate more and higher cash flows. The fact the government still has done nothing to help these victims is the final OUTRAGE…”

  77. The trusts are a work of fiction without the legal assignment. The non recordation of the legal assignment is the case ending fatal flaw in every mortgage because that one fraudulent act hid the Origination Fraud and allowed Wall Street to hide massive overselling of fraudulent investments on property they never held legal title to. That act of non recordation is precisely how they rendered all mortgages insolvent. There is no legal or monetary fix for the ORIGINATION FRAUD. The FED are simply committing acts of RICO by dealing insolvent mortgages they never held legal title to. By doing this they are also creating more debt and bankrupting the people. The Government is criminal for bailing them out with our wealth without auditing them first.

  78. DCB,

    You haven’t commented on that $14 trillion lien filed by the IRS against the feds in 2011 and amended on 9/17/2012. I asked a few money people what they make of it and other than “That means we’re in a much bigger doodoo than we are led to believe (as in: “I don’t have a clue either but because I am supposed to know something you don’t, I’ll play the doom-and-gloom card to scare you (which doesn’t work on me)”, I can’t get a straight answer.

    It appears completely legit. Don’t know why they filed in Maryland against the feds of Washington DC. Don’t know what that means in the big (biiiiig!) scheme of things such as Eurozone, BRICS, fiat money and the planet, don’t know if it’s even anything to write home about.

    Whaddya make of it?

  79. The “trust” vs joint venture pool –is fairly easily demonstrated by examining the SEC filings for the trust offering. They always represent that mortgage loan schedules were filed–often 2-3 times as exhibits. The PSA etc will also represent that a financing statement UCC Art 9 filing was made of a mortgage loan schedule as well.

    The SEC rules required the eletronic filing of the mortgage loan schedules, but by hook or crook [literally] the nastiest now bankrupt private label originator-securitizers got special permission to file these massive lists as excell printouts that were then scanned as PDFs and placed on the SEC site—if the file was large the actual printout was there. If the file was small –you could go to the description on Edgar and it would be a single header page —-“Mortgage Loan schedule” then blank.

    The SEC had the filed and unfiled manual schedules on their site until early 2010–after the case that turned up the robosigning mess also raised the SEC role in allowing registrations to proceed without complete filings—-SEC took the actual compliant manual filings off-line –available by request [FOIA?] now—thus one can no longer examine the manually filed trusts to determine if the schedule is there or not. That stopped people from referring to the issue upon judicially noticed facts on SEC filings–useful for motion to dismiss.

    all investors and homeowners owe a heearty thanks to SEC for actively covering up this obvious fraud.upon them. Great going SEC !!!Must be nice to get a federal pension where you dont have to worry about investment losses.

  80. @ Indio007,

    On this site, we’ve been running in all directions, trying to cover everything, getting confused, wasting in credible amounts of time and energy trying to understand something no one, not even the feds, the banks, congress or government understands. Even economists can’t agree on what, where, when, how and who. Who are we, little people with no financial background other than what our parents taught us, to try and top that?

    If you’re an investor and lost all your savings, sue. If you’re a homeowner and can’t pay your mortgage, sue. If you’re both, stop paying your mortgage and sue on both counts. Invest what you’re not giving servicers into your future. And live today as though it were the last day of your life! Enjoy today, please yourself.

    It can’t be any worse than sitting before the screen and straining your eyes and your brain trying to wrap yourself around that gigantic problem you never created in the first place. Force TPTB to take action by removing your money from it all. Stop being enablers and active participants into that humongous fraud. Repeat to yourself over and over: “No more!”. Let them figure it out. Too big for us. Not our doing. Not our problem.

  81. That’s why it is called a “Mortgage”. It’s a Dead Pledge. Not worth the paper it was written on.

  82. Neil ,

    I agree with this post 100% , if someone were in litigation against “WF as Trustee” and that person held wire instructions from the closing agent showing payment from a BAC table account via a fed sub (Mellon) and no involvement by the named (conduit/corridor only) “bank” and no assignments (although they claim to have a blank one somewhere , someplace , maybe .. if they can find it ..) … Could you get a dismissal with prejudice in Florida? I’m stuck in a waiting game ,, any move by plaintiff will get me discovery… I’ve won the early rounds. How do you telegraph this to plaintiffs counsel and force closure. My lawyers REALLY want discovery (they’re in Ft. Lauderdale , near you!) , and I would like to see them get it.. If you have any ideas on strategy I would like to hear it ,, you know how to reach me.

    Thanks for all you do..

  83. “But these parties — AIG, AMBAC as insurers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and other counter-parties to credit default swaps, insurance, and federal purchase bailouts are suing the investment bank who received this money under false pretenses and failed to apply it against the loan balance.

    Like the investor-lenders, they have concluded that they were defrauded by false origination claims, with fatally defective underwriting and fatally defective instruments,…”

    It’s not over until the fat lady sings, they say. When she does, indeed, start singing, I can predict that she ain’t gonna shut up for a while. It’s gonna be painful for a few but, on my end, it’s gonna feel soooooo good!

    Guys, if you decide to sue your servicer while there still is time and they still have a few buck (what, with that 2011 IRS lien for $14 trillions against the federal reserve, amended of 9/17/2012 and all), stop paying your mortgage and sit and wait, I can guaranty you that nothing!, absolutely not a thing! will happen in your case. Except that you’ll be protected against foreclosure.

    Sue the servicer for every violation and unjust enrichment, throw in negligence hiring, negligent supervision, negligent training and formation, add a breach of contract (of course, in addition to the Tila Respa, FDCPA and such) stop paying and sit tight.

    Servicer ain’t gonna counterclaim in foreclosure. Not anymore. or if servicer does, there won’t be any activity in your case. None. Nada. Zippo. You can enjoy the house and spend a few buck you’re saving treating yourself. Take a vacation. Do something nice for yourself. Love yourself and decide: No more!!!

    And DCB…? There is nothing immoral about that. The money does not exist, is gone, never existed, blah blah, blah. Who are you defrauding by not paying? No one! It’s already gone!!!

  84. It’s logically obvious all these MBS were not created with investor funds. If they were preexisting money would have been used to fund them. When know this isn’t the case because the money supply was inflated during the bubble. That means the FED created the money to fund the transaction via the discount window. The better question is, “What happened to the investors money?”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: