Deny and Discover Getting Increasing Traction

To schedule a telephone conference with Neil in any state except Florida you need an attorney on the line who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which the property is located. The conference is recorded and sent to the lawyer and client. Schedule Your Conference Today!

The strategy is simple. Whatever can be denied with any colorable basis for the denial should be denied. That puts the burden on the other side to authenticate and validate the transactions upon which they are relying to foreclose. None of the foreclosers have competent witnesses to even provide foundation for the note and mortgage much less the assignments etc.

Followed by persistent discovery requests and motions to compel discovery as to the money trail, it is leading to settlement or abandonment of the foreclosure cases. I only have one case in which the other side attacked with a motion for frivolous pleading that is itself frivolous.

In other cases, we are getting reports of a surge in settled, modified or mediated cases with a beneficial result to homeowners, and one where it looks like 8 out of the 9 parties making claims are offering to execute documents in recordable form stating they have no interest in the note or mortgage, which makes it difficult for anyone to say they got the loan from any of these people.

I think we hit the Achilles heal of this whole scam. The money just never tracked any of the documents that were used to squeeze money from investors and the money just doesn’t track the documents signed by the borrower. The banks have been very adept at moving the goal post around, but I think we are closing in on them.

I must admit that even I was fooled by some of the moving shells. But eventually when I looked long and hard at the money, at the insistence of Dan Edstrom our senior securitization analyst, I finally got what he was talking about. Money continued to be paid to the investor lenders AFTER the declaration of default which obviously means there was no default. Between closing and the time when the documents were finally “assigned” to the pool, it was an offer of assignment that could not be accepted.

The investors were owed the money, but since the money was not sent thorough the pools no financial transaction supports any of the paperwork from top to bottom. The Banks were successful at papering over the defects for years — successfully stealing money in what can only be defined as a PONZI scheme.

With no money due to the forecloser and the creditor not stepping forward to try to collect because, (as they say in their lawsuits against the investment bankers) both the note and mortgage are defective nonnegotiable instruments that were not either underwritten nor assigned as per the requirements of the PSA, Prospectus, promissory note signed by the borrower or mortgage (deed of trust) signed by the borrower.

It is an intersection of the same conclusion coming from two angles: both the lender and the borrower agree that the encumbrance on the property was never valid. Both agree that there is no mortgage or deed of trust to enforce, and both agree that the recording of the encumbrance was a sham.

By demanding a look at the actual money transfers and accounting entries it is obvious that none of the parties who are foreclosing or supporting the effort to foreclose ever had a loan receivable from the borrower. Considering the $17 trillion given by the Federal government, the original obligations should be wiped out, the mortgage or other recorded instruments from these con artists should be removed, and the banks should be forced to pay back the money they received from investors.

Nobody gets a free ride and the government retrieves some of our tax dollars from the homeowners and some from the banks. The homeowners get a windfall that is taxable and should be subject to an installment payment for the income taxes they owe on their luck at getting rid of a debt. The government receives hundreds of billions of dollars or even trillions over time fixing the deficit and the banks who are reporting assets on their balance sheet that don’t exist should get resolved just like we did in the 1980’s in the savings and loan scandal.

Become a supporting member of this blog: SUBSCRIBE NOW!

298 Responses

  1. are victims of FED bosses & bank bosses who were born & bred with oath to: & against everyone else

  2. Kudlow saying the FEDs asked JPM to bailout Bear Stearns and the failure of Lehman proves investment banks shouldn’t be left to fail. What a bunch of b.s.. The truth is…JPM are not heroes. They were no doubt involved with Bear Stearns mortgage fraud. All of the Big Banks were handing these investment banks those chopped up notes to oversell. Kudlow is pointing the finger at the Obama & Geithner connection. Kudlow said Geithner was the head of Treasury during this (dirty) deal. So it seems Kudlow thinks this is political, not criminal and blames Geithner/Obama… The truth is clear, the bailouts were a cover up for massive criminality by the banks via Wall Street and none of these crooks should have been bailed out.

  3. LOL DC…the banks owe an estimated quadrillion in credit derivatives fraud. They sold investments in so many fictions they can never balance their balance sheets in who knows how many lifetimes…no matter how much they steal…AIG has been insolvent since who knows when. On a weird note…CNBC’S LARRY KUDLOW saying the “LEFT WING ” AG’s are on a “witch hunt” because the NY STATE AG IS SUEING JP MORGAN FOR MORTGAGE FRAUD….KUDLOW SAYS THE BANKS SHOULD MOVE OUT OF NYC….! WOW…

  4. dc…. I will tell you what else they did which is pure fascism…if you had your own business and it was time to steal it and they couldn’t put you under by pulling your credit lines…they doubled your property taxes…..then that for sure put your business property & your home in most cases in fraudclosure. As I have said before, everyone, every single American needs to do their part. Because if you think your safe you are not. That goes for the 47% that Romney speaks of as well. This is no time for complacency.

  5. The loans were made to default at a predictable time–3-5 yrs out—the worst loans were at the 1st tier of the trust—-the 1st tier of assets in the trst/pool aka “Group 1” loans …………….the entire group collapsed into default as the triggers for reset kicked in, these notes were characterizable usually by: aggressive originator in house appraisals, negative amortization 4 option ARMs. Teasers that prematurely disappear and forcibly shove the borrower into subprime–ie negative amortization. Etc—-one sided predatory originations

    the pre-timed failure of the individual loans caused the collapse of the 1st tier of the trusts. then the cash flow received from Group 2 loans etc startes to flow to the MBS investors in the senior tier Class I MBS–nominally backed by the failed Goup 1 loans. Thus money shifted from each upper tier to pay investors in the predatory tier–it would be ironic if it had not been planned. The only investors truly guaranteed were those that invested in the nominally crap-backed but senior securities.

    The entire trust priority structure began to collapse slowly–MBS holders –pension funds etc —were forced to sell the higher tier securities once it became clear the cash was to “waterfall” away from pmt to the pensioners. Vultures —offshore hedge funds–notably Wilbur Ross & company —were out buying at gleefully low prices.

    Now if I understand Fed policy–it is buying these sorts of securities up @ $40 billion per month for 18 months? The question is if someone like Ross paid say 15 Cents/dollar face of the securities–Will Feds pay $1.00? He wants more than 15 cents for sure and so entitled—-but where is the next value point in a thin non-traded market? $1.00?

    It is a good thing they are’nt using taxpayer-collections—Congress would get blamed—-but everybody loves the Fed to print money to push off the ills of the world. Freeze social security—and inflate the currency–ie devalue the currency till the books balance again?

  6. Sheila Bair on CNBC said…”These loans were made to default.” …….
    More on Hank Paulson….

  7. Nora…..calm down…it’s all fraud. You are only an ignoramous if you believe their lies and keep complying, conforming and cooperating with fraud….. Rick Santelli of CNBC said the GSE’s are going to start lending more (of their lousy credit…and borrowing more U.S. TAXPAYER MONEY)….Mr. Santelli said they need to be arrested…& the bankers too…he said the only reason Hank Paulson can’t be arrested is because he was indemnified…? I will have to look into that one. Anyway…APPLAUSE…for Mr. Santelli for again clearing the air of the pestillence …

  8. People who sit silent and do nothing are complicit in the entire meltdown. In my humble opinion. They need not to scream later, as it will fall on deaf ears.

  9. The law, in fact, comes down to a few simple facts. You don’t steal from anyone, you don’t harm anyone or their property, and you don’t take away what is not yours by illegal measures. This is precisely what they are doing to all of us. As freedom loving Americans, we need to educate ourselves and others. We The People cannot allow this robbery to continue by continuing to cooperate, comply & conform with fraud.

  10. I remember Obama remarking one day, a while back…Why aren’t we cooperating…? Maybe because some of us know, we really do not have to. That is our right as an American citizen to not comply, cooperate & conform with fraud.

  11. you are right Ivent…we need more resistance, lawsuits, challenges to authority, gosh, I am almost convinced we need a revolution…Jeez! This is crazy.

  12. Oops..I meant to say we all need to do our part ….WE THE PEOPLE MUST STOP COOPERATING, COMPLYING & CONFORMING with FRAUD…

  13. @poppy…we can stop cooperating, complying & cooperating with their fraudulent fixes for fraud. You & I are doing that. Every American has to make this choice. This is not Russia or China yet. However, the more tax money in the form of mortgage payments, property taxes, short sales & fraudclosures and price hikes we allow them steal, the closer we come to a complete commie takeover without them ever firing a shot. Peaceful non compliance with fraud such as Obamacare, fraudclosures, boycotts of these multinational corps, nationwide mortgage & property tax revolts, and targeted lawsuits against these crooks are a few ways we can stop the robbery of our remaining wealth and country.

  14. Nora says..”the IRS is not a Government agency”…….. well Nora kidding…! They are a proxy for the rich disguised as a Government agency. They are no different than the Politicians, the FED, the SEC Wall Street, the GSE’s, they are all part of the hidden power structure who are behind the Multinational, foreign controlled, Corporate Global Government. The robberbarons for the rich are working for one goal…rob the American people into complete submission to accept complete communism by blaming the victims. What they are doing is slowly & strategically bankrupting the people under the “guise” of trying to “fix” massive fraud blamed on the American people but, committed by Wall Street…..this is complete communism that wears many disguises Nora, but has one goal…blame the victims and use sneaky fascist tactics to make the American people believe the BIG LIE that the only way to “fix this mess” is by our willingness to COOPERATE, COMPLY & COMPLY with fraud by accepting the other BIG LIE that the people caused this mess and the only way to “fix this mess” their perps created is by COOPERATING, COMPLYING & CONFORMING with their totalitarian fixes for a quadrilliion dollars in fraud committed by Wall Street. Stop COOPERATING, COMPLYING & CONFORMING with their fraud America…don’t believe their lies…do your homework..Then you will know the truth is ….these crooks lent us no money and handed us a QUADRILLION dollars in debt by committing massive fraud with our initial investments & our electronic signatures.. Stop handing them your money & your property to put in their pockets. They have hijacked the treasury and all of our wealth by BROKER/DEALER INVESTMENT BANKING SCAMS ALLOWED BY THE SEC…

  15. @ Ivent

    I never thought I would ever agree with anything so far from what our country was built on, but here I am thinking the same thing. Anyone with a pair of eyes can see what is happening. The wealth is being distributed to sociopaths and there is no good ending.

    Control of everything has been shifted over years and I have to wonder if it is already too late to fix this. Our government is not a democracy; if anything, it is Fascist in policy. For me, I have been a armed services member and a believer in our system, which is radically broken. A country that allows the few to commit acts on its citizens is one that needs to be replaced. Treason is a punishable crime, where every financial entity has without remorse committed on each and every citizen of this once great country and people are asleep.

    I can only hope people will realize, before it is too late, the dire situation we are in; by letting corporations buy votes and favors, controlling all goods and services, choices, media, etc…then the frosting…no criminal charges, where the rest of us would rot in jail for these crimes.

  16. CNBC interviewing billionaire Real Estate mogul Sam Zell this morning…If you don’t know who he is you can read about this billionaire jerk here:

    In the CNBC interview Zell said ….the reason the economy is not recovering is because Obama should have let the housing market fail. Instead of trying to “save” it. SAM ZELL, who no doubt got loaned plenty of U.S. TAXPAYER MONEY….said EVERY AMERICAN (WHO LOST THEIR INCOME BECAUSE OF WHAT WALL STREET DID) SHOULD HAVE LOST EVERYTHING AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT IN THE STREET….even though WE THE PEOPLE ALREADY PAID FOR EVERYTHING….!

    First of all, the SLOW BLEED of the livelihoods, wealth & property of the AMERICAN PEOPLE was not Obama’s decision, though this is a Nazi ideology he is all for & all in on ….he wants a weak America, an America that Wall Street and the FED /SEC/IMF/WORLD BANK/U.N./NATO GLOBALIST SCUM DESTROYED with their ongoing THEFT of the AMERICAN PEOPLES WEALTH IN EXCHANGE FOR MASSIVE DEBT……These orders came from the commie control freaks at the top of the shitpile known as the Federal Reserve/IMF/World Bank….Certainly the crooks knew well in advance that Sam Zell’s method, though it would have been preferred, would have caused panic.

    The next phase of their evil plan is already in the works. It is for the FED to slowly but completely bankrupt the people for the QUADRILLION dollar fraud of the perps of the FED/IMF/WORLD BANK Wall Street scum. Obama is allowing this, therefore, he is all in on this scam. Obamas goal is to install complete communism as a replacement for the intended failure of socialism…

    Take your money out America and accept none of their commie fixes for fraud… vote out & sue these crooks. Obama is no different than the commie dictators installed in Russia, China, the Vatican, Israel or in South America, or in Europe. He is no more compassionate than Sam Zell, he is just a deceptive liar. These Globalists have an agenda here, and we cannot allow 4 more years of lies and failures as fixes for fraud.

  17. @ Johngault

    Thanks, checking it now…

  18. Nora..When did the IMF lend the AMERICAN PEOPLE ANY MONEY….? The American people never borrowed any money from the IMF…and never needed their lousy credit…..non disclosure of the use of the U.S. TREASURY DEPT as a proxy to the FED/IMF/WORLD BANK for the lending of credit is UNCONSTITUTIONAL & ILLEGAL & is a deceptive & fraudulent practice. These people are crooks…The American people need to sue the FED for stealing our wealth in the disguise of money lending for our labor in return for nothing of value…which is a quadrillion in credit fraud…which is fraudulently induced slavery…

  19. The IRS is not a government agency, it is an agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products vs. IRS et al CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.L., Public Law 94-1148 pg 5967

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

    The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF, which is an agency of the U.N. (Pres. Docs. Volume 29, No. 4, page 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-288)

    There is no Social Security Trust Fund. Nor is it insurance or a contract. (Helvering v Davis 301 U.S. 619; Steward Co. v Davis, 301 U.S. 548)

    Your SS check comes directly from the IMF, there’s no U.S. Treasury.

    You own no property, because you are a slave and slaves can’t own property. This is why your Deed refers to you as a “tenant”. Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session.

    The rabbit hole goes far deeper than you ignoramuses can fathom.

  20. JPM is getting sued by the NY STATE AG and that suit spells out the cause of this entire mess…the banks were no longer forced to hold their loan from the Treasury for the life of their loan. The origination hold kept them in check. The repeal of Glass Steagall by Bill Clinton was the cause of this massive fraud. There was no way to regulate all of this electronic fraud they were committing and still are. Here is a link to the lawsuit….

  21. JG,

    Yep. Exempt. I posted the entire text but moderator blocked it. Click on this link and you’ll know everything you ever wanted to know about FNMA being exempt. Everything since 2002 has been “voluntary”.

  22. there must be notice to the world that assets are owned ie mortgage loans—the prescribed method of meeting UCC —–on any intangible is its got to be determinable—that said the GSEs may have their own registry that is authorized by some body—-i dont know about the GSE sponsored trusts–what names for example??

  23. @dcb – have any idea why I think FNMA was exempt from filing schedules? Thought I read that somewhere.

  24. JG,

    Yep. With a vengeance…? Naaah.

    It’s going to be one of those “Bad boy, Jamie. Jamie is a bad, bad boy!” kinda thing. We’re still not going to see our money back.

  25. NY Ag just went after JPMC, I just read.

  26. @poppy – if you are in fed court, you might look into rule 60. If in state, you might find your state version of fed rule 60 re: ‘missed’ hearing. Talk to an attorney, of course.

  27. Obama & co. are sneaky dictators. Left wing communists. They DO NOT redistribute wealth….they steal our wealth…redistribute massive debt they create onto the people in order to steal more of our wealth and hide it overseas. They want to blame others for this scam they are pulling welfare nation under lucifer…oh hell no..that is a ploy they are using to keep people from voting their opinion and that is disgusting. If both parties were the same we would all be in the street. No…. someone saw these commies coming and knew what they were going to try and do. I do believe we need to change the entire voting process and eliminate the electoral college and put one term limits on all politicians. But to give this dictator & his crew another four years of this b.s. will be national suicide. We need to restore the U.S.CONSTITUTION…ISSUE OUR OWN CURRENCY & ABOLISH THE FED…and stop shopping and participating in their Corporate oligarchy. The 47% who are receiving their benefits need to realize they aren’t getting paid because of Obama, they are getting paid by the 53% who are still participating. If Obama & co are re elected no one is going to be able to afford to keep paying and then it will be hell on earth for the 99%. It will be a total welfare nation funded by our own robbery. Only they will have stolen all of our wealth & they will be who decides how we will all live our lives. THAT IS REDISTRIBUTION OF OUR WEALTH….BY THE SNEAKY THEFT OF OUR WEALTH AND THAT IS COMPLETE COMMUNISM.. Time to stop the robbery & vote out this dictatorship.

  28. @Enraged… I’d rather Bite It … not Kiss it. Just another one of those differances you and I have, but I can accept it. *grins*

  29. DCB,

    I am not suing on securitization for now. I’m going for the true and tried: Respa, Tila, Fila, FDCPA, a few UCCs. Simple and to the point. You should know: the best case is the most simple case. And since i asked for jury trial and I know who I’m dealing with, it has to be simple. Who’s gonna sit on a jury? A couple of farmers? Self employed people who got really screwed or even may have lost their business? Oh and don’t forget: older, retired people who love to go to court and sit on juries. That’s all they have to do and they love it, love it, love it! Gotta make it simple for them.

    Neil is great but I’m not ready to hire Max Gardner and Nye Lavallee as an expert. I’d rather K.I.S.S. it.

  30. 2 feet? you didnt get the full securitization filings certified?


  32. DCB,

    I understand your point but as soon as the SC rules on Federal Home v. Schwarzwald, it will be completely moot… and servicer will be owing me everything I ever put in the kitty 🙂

    As I keep stressing, I am the eternal optimist. You know, with everything I uncovered prior to suing, I have a file 2 feet high. The reason it is so high is that i was trained well. And every single page clearly shows that I played by the rules. I documented the hell out of everything and I played by the rules.

    And keep in mind that my philosophy in life is very simple: ask. What is the worse than can happen? People say “No”. I’m ok with that. So, the tax assessor sent me (and everyone in my neighborhood) a letter saying that property values had gone down and if i wanted to appeal, “here is what you need to do”. I might never have thought about it on my own but when they planted the seed, I grabbed that ball and ran with it.

    And believe it or not, not one of my neighbors took advantage of it! Well, I did. And it worked. When opportunity knocks on my door, why not welcome it?

  33. @ER

    No morally it doesnt bother me –by way of offset—but it was their money by one reckoning–apparently yours at least–and thus you seek a refund of money that somebody else paid–your right to do that arises only by offset—not cash flow–its not your money–the clerk could care less—

    lets say it would be more of a strategic issue —i dont think it really looks good—id love to discuss that –what exactly the moral dilmma is before a jury–or i guess a judge–it just doesnt sit well–i dont know its good to suggest it w/o a lot of caveats

  34. The way I understand conventional subrogation it has nothing to do with a surety bond. Those are for receivers. There are a couple kinds of subrogation…conventional & equitable. Equitable subrogation is contractual. In my case, they are trying to use the doctrine of conventional subrogation as a theory that a HUD 1 settlement statement & a release of mortgage by MERS is proof in itself that a financial transaction took place with the previous bank who I have no knowledge of. A HUD 1 is not a receipt, contract or agreement and does not take the place of a legal assignment. That is what they are trying to pull off here. By law, they still need the receipt that proves that financial transaction occurred and strangely enough, I never received the paid mortgage & note or a release of mortgage from that bank. They are flinging crap at me and hoping I will fall for it. The Judge told me I have a right to discovery and that tells me the judge sees something is amiss. I told the judge I never had a mortgage with that bank and I believe they lost possession of the mortgage while it was in MERS. The judge was very interested in what I had to say and the bank attorney had nothing to say.

  35. I mean “why shouldn’t theirs come back to me?”

  36. DCB,

    Why? If there was anything illegal about it, don’t you think the tax assessor knows where the money came from in the first place? He sure as hell knows i never sent a check to him and it was in escrow! I read absolutely nowhere that it wasn’t legal. And my attorney had no difficulty with it either.

    I know, morally, it disturbs you. It would have disturbed me if servicer hadn’t spent 4 years screwing me. If banks had played by the rules. If servicer hadn’t put me in artificial default. If Cordray hadn’t intervened, if… if… if… I learned to play the game from the best: the banks. Except that when i play it, it isn’t for millions of illegal gains and it is completely out in the open. Let them come back to me about it!

    I don’t call that bold. I call that resourceful! My tax money went to the banks. Why should theirs come to me?

  37. Property taxes…still very high and house overvalued, given current market. I will seek a reevaluation, it can’t hurt.

  38. @er
    And I got a reimbursement of what they paid, retroactive 2 years.
    does your lawyer feel comfortable with that—-frankly if i were the collection agency atty–id try to do something with that —its a sort of conversion—-? its pretty bold

  39. Poppy,

    Which taxes are you talking about?

    I know that in Ohio, the assessors have contacted homeowners and explained to them how to appeal the taxes (real estate). I made a lot of money doing just that for a house I live in but haven’t paid in almost 3 years. Servicer (or more exactly Corelogic) has been paying the insurance and the taxes all along. And I got a reimbursement of what they paid, retroactive 2 years.

  40. If you set up the simple issue is this the note: yes /no—–for jury trial

    Then maybe the way you would guarantee a win–since the burden is upon the collection agency—by handing the jury a really nice copy marked in some way–not numbered—-and the document they present—and say if you can tell the original —bank wins

    what would the jury do?

  41. What about the valuations at 100% of past value? They are still taxing us on the previous value. I have not seen any tax bills reduced, due to the declining values of our property.

  42. JG,

    “I find this conv sub very interesting and it might relate to carie’s arguments, including false default (which would ben a surety), and actually, may relate to a whole lot more.”

    It does. That’s what Anonymous was saying all along. The problem people have is that neither wants to admit the obvious: in order for the systemic fraud to be perpetrated, actual money had to originate from somewhere. That somewhere is investors. The fact that no one can today trace any of it to any one investor in particular doesn’t make it untrue. A ponzi can only succeed if there are willing participants on both ends of the equation. There were willing participants in what they believed to be an equitable and well-regulated system.

    Whether the investors or the homeowners, the only thing they could be faulted for is to have trusted the banks to do the right thing and government to do its watchdog job if they didn’t. Unfortunately, banks didn’t do the right thing and government pocketed the spoils. That’s the only reason no prosecution has taken place.

    Sad but true.

  43. @ALL
    This topic thread is Deny and Discover
    The next step is to place into evidence that which you discover. The concept is at least inclusive of deny the authenticity of the note. the 1st level is ascertainable by reference to public records–ie SEC filings: Was there a filing of mortgage loan schedule which met UCC 9 sufficient to pass title to the trust or trusts. The only flaw to that is the presumption in favor of authenticity allowed by UCC 3.

    Thus what must be discovered formally and informally–ie online record searches–must be adequate to contravene the presumption in favor of authenticty. Then the burden of proof shifts solidly with the party seeking to enforce the note.

    Borrower then survives motion for summary judgment. There is a factual question: Is this document REALLY the original note?

    This must go to the jury?

    See Raftogianis re what level of proof the two sides needed reach to achieve “equipose”–ie the lack of filed schedules in that case [best evidence] and the secondary records lack of personal knowledge of the chain of transfer via securitization —-to be disregarded i think as not credible–hearsay?

    Rafto asked them to show the loan schedules needed under UCC 9–in addition to stiulated authenticty of the note –in possession of bny. but even the possession of note was not itself satisfactory to prove OWNERSHIP of the note.

    This brings into play interpretations of who may enforce an original note and to what extent. ucc 3-301

    Ownership of a note cannot rest in a thief and/or, an unauthorized indorser –although a thief may obtain possession of a bearer instrument and may enforce it—-but enforcement by a thief may diminish his opportunities to pursue equitable remedies such as foreclosure or other title manipulations.

  44. I think we need a nationwide mortgage/property tax revolt because alot of Americans pay their property taxes in their mortgage. We need to unify and spread the word on this. They are pocketing our remaining wealth. Where is occupy on this…? They have the ability to spread this message nationwide. We are being robbed…We have the power and we really need to take our money out of their corrupt & crooked hands. I will contact you for that info johngault.

  45. @ Ivent

    Yes, we are victims and the cops do nothing. Last time I checked forgery is a crime, acquiring something under false pretenses, conversion, lying in court documents, perjury, etc…the list is long! And until something happens you do not always think to CYA. Now I know better, but I never thought this fraud went so far and so deep.

    And yes, the attorney is a party in the foreclosure as a principle in the corporation, let’s say; Poores Substitute Trustee Services, 1 owner, the attorney, Mathias Hunoval, per NC SOS documents. And the corporate offices in VA are an eLove address, fake company courtesy of the SOS in VA. This behavior is rampant.

  46. dcb said “…..–including fraud by the current servicer DBA the trustee”.
    Yep. And if one checks with the SOS, one will see the bankster attorney is often a principal in the sub trustee’s outfit. With no disclosure to court, of course. In all f/c or court actions, it probably pays to check as many SOS websites as possible. I just found and then lost (par for the course these days) a filing in TX about B of A.
    There was no name, the line for a name was blank for something – course I forget – which nullifed the document. The SOS should not have accepted that doc in the first place. Et, it was headed for you before it disappeared.

  47. ivent – send any of your docs you care to
    I’d like to see this.

  48. How about a nationwide property tax revolt until they start arresting these crooks & lowering prices & stop fraudclosing on the American people who pay their goddamned salaries and pensions…?

  49. D.C.. Blaming the victim again….? Why aren’t the cops doing their jobs and arresting these crooks.? That’s the real question…??? We are supposed to do the job of the States Attorneys & the Cops ….? I have tried to file criminal complaints with the local cops…they divert me to the State AGs office who are too busy chasing their tails going after the banks for giving poor quality loans to minorities….When the truth is we were NOT TOLD that ALL OF US were giving these crooks a license to destroy us by allowing them access to our e signatures…We are all here because of a quadrillion dollars in investment fraud by Wall Street. All of this destruction is because of Wall Street overselling investors investments in things that never existed without our knowledge. That is intent to deceive, and that is not hard to prove because there are NO LEGAL ASSIGNMENTS… and that is proof this was intentional and therefore, criminal.

  50. Once again—the term “investor-lender” is a complete deception…don’t believe the “spin”, people.

  51. Im sorry if I dont cheer and commiserate—-are you unable to see that it is important to let others know how they could screw up too?

    You screwed up—is it wrong for me to say it?

    your loss may be others gain.—thats what this is about too–not just saying boo hoo my big bad court did me wrong–cry for me boo hoo

    where was your atty while this was going on–why are you calling the court instead of this erstwhile atty—that may have been what the clerk was thinking?

  52. Johngault…the strange thing is…it seems the bank attorney is actually disputing with themself. They joined the defendant’s and that security interest is a defendant like myself. The bank attorney claims they to are a defendant and we are all sueing MERS. It is meant to be a confusing mess. The refi originator is now a failed bank and claims to be MERS…The plaintiff is the servicer who was transferred the loan at the closing. It is all really deceptive. The plaintiff appears to be pretending to be the defendant yet, they are actually the failed bank. If you want me to send you a copy of this latest scam, and you can get me your address. I will send you a copy. I am sure we will be seeing a lot more of this. Thankfully, the judge doesn’t seem to be buying their story.

  53. @ DC

    I do have DOCX-LPS noted on my paperwork with BOA. They are in fact duplicating, very well, lots of notes for various entities.

  54. @ Ivent

    You are right. And they used all of our credit worthiness, personal information, collateral, down payments, etc…to pull it off. Borrowing in our names to steal and convert our homes to strangers. What a country! What a scam…best I’ve ever seen, with our Governments blessings.

    DOCX-LPS created at least one defective Assignment of Mortgage relevant to this case in June 2009—see recorded document in Hancock County Recorder records. See also the offerings from the 2009 vintage DOCX price list—specifically “recreate entire collateral file”. The Servicing Agreement AHM 2004-4, like other “trust” PSAs, provided that there would be created ab initio a “mortgage loan file” which was supposed to be received, reviewed, commented and retained until called upon by foreclosure attorneys hired by servicer. The original note was to be included in that file. Thus it is not unreasonable to infer that the DOCX recreation of collateral file included recreation of a purported original note. That creation could then be subjected to indorsements—or was already supposedly indorsed in blank—such that masses of cash-equivalent “bearer paper” were not held in warehouses. The implication is reinforced by the $29 “create not allonge”—the allonge is definitely a part of the note—supposedly affixed thereto—so there can be little doubt that DOCX was in the business of creating notes.

    Thus there is significant risk of existence of duplicate notes in this case, Thus there is real risk that the maker will be called upon to pay these duplicate note 1st –and then the original after the 1st has been subject to a settlement agreement releasing liability–including fraud by the current servicer DBA the trustee.

  56. Poppy…you are doing the proper thing finding the fraud. Don’t let the investor scam they are feeding you here, bother you. You really only need to know one thing. Once fraud enters a transaction, fraud vitiates everything. These so called investor claims are with the so called trustees and they all disappeared. These fraudclosures are frivolous lawsuits that should really be between the U.S. TREASURY and the FED…THE U.S. TAXPAYERS -V – THE FED….and the investors should be sueing the title companies…the title companies should be sueing the originators for never paying the treasury back…We are all in reality, just pawns in their game.

  57. Ivent – Wow. This is confusing. Pursuant to the info from enraged,
    if conv sub were in play, the coll instrument for the 300k would not have been recon’d / released. From what I get, Party B, identified as the surety (which is a big problem or at least flag here) would have taken over as creditor from Party A, basically on the 300k. The surety might have done so for a discount on a note not yet due or even owing. This would allow them to stand in the shoes of the party for whom they were a surety and thus get the ben of the face value. But generally, this wouldn’t be done when the loan was going to be paid off just then. UNless, the surety knew it were going to be paid off at full face value (title co. or new lender had sent request for a payoff figure), and moved in for the kill on the discount (or used the note for new “funding” as I think might have been done with subprime based again on carie’s issues. But if that happened – surety got involved in your deal , then the release of the 300k was appropriate. I think – lay opinion as usual – on limited info your bankster is making the wrong claim. Sure like to read the file. Sure like to read the file and any available transcripts.

    I find this conv sub very interesting and it might relate to carie’s arguments, including false default (which would ben a surety), and actually, may relate to a whole lot more. For instance, from what I gather from FNMA’s material, FNMA is a surety and may only end it’s guarantee by repurchase of that sold. But under the guarantee, it doesn’t appear FNMA should get a discount. Hmmmmmm…..

  58. @ DC

    I have an attorney and he knows. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks. You do what you do and I will do the same.

    I was hoping being here would help someone else, instead you get insulted. So much for relaying all the deviant deeds of trustees and originators….guess no one wants to hear this stuff. Even Neil is missing some of the nuances and the paper trail. If I was full of it, I would not have gotten to discovery, evidencary hearings, a priority claim and appeal. You’re correct DC…even if I eventually lose, I have come a long way in this process and do know some things. Can you say the same?

    As I said, there is significant discovery on my end and that does not lie. Every piece of paper I have is inconsistent with “legally” binding foreclosure activity, by anyone.

  59. The Invester in the Servicing Rights( the investment banks) kept all the CDO and swaps. The real Invester/lender is stuck with a title and no note to enforce it. They dont get paid til the house is sold. And even then they take a huge loss because the investment banker takes alls its fees for it fraud it set in motion.

  60. @Ivent… the Investor/lenders pooled all their funds together into the WH funding line.. The Mers lien is in their Favor (not the investment banker). The Investor/lenders never got the notes as per the PSA only the liens. The Invester/lender (retiree funds) could have never known that the Origionator only funded a 100,000 loan. Its like Neil says … the real Invester/lenders never knew the terms with the borrower…BECAUSE THEY NEVER GOT THE NOTES. And the borrower never knew the terms between the Origionator/lender and the party they borrowed the money from.. the Invester lender

  61. I cannot defend what I know to be true and my signature is by the clerk in the special proceedings office, verifying I was there—-

    Clerk story? “we are authorized to reflect that the party was notified about the hearing and elected not to show up—”

    the clerk is not going to commit fraud w/o a good cover story—–and at this point —you screwed up—thats all there is to it–get an atty –you are in real trouble if its this easy to kick you out—whiningabout the deficiencies of backroom clerks

    Frankly your story sounds more like you are just trying to create a procedural defense of some sort–conspracy because you d—–if I were the judge it would be a really steep hill you must climb—–again my purpose here is to warn others

  62. A guest on Bloomberg news just said home heating costs will remain high even if it is a warm winter…? He also said Obama will most likely win the election….? More proof this is the biggest scam of our freedom & independence in U.S. history. Who in their right mind would vote for this scam artist admininistration…? Even the 47% have to be feeling the pain of this ongoing robbery of our wealth. The media & their guests need to go to prison for intending to deceive the public. SNL did a funny skit Saturday night about one particular MSNBC host and OBAMA JOBS……It was an interview with some guy who landed a really smelly job in a fish factory with lousy pay. He was complaining about how bad the job stinks & they are hiring….The MSNBC host said…I will load up my car with jobless people and we will drive out there…!

  63. And whats worse is they are doing it again—it is incomprehensible to me that people would agree to a variable tae at a fraction of a percentage point below fixed——–i cant think of a valid reason except that the borrower does not realize the impact of variable rate—and the broker is getting a much larger fee for originating this toxic loan–ahgain just like before—–screw the CPFB—its a worthless political vote buying PR campaign—-if it permits variable like this—TOTALLY WORTHLESS JUST LIKE THE USELESS FORMER TEMPORARAY OHIO AG–who did zip ein Ohio except chase headlines–it worked for him–take a worthless backwater AG and put him on natl stage about 20 years before he earned it—-a yes man extraordinaire

  64. The basis for the write-up —right or wrong– is that they duped a borrower into agreeing a variable rate note for say 100k —–@ say initial rate after teaser of 3.5% —-and the buyers sat there with interest rate expectations of 7%——-and they are assured that the borrower cant refi out—-so the 100k face note @ variable rate is theoretically worth a lot more than 100k—-in effect the homeowners were the [stupid] counterparties to an interest rate bet

  65. I cannot defend what I know to be true and my signature is by the clerk in the special proceedings office, verifying I was there. The substitute trustees are doing much of this. Scape goats for the banks, like BOA…and yes, at some level it is my word against the clerks, but the signature and mailings do not lie!

    This behavior is way beyond securitization and authority. The discovery acquired is more than many have gotten and I have to hope the truth is enough.

    As some of you say: don’t make the same mistakes? Hmmmm what mistakes: being honest, truthful and trusting? They have made many mistakes and the paperwork is compelling, but the judge is the key. If he or she is dishonest, you crash and burn, even with documents.

  66. LOL…! You are saying some investor handed some crook who never held legal title to the property $200,000.00 …..backed by a $100,000.00 note….That would be an F for stupidity….Now we know the truth is, it wasn’t the initial fraudulent investment that paid out the big $$$$$…it was the CDS INSURANCE the seller and the investor bought that made these fraudulent deals happen. They all need to go to prison…

  67. @POP
    All tax authorities prominently post a rule —-never rely on verbal statements. Never means never.And its not limited to tax–its a practical rule—confusion reigns supreme in all govt offices. Dont you know that—that comes as a complete surprise? Even if they were mildly sympatheitic towards you—which they arent because defendants that bitch slow up the system and make more work for the workers—who are facing cuts–etc etc

    Im not being unduly critical—-this is an argument iv heard 1000 times–which is why the tax agencies say what they say—–you can throw yourself on the mercy of the court—but your “proof” is flimsy at best

    im picking on you so that other readers will not make your mistake.

    remember the golden rule about unrecorded phone calls—-query whether the rule about recording phone calls w/o disclosing applies to govt employees—–?????

    i guess i would say that if its so important to someone to be able to prove the contents of a phone call—a recording device would be a requirement–just disclose it —common sense if you have any concept how govt works

    Even if you can prove a call occurred it means nothing as to the content of the converstation. Beyond that: did the clerk read the records correctly? was that clerk authorized to say anything at all?

  68. Investors never “lent” a dime. No such thing as “investor-lenders”.

    Bottom line:


    Federal Reserve’s Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 60143 (November 20, 2009) – Final Rule at 75 Fed Reg. 58489 (September 24, 2010), definition as to creditor under the TILA, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1641, et seq.

    Why don’t you write about that, Neil?

    I know why—because you work for the investors.

  69. Poppy… why CW overpaid? The Origionator Lender who borrowed money from the invester lender .. borrowed two hundred thousand from the inveser lender to fund a one hundred thousand loan.

  70. so its your word against the clerk’s? is that what it boils down to?

  71. The whole substitution of trustee thing is more fraud. Where are the so called trustees…? They are apparently faking their own deaths. The title companies dumped their fraud in the servicers laps. I gather my evidence and I would file a countercomplaint like Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Practices and ask for 3x the value of the note. It would not be hard to prove.

  72. BTW.. I learnedly a lesson early on…..get to your scheduled time an hour early. Then they can’t pull stunts like that.

  73. @ DC

    I have phone records, file from the clerks office (not my signature), envelopes (3 of them) with no dates, where all the others sent by sub. trustee do, personal references of lawyers, associates, who know full well I would have NEVER missed a meeting of that magnitude. It needs to be enough!

  74. It sure sounds like they are trying to make us believe they are in complete control of our properties, signatures and everything we already paid for. The people better start putting up a stink about these frauds they are committing. I would tell the judge what these crooks are doing in your name. The judge won’t like what they are doing. If you tell the judge what these crooks are doing, you are making the judge take notice of their fraud.

  75. which I was told to call the day before to confirm. They told me the hearing was continued until September.

    hmmm–believe none of what you hear and half what you see

    how are you to prove that “they” told you this—sounds like you forfeited as a no show—quite possibly –“they” will state you called–said you couldnt make it “may i reschedule”—“no you cant” “well ill try to make it”—–who will judge believe—clerk or you? you can prove little here

  76. Poppy……. They will stop at nothing to make themselves appear legitimate. The crooks recorded a bogus Assignment of Mortgage/Deed of Trust from MERS to the loan servicer 9 mos. after the foreclosure lis pends was recorded on my home. The recorders office told me over 2 years ago my house is paid for because no one has ever recorded a legal lien in 18 years on my property. They said because of that I can live in it, sell it or do whatever I want with my property. This crap they are doing is fraud and it is also a mind game.

  77. One more thing…I had a date for the special proceeding (substitute trustee hearing) which I was told to call the day before to confirm. They told me the hearing was continued until September. This was on June 30, 2009 @ 4:43 p.m., when the hearing was scheduled for July 01, 2009.

    After checking the file at the clerks office we found, the sheriff had stamped the filing at 8:01 a.m., when the office is closed. My signature was forged as being present, when I was not. The envelopes mailed to me on July 11, 2009 11 days after the ability to file (10 days) an appeal were missing. After calling USPS they told me the only way for a date mailed, stamped on an envelope to be missing would be to hand manipulate it.

    Now, they are in court saying I didn’t appeal the judgment, so they are trying to get a summary judgment, without a proper trial. Just saying and I have the proof!

  78. @ Ivent

    They are from, the Substitute Trustees. This is how they got the deeds in their names, after the special proceedings, as far as I can tell. The money issue on paper, looks legit, but I suspect not, as in my case they overpaid for the note, from Countrywide. (supposedly)…

    The new paperwork has the substitute trustee as owners with the homeowner. The originator, which is also false (not the lender), is removed. Go figure…I can show anyone here mine. That is how it all began with the research.

    BTW: I can and would provide all I have found to anyone.

  79. Poppy…Satisfactions of deeds to who? Another bank? How could there be a Satisfaction of Mortgage to another bank when there is no legal assignment recorded because the first bank never lent you any money & never paid back the original loan….? Maybe the people can go to the recorders office and record a judgement against that fraud because that is criminal. That is desecration of the titles to our property by recording bogus documents. Doesn’t the recorders office do a title search BEFORE they allow a satisfaction to be recorded..? When they did that for my properties the title holder of record was me & my husband. Therefore, without a court order, what they are doing is criminal.

  80. @johngault….I just saw your question….conventional subrogation is what the bank attorney is trying to add to a the third amended complaint. In their latest filing by the bank attorney, they are claiming first party lien status over a security interest from another party that claims I owe them $300,000.00 though that “lien” no longer exists. I have paid notes in my possession. This does give me evidence of credit swapping by the banks re my commercial property. Anyhow, the bank attorney is saying by some magical thing called conventional subrogation they have standing because the HUD 1 settlement statement proves they paid the previous bank. They also are saying the bogus release of mortgage by MERS is more proof they have standing. I know this is all crap. In court I told the judge I believe their dispute is with the title co. He said that may be true but he has to allow them to amend their complaint and Then I will get a chance to respond. I told the judge I asked them for discovery and have not received a response. He told me I am within my rights to ask them for discovery. I said I never had a mortgage with the previous bank and I believe they lost possession of the note. The judge seemed very interested in what I had to say. The bank attorney seemed flustered. Anyhow it is just more crap trying to contuse me but they failed.

  81. @Poppy

    Exactly right.

    The people I feel the saddest for are the ones who lost their jobs because of the CRASH and then applied for and really believed in HAMP (because they were TOLD to by our president), and dilligently sent their paperwork (50 times)—only to have the rug pulled out from under them and thrown over a cliff after the trial payments, or whenever the hell the servicer/debt collector felt like it…

    This was all done ON PURPOSE—according to Barofsky. Innocent people USED to “foam the runway” with their crushed lives for the DEBT COLLECTORS.

  82. @ Ivent

    Having personally checked recording offices (exhausting and time consuming) around the U.S.; in places like AZ, SD, VA, WV, etc…there are thousands of satisfactions of deeds filed simultaneously…one minute after the other (some want $600.00 per month to look at them). How and why do you think that would be? Cross referenced names and places for the address and they do not match either, as the loan numbers are changed.

    That is where my details have emerged from. I have also acquired a ledger from my servicer with a zero balance, where the attorney is asking the servicer be removed from the suit filed…this all comes back to one thing. These are debt collectors buying the debt for pennies on the dollar and attempting to cash in with the courts, by saying they are entitled to be paid with foreclosure monies. The debt collectors are not the lenders, nor are they in possession of any document that gives them authority. Even if they could produce a note, the only way that could have been acquired is by a
    “nominal” purchase of a copy of your note and the forgery begins, to match the deed and note in the homeowners’ name and address.

    Even the attorney who has helped me from time to time is going through this (escrow mistake and is now in default). Unless you have a problem, this usually does not rear its head and people do not know.

    I know for a fact many of these originators borrowed money using your credit, reputation (timely payments), collateral and personal background information and STOLE lines of credit from lenders and did not pay the money back. The real lenders are not investors and cannot get with the homeowners’ because of contract issues and no lien perfection.

    I have a great deal of discovery and it is documented. The lies began in the origination and you must get past your missing payments, which can be done; however, the judges are not always listening. No one I know is looking for a free house, except the originators, servicers and foreclosure mills working for these debt collectors. Check and see places like Brock & Scott, Hunoval Law Firm, NC, VA, FL, WV, TX, etc…they are all bidding on the properties, overpaying for them (supposedly), using trustee names, corporations that have ceased doing business, etc …then they use their own maintenance companies for trespass…even with police intervention they lie and will not disclose who they work for.

    At the end of the day, if this is all legal and on the up and up…why all the forgery and copies of paperwork. I mean the question is a simple one!

  83. It is fringe but it has been in the works since March 2011, when Utah led the way by signing a bill recognizing gold and silver currencies. I checked it and it appears legit and CNN reported on it last February.

    13 States Now Considering Gold and Silver as Money
    September 29, 2012 By TheTruthIsNow Leave a Comment

    Backwoods Survival:

    When the governor of Utah signed a bill that made gold bullion and silver bullion legal tender in the state last March, he had no idea of the groundswell he was going to start.

    The Utah Sound Money Act outright flies in the face of the fiat money system, which is the printed money used today; backed by nothing but the promises of politicians.

    It is not practical for people to carry around heavy gold bullion or silver bullion coins, so the Utah Gold & Silver Depository was created. People can deposit their gold bullion and silver bullion coins there and receive a debit card to make transactions with—just like depositing money at a bank. The prices of gold bullion and silver bullion are based on the closing prices of both precious metals in U.S. dollars in London on each business day, creating the exchange rate used on the debit card.

    Missouri and South Carolina in 2012 are the closest to enacting very similar legislation and creating a gold bullion and silver bullion depository, just like Utah. (Source: CNN Money, February 3, 2012.)…

    Other states considering legislation to make gold bullion and silver bullion legal tender are Montana, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, New Hampshire, Georgia, Washington, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Virginia…

  84. @JG,

    Section 42. Conventional Subrogation

    Equitable subrogation is to be distinguished from conventional subrogation which arises when the surety is substituted in the place of the creditor, by agreement. This latter kind of subrogation may give the surety greater rights than he could claim without the agreement, as it may afford to the surety a chance, in a way, to speculate on the transaction, as for instance he may pay the debt before it matures, the creditor agreeing in consideration of early payment to take less than the whole, and to transfer the debt to the surety, and in such case on maturity of the obligation the surety may collect the entire amount.

    62 Lidderdale vs.Robinson,2Brock., 159. 63 Statutes 19 and 20 Vic. C, 97 S., 5.

    64 Lumpkin vs. Mills, 4 Ga., 343;

    Hill vs. King, 48 Ohio State, 75.

    65 Smith vs. Rumsey, 33 Mich., 183.

    Read more:

  85. ivent – sorry – i meant ‘conventional subrogation’.

  86. ivent – where did you hear that phrase “conventional subordination”?

  87. @IVENT

    You got us…..wrong on timing–not past visit–not only—-here watching you–all of you–gotta report back—experiment pass/fail

    tentatively—fail—irrelevant how many you care to kill torture, enslave starve—not material to et——

    fail because you have in past 50 years created so much nuclear waste and spread it across the planet in unstable critical proximity so you could have greater material possessions in the very short term–and inso doing have poisened your entire planet to the point that only et can fix it—and the price will be your extinction–all of you

    cogitate on that

  88. Shadowcat….Thankfully, there was no such thing as pre k when I was a tot…I missed out on the extra brainwashing. They do start the indoctrination young these days. I am glad I saw to it my kids skipped that part of their deviant curriculum.

  89. Ivent …. I live in a brick home … not a house of straw. I’ can say with certainty … NEVER! But then again … I walk the walk, I just dont talk the talk. Actions speak louder than words. Or did you skip pre-k?

  90. @DC..Electronic Notes … Bayview loan servicing vs Nelson

  91. Well I never say never….they can always invent more fraud. Like take HAARP for example….then there is the rumor circulating around the Internet the Colorado wildfires were no accident. My daughter & I saw a tornado drop out of the sky one day with no warning. Unfortunately, fraud is a virulent disease in this world.

  92. Hey Ivent…. the Big Bad Wolf can Huff and Puff all he wants… but he cant blow my house down. Can you say the same?

  93. BTW…..Alien conspiracies are another fear tactic to try & control by the rich. If the rich were so smart and advanced by some higher knowledge than why do they have to use secrets, lies & deception to try and trick us into accepting them..? The truth is not something that you would hide if your true intentions were really for the good of mankind. If the aliens came here and spread their seed in ancient times, why would that be kept a secret if it were true…??? Maybe because that would not be the way the Creator intended for life to be created. Life was intended to be created among the creators own creations. These people who have self appointed themselves as trustees of the planet and all creation are trying to manipulate the creators creations in many ways. That could be why the intent to deceive is criminal in the U.S.A. You can only get away with fraud for as long as you can misrepresent who you really are.

  94. Horns? Did someone say Horns? Oh Shooot …. my Halo slipped off again. Let me go Find it …..

  95. Well at least you are willing to admit you are being deceptive. It’s more than I can say for the lying politicians.

  96. DCB,

    “yeah ivent–iv got horns and a long forked tail—–and a 3rd eye”

    Good grief, now I remember where we met! That was you? I’ve dreamed of you ever since! 🙂

  97. i dont remember which of you made the point about the electronic notes –re california perhaps? any thoughts as to how they prove an electronic note? how does ucc double recovery–possession operate there??????

  98. yeah ivent–iv got horns and a long forked tail—–and a 3rd eye —oh yeah–i confer with aliens about the best ways to serve people—have you had one of those nightime alien visitations recently? we were there —watching


  100. DC, SHADOWCAT& ENRAGED…this is the American peoples fight…not the foreigners or those who are controlled by the foreign controlled Corp….it is obvious to those who know the truth….WHO our enemies are…you are revealed ……you are those WHO try to lie & deceive and make us believe we can’t win…the only way that’s going to happen is not going to end well for anyone in the world….including ALL OF YOU TROLLS…Here is a word of advice…STAY OUT OF THE AMERICANS PEOPLES BUSINESS..DON’T TELL US WE CAN’T WIN…BECAUSE IF WE DON’T WIN….EVERYONE LOSES..AND THAT INCLUDES ALL OF YOU IDIOTS..

  101. @DC,..LMBO (laughing my butt off) …. you nailed it!

  102. @ Carie, SC Er

    I will say w/o hestitation that each of you has a different perspective that does not necessarily conflict—i pay close attn when you are doing substantive epositions—–i have picked up pieces of the puzzle here there and everywhere–and you three are pretty well informed—and each has been extremely helpful on numerous occasions–thanks to each of you

    did you know that recent studies have shown late eveining is the time of day when most people peak in mental synthesis–of ideas–when the little strands seem to come together?

  103. @Ivent…. You Snooze…You Lose! Take your BS at tell it to someone who cares …. if you can. Just sayin….

  104. Wheeew… we almost had a flood! Oh Look… I grabbed the shovel with the mop. @Carie, I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you … but where has this info got you?? Exactly my Point! We all know the credit was extended with a taxpayer guarentee on the refi … And we all know your trying to get a Free Ride on the Taxpayers… well Sweetie…Good Luck @ that. Just sayin …..

  105. @IVENT

    I try my hardest to ignore you–but you just go over the top anytme anybody disagrees with your prattle——-

    you said “Those who know the truth are not going to let you get away with this constant barrage of nonsense spewing” to er—-now just exactly who are the thought police that you refer to?

    In a former life Ill bet you liked to burn witches too

  106. Enraged….as usual….the opposite is in fact true …..I just mopped up the floors with YOU….Because liars never win.

  107. Enraged…..THE JIG IS UP….SO YOU CAN GO CRAWL BACK UNDER YOUR ROCK……Those who know the truth are not going to let you get away with this constant barrage of nonsense spewing. We know what this is all about and the American people will never accept COMPLETE COMMUNISM as a fix for fraud….These crooks have been quite deceptive about replacing fraud with complete communism… which is more fraud. The truth is becoming more well known and there is a storm coming. You can bet your commie rearends on that.

  108. Please someone get the mop quickly! The poor thing is having another flare up of verbal diarrhea all over this site!


  110. The truth is, WE THE PEOPLE are the LOAN ORIGINATORS….WE THE PEOPLE were the lenders/investors and are the title holders of record to EVERYTHING in this country……and always were because of the ORIGINATION FRAUD…There is no legal fix for the ORIGINATION FRAUD….and there is no monetary fix for a quadrillion dollars in credit/ investment fraud created by Wall Street….that is what the GOVT CORP. are hiding.

  111. “…this is not communist Russia or China.”

    What does she know about either? What does she know about communism? What does she know about the history of either country and why it happened? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zippo! It happened because 99% of the country’s wealth was in the hands of 1% (means anything?) and rather than post useless crap on internet, people took to the street. Then again, that means getting off the tube and moving one’s butt.

    Shooting her mouth off again with nothing relevant or interesting to say…

  112. I agree carie. These investors never lent us any money and they were sold investments in nothing. They were sold investments in bits & pieces of our notes and other fictions. The mortgages were structured as bonds and the investors were invested in mortgages on properties these firms never held legal title to because of the ORIGINATION FRAUD. The credit swappers were swapping notes and selling investors bets. Wall Street was creating massive amounts of debt by passing around credit and selling investors bets on things that never existed in properties the seller never held legal title to. The criminality of all entities involved in these fraudulent transactions is felonious. There are no excuses for what they did. The reason…..the investors & the banks all insured themselves on risks that were AAA rated securities. They were insured above & beyond the value of the properties and the original creditor never held legal title because of the ORIGINATION FRAUD…… The fact of the matter is, the subprime credit was chopped up and hidden within the good credit and even that hidden risk was not enough to crash the World economy. They did a lot of different investment fraud scams and slicing & dicing of their debt bombs that they created as well, and still are doing that up to this very day. They continue creating more debt by fraudulent investment scams. These scams are all fraud to keep their ponzi scheme rolling to keep up appearances for the people they are robbing who are all of us. The truth is, they all got paid exponentionally from this fraud and all of this ongoing fraud is nothing more than criminal extortion and a great big show to make the banks appear to be solvent…..they are not solvent on their balance sheets. However, these crooks have quintillions in ill gotten gains hidden overseas. The Gov. Corp. simply want to use their quadrillion dollar credit/investment fraud to defraud us of all of our jobs, businesses, wealth & property. fraud. The FED are in reality a giant counterfeiting racket and are an insolvent credit fraud because of it.

  113. Invester/lender… the party who funded the WH lines to Origionater/lender. Origionater/lender owes the Invester/lender Mauuhh….. Invester/servicer of servicing rights only.

  114. First of all, servicer is concealing/protecting debt buyer “investor.”
    The Federal Reserve Opinion to the TILA Amendment (now Rule), which addresses multiple creditors and more (this is FINAL even though it reverts back to the date it was sent to Fed Res. Never accept the term “Lender” from Courts. We are interested in the CURRENT CREDITOR, not the former Lender (and former LENDER is deeply flawed as there was no lending on transfer of collection rights — which is what subprime lending was about.) Problem is that concealed debt buyer investor comes into courts under the guise of the REMIC (phony) trusts. Thus, we need to go that Trust, and the Federal Reserve Opinion, to attack the CURRENT CREDITOR standing.

    There is NO valid Mortgage/Note in these subprime refinances. The original mortgagee remains the same (until they dispose of collection rights — which they do not disclose to the borrower). No valid Mortgage/Note BECAUSE the prior NOTE is NOT paid off, and the prior MORTGAGE is not validly discharged. All possession arguments must be tossed out the window. But, you must be able to have some evidence to show this in court. Courts rely on the attorneys presenting their case for foreclosure. This is false reliance, and they rarely give an opportunity for discovery. Courts want PROOF. It is there, need to trace it, get it, and show the court.

    It is the concealed debt buyer investors that we are battling.
    This is why I am so angry at Neil. He too, has betrayed. He is well aware of this.
    No such thing as “investor-lenders”, as Neil keeps saying.

  115. Shadowcat….they were letting us hang onto title until they perfected their security interest…? That is illegal to sell investments in property they never held legal title to. The truth is, there is no legal fix for the ORIGINATION FRAUD….

  116. Perfected security interests….??? I think it was attorney Max Gardner who said if any attorney finds one of those, they should frame that, and hang it on their wall. They are manufacturing more fraud to cover up for more fraud & giving it confusing sounding names like “conventional subrogation.” It’s all just a new name for more fraud like robosigning..blah…blah….blah.

  117. Poppy…we have the legal right to know not only who owns these mortgages but, how much debt they created with our electronic signatures. They want us to believe that if you don’t pay the mortgage, you have no legal rights. Well not only is that a lie, this is not communist Russia or China. However, that is precisely what they want us to believe. Any act of fraud in a legal contract destroys that legal contract and the banks via Wall Street created a quadrillion dollars worth of it..

  118. Titles were left in the homeowners name for months even years after f/c or dil. That is why they keep your homeowners ins paid. They also now pay your taxes thru corlogic to make sure no one gets a tax lien, even thou the bill is still in the homeowners name. A leaky roof or frozen pipes is a Windfall of profit for them. Compare to my daughter puchase of a REO.. the price?. They aleady collected the ins They wanted someone to go in put in new pipes, furnace hwh, roof. etc.. then Walllahhaa…they buyer just put all their cash into something they will never own. And the garbage is kicked down the road to the next investor.

  119. @dcb – I don’t think, I’m sorry to say for reasons outside this topic, that a recorder has discretion to not record a doc which meets basic recordation rules. So, yes, maybe a homeowner could record a lien on his own home, but that isn’t the issue imo. One cares about the priority of that lien, for one big thing, and it is what it is – prob jr in the absence of somes strong equitable consideration. One needs imo a mechanics lien for the priority. Can one file one’s own mech lien
    on a property? Well, I think no historically, but these are different times admittedly. Still, I think the h.o. would lose, probably because it would be found that the h.o.’s own ‘mech lien’, unlike a third party’s, impairs the lender’s security. I really don’t know, but I’d go with
    a third party’s for sure. But the likely real reasons: 1) until a titled homeowner’s interest is extinguished by f/c or whatever, he has an interest and his own lien prob merges (doctrine of merger) into the greater of the two, and 2) a homeowner has an obligation to keep the collateral in good repair.
    Hell of a note these days: Get the warranty. Get your brother in law. We just don’t need more grief. That’s my lay person 2 cents and I feel really bad for anyone who needs a new roof or any uncovered (warranty) item with the threat over his head.

  120. dcb – yeah, it’s complicated, I guess. But, what do you (anyone?) think – if I’m right and as I said please humor me, can the investors be vested now with recourse / rights by poss of notes end’d in blank and assgts? Gazillion dollar question and answer in my book.

    If I’m right, one of two circumstances exist. No one has a right of recourse since one party technically owns the note and another has the payment rights (which is ftr a distinction from the warehouse situation) and (if – I’m not there yet) the UCC requires both for enf – OR – the depositor (or someone) must repurchase the sold payment rights to enforce the notes (like apparently FNMA does). That takes cashola. Why mess with that if they can skip that and use a credit bid for foreclosure by vesting the trusts with alleged note holder status (3) and assign the dots?
    I’m not saying I’m right. Not at all, and I concede there are factors which undermine my proposition. I need to look at this, tho, as if I do have it right because I can’t get past the bk remoteness issue and the trustees apparent lack of duty in regard to recourse of the trusts, tho I have already conceded this one may be found in the master servicer agreement. Plus, the banksters had insurable present interests unless somone can support that an AIG would pay the claim of a party without a current interest. I don’t believe it.
    My looking at it thru the secured interest prism tells me it’s all about banksters avoiding the repurchase and the handy use of the credit bid. So, my questions remain – can that (vesting investors with rights they didn’t previously have) be done and if so, on what premise and if not, on what premise?
    The guy who sold the payment rights to the investors didn’t give a rat’s if the investors had recourse – he already got his and then some.
    If I’m right, only buy-backs (of payment rights) based on contractually defined conditions stand between the investors and their losses. And by the way, that buy-back on contractually defined conditions would involve (at least) a change of possession of the original note to the bankster. Show me a bankster who wants to rely on getting an original note back. Think about that one just in regard to the defined conditions for buy-back! For that matter, show me a guy who is trying to enforce after a buy back, except maybe FNMA. They just mess around because they all want

    the credit bid

    without repurchase of the rights (or even other interests) sold

    if I’m right about secured interests v ownership. But even if I’m wrong, they are not performing contractual obligations so they can use the credit bid with no output of their own $$$$ and no risk about that pesky
    original note. They are bad kids.

  121. @JG… loans not registered with sec and still in wh … wh goes after originator pretender lender. Yep! Yep! Hows that for Justice! Imagine if the origionator is still is business? Imagine if the origionator were trying to get someone to refi for almost double the orgional note? Guess how much in fees the origionator Trukey Gobbled Up. See … there is Justice. snickers..and a snort ….

  122. You can’t file a lien on your own property that I know of,

    I know that it is somewhat ridiculous sounding but you need some way to elevate your rrepair costs over the mortgage–or you will not make them–its in the public interest to give you priority—-and if you are in default-i would think they consider that their[bank-collector] lien has matured into equitable ownership

    so its you vs them on the filed lien

    ??? a thought–do you suppose they would turn you away on the filing attempt? is it malicious slander on title–i dont know—but its in the public interest to maintain the property

    the problem gets acute in winter in the north–the servicers have both the homeowners casualty policy proceeds AS WELL AS THEIR own umbrealla—–so they can get double recovery on insurance proceeds if they manage to frreeze the house w./o preservation–and make it look like weather related.

    Arguably the preserver happliy sets the house up to have doors blow open and freeze the place–because they get savage as their end of the deal–this is the type of people you deal with

  123. What to do about home repairs during battle or when one is expected:
    prob the best one can do is get a home warranty – about 30 bucks a month. 360 a year (plus service fee of hw co. – reasonable) beats the heck out of the cost of a new furnace or a/c or even a hot water heater these days. But woe to thee who needs a new roof, an uncovered item as far as I know. You can’t file a lien on your own property that I know of, but your brother in law can if he does the work. See mechanic liens and their priority in your state and don’t make up repairs or improvements not done!

  124. @JG

    Im glad you could understand and apply—i looked at it and it is complex if you were not involved day to day at the analyst level—i figured you would understand it best.

    We are talking about a financing plan for a constant rolling inventory of notes/accts receivable right?—–

    tricky to perfect—–i was involved with finplan for a rolling sale of plain old A/R—common —-sale to reduce amount of capital in the business to get better ratios

    all i remeber is that they tested the quality of the accts –had clawbacks for any losses over about 5%—

  125. A situation that I have faced is that the bankatty will ask for a time out on discovery by subpoena —-pending determination of MTDs filed by Bank–when they are defendants. Thus, you have to demonstrate a reasonable connection that the info you search for can be relevant to something. I think the case Bank of New York v Raftogianis is a directory of the evidence that you need to determine if your trustbank/servicer is authorized to “enforce the note” UCC ART3

    Initially as Rafto notes—an alegation of holder status adequate to meet RCP 17 , initial plausible “interest” demonstrated. They must have met UCC Art 9 by filing a SCHEDULE of assets–being loans to have that interest. Beyond that they must provide proof of Note –they have the burden after you offer up some evidence that they might have duplicate loans or signature issues–etc–ie contravening evidence—then factual questions involving the clamant’s authority to release note and or mortgage–

    are you looking for contravening evidence to rebut presumption of note indorsement “signature” authenticty?

    if you are denied —–and they are awarded summary judgment based on your inability to rebut except through their records–maybe the jist of it is that you need to come up with at least a scintilla of evidence on your own—-that there is risk of double payment –if the wrong person is benefitted by you somehow—one way is to check with SEC re “did the trust have a filed mortgage loan schedule–if not then they should fail standing minimum—–the best they can do then is rely on ART 3 negotiation, presentment–rafto court laid out evidence that would prove note

  126. The social security trust Fund has a bookeeping account surplus. Not cash flow. There is a surplus each year of collections less disbursements. That excess may be a trillion or several. But the Treasury Dept makes internal transfers to move that “real” surplus dollars colected –then lends that money to Treasury to be distributed to make up deficts elsewhere. The military build up starting long ago has sucked up the reserve retirement account dollars. That is the standout expenditure–several never-ending wars. But there is no actual correlation–just my lay opinion.

    Maybe you can get a lien on a hut in afghanistan—in liue of social security—-

  127. @dcb – I’m reading the mat at your link – perfection of secured interests. Very informative and interesting and everyone should read it, imo. Last night I said I was looking forward to reading it and I now know it’s because when I had glanced at it, I saw its format – large font, well-spaced paragraphs, and liberal use of highlights for emphasis. Everything should be presented like that! So far, I’m more convinced than ever that the trusts comprise cdo’s / perfected security interests IF all things to be done were done (but this without consideration that these are notes secured by real property – must consider that for a proper analysis, I think, anyway). Or the arrangement is at least fashioned on the perfected security interest doctrine. Whether or not it actually
    creates that interest validly, I don’t know. yet.
    Only partially thru the material so far, and I’m still short on the monumental, dispositive recourse issue. It somewhat depends on whom if anyone has an actual obligation to make payments to the trusts on their “perfected security interests”. It isn’t the borrower, anymore than a borrower must make payment to a warehouse lender before that warehouse lender has exercized its subrogation rights. A warehouse lender which perfects its security interest includes rights of subrogation in its agreements, so if the time certain (assuming there is one) comes and goes for getting the loan off the warehouse line, the w/h lender may exercise its sub rights and look to the note maker for payment. But the trusts have no rights of subrogation that I know of and that’s a caveat.

    But I may have been drinking the wrong kool-aid and the trusts actually own the loans, they’re not merely perfected sec interests, and the cert holders have paid for payments: the trust owns the loans, the investor owns payment rights. *The trustee is the party in a dot who actually holds title to the real property (which conveyance is why dots are regulated by the statute of frauds, at least in the absence of a UCC provision which would trump the s of f in regard to notes secured by real property and no one has yet proffered one), not the ben, but it is the ben who tells the trustee to act for default. So then, yah, the secn trustee would act for the trust bens, the cert holders and go after the collateral for the obligation – the real estate.

    But then again. 1) The psa’s are void of reference to the secn trustee’s duties or rights regarding enforcement / recourse, the way I get it. 2) The requirement, as I also get it, of bk remoteness of the last guy, the depositor, suggests the trusts don’t own the loans. Thanks to what I have read so far of dcb’s material, I have a better understanding of perfected security interests and this tells me why the bk remoteness is critical to the investors’ rights to payments, a dynamic which is relevant only to perfected sec interets, not ownership. For those who don’t want to read the material, tho i highly recommend you do, if B tenders notes as security for an obligation (like an originator does with its warehouse lender), if the secured party (w/h lender) does not perfect his interest by possession of the collateral (the notes), and B files bk, the sec’d party, w/h lender, is in fact NOT secured and the notes of B are fair game for B’s creditors and his bk trustee/estate.

    Oh my gosh! One reason a Berkshire Hathaway could buy loans (for a song and a dance or any price) out of Residential Cap’s bk without regard for the rights of others (secn investors) is because the trust/investors’ security interests were not perfected. This is speculative as to this particular deal – BH and RC’s bk – but it’s unavoidable that it reads.

    What I’m saying is that even if people think I’m nuts, there are factors here which undermine any assertion the trusts actually own those loans and have any recourse against the borrower in the absence of an agreement which gives the trust / investors / secured interest holders the right of subrogation. Sub is a doctrine which allows one party to stand in the shoes of another mol. If these are security interests, as indicated by a lack of language in the psa’s regarding the trustee’s duties regarding recourse as well as the bk remoteness factor, we do have a diff ball game.
    Or it may be that the servicer or master servicer has that right and duty – recourse, IF it exists. We and therefore a court couldn’t possibly know any of this without the governing instruments / docs.

    AZ was quick to point out, and I may have had an unwitting hand in that, that non-j foreclosure was meant to preclude the time and cost of judicial foreclosure. Non- j was the result of lobbying by lenders, not homeowners, I note. If it takes a mountain of paperwork to support a claim and courts don’t like it, they can take that up with the claimants, not the homeowners.
    Banksters don’t want that tome, either, the very one they created.

    This is all very interesting and so on, but who cares since secn trustees (or someones in their names) are simply relying on alleged poss of bearer notes and (bs) assgts of the coll instruments? We do, because to undermine those claims, we have to understand the underpinnings. They are throwing the whole deal out the window in favor of art 3 reliance on alleged poss of bearer notes. So, humor me, just say the trusts have perfected security interests (perfected – that’s another discussion) and don’t actually own the notes and their collateral. Now please humor me some more – say it’s more beneficial for banksters to get our homes by alleging to give the trusts recourse against the borrowers at this date, well beyond the cut-off date or even if there were no cut-off date. Can they do this? If so, why and if not, why not?

  128. Fascism…you bet. This is a very scary time in America, if that’s what you want to call us these days. You can trust nothing. Wow!

    This behavior has gone unabated and unpunished, which means in the short version, we are all subject to the theft of any financial entity that wants our property, with no recourse.

    There is a company now coming into play selling non-prime mortgages, 100 million dollars worth….here we go again. I think it is New Century, coming out of bankruptcy as TRS Holdings. Watch out people!

  129. Pardon my typo …I meant to say FORECLOSUREGATE…

  130. There is a name for what carie just described. It is called fascism. The Govt Corp routine of playing good guy, bad guy hides nothing anymore. The truth is, you can’t be both. Just like the GSE’s & the FED are privately owned by their foreign investors and publically funded and insured by the U.S. TAXPAYERS…..IT IS ALL A GIANT CREDIT SCAM & INVESTMENT SCAM BY ENTITIES & PEOPLE WHO ARE IMPOSTERS POSING AS AMERICANS & AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS….THEY ARE NOT AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS….THIS IS AN IDEOLOGY TO CREATE COMPLETE COMMUNISM IN AMERICA…….These politicians are crooks & tyrants and the banks are their perps…The result of their fraud is more fraud to cover up for the ORIGINATION FRAUD & a QUADRILLION DOLLARS in CREDIT SWAPS& INVESTMENT FRAUD ..This cover up AKA FORECLISUREGATE has caused nothing but more robbery of the American people who already paid for everything and fraudulently induced tyranny & oppression by the politicians via the banks…….AKA THE GOVERNMENT CORP.

  131. If we are to trust the NY Times and others, where is the other information about these products, frauds and forgeries? Haven’t seen much in the news? So much for honest, investigative journalism…and where is the information to solve the problems? None out there in the media. Zero

  132. Great Grandma always taught us …. If you have Enemies, Its a GOOD thing. It means that you stood up for something you Believed in. God Bless … here come the grandbabies.

  133. Did I just shoot my own foot off? …. Oh well! Its not my 1st War wound ….. I’ll just suck it up like a good buttercup.

  134. Re. Gretchen Morgenson’s NY Times article:

    “Banks are ahead of the game. They lose the “home equity” loan collection when foreclosure occurs. So, no harm to forgive these “debts.’ The problem is they are using this under the AG settlement. The settlement did NOT address home equity loans — it addressed FORECLOSURES. Thus, first lien mortgages (which of course are not really mortgages).
    Just another way to falsely apply settlement money.”

    Article in case you missed it (thanks for posting, enraged):

  135. Dear Neil:
    Let’s get REAL: What do you do when you get nothing in discovery, even with subpoenas, and courts don’t let you compel discovery either?? This is the most likely scenario that happens in these cases. Remember courts work for BankGsters not for the people, otherwise these crimes wouldn’t have persevered and grown to such proportions.

  136. 08 robo-digning brought to you by Pierce and Associates of Chicago. CW LP robo-signed release of LP brought to you by unledgeable signature an no printed name P & A attorney. Robo transfer of Note brought to you by P & A. I have to give them credit … they had balls up til 2010 …. after that…. Well… go could say, they got Grandma Whipped for having their hand in the Cookie Jar!!

  137. This was the biggest credit swap and fraudulent investment scam in history. Amazing how they could rob us of everything by making us believe the one BIG LIE that they lent us money….something of value…when in reality they lent us a quadrillion dollars in credit fraud in which to rob & enslave us….

  138. My information says; Social Security has over a Trillion dollar surplus…now if the thugs in DC keep taking this money, again it does not belong to them, nor is it an entitlement when we and our employer pay into it, it should be left alone.

    And, a person whom I know personally, has a spread sheet stating: the return on investment for each Participant (if the credit hours are maximized), should be over $3,000 per month, if calculated honestly. people need to be really concerned about this governments deception of the taxpayers and citizens of this Country!

  139. Illinois.. Case #1 …………Summery Judgement in Favor of Defendant, Plaintiffs motion for Default Judgement Denied. Case never re-filed Settled out of court … gagged. Case #2 … never went to court, courtsey of CWs 2008 loan mod scam ….. Just settin on the side line waiting for B of A to release their Slanderours lien they filed when Attorney demanded release of CW’s 08 LP. ……..

  140. It would appear that the actual mechanism for taking away the social security” is to freeze or reduce benefits by pushing back the retirement date——lock those benefots down with a stilted COLA–and then pour money into the system to inflate the cost of energy food and housing—ala 1978

    only i dont think they will let interest rates rise –hold interest down by continuously pouring cheap money into the system—get you on the “safe” investment side at same time as inflating your costs and devaluing benefits promised—they would say “we promised you X dollars when you retire–not so many loaves of bread

    think Weimar—-thing Soviet Union 1987

  141. That’s right Neil, no financial transaction ever occurred. They swapped credit. That is why they held the CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP INSURANCE. This was a massive credit scam that began at the ORIGINATION FRAUD. That fraud allowed Wall Street to create a QUADRILLION dollars in credit fraud with our electronic signatures by overselling investments in things that never existed. They are credit scammers and their massive debt fraud can never be repaid by the American people. There is no legal fix fir the ORIGINATION FRAUD and there is no monetary fix for a Quadrillion dollars in fraudulent sales made by Wall Street.

  142. Its a sad day after thirty years of working hard and saving to find out someone stole your Savings, your Home Equity and now they want to take Social Security and Medicare away from us before we retire …AFTER PAYING INTO IT FOR 30+yrs. ITS AN EVEN SADDER DAY WHEN THE TAXPAYER WHO PAYS 3X THE AMOUNT IN INCOME TAX ON A MONTHLY BASIS THAN THEIR MORTGAGE PAYMENT! And keep in mid our taxes our going up, they made sure we would work and pay in til we die!

  143. as a general rule i would think that it may behoove homeowners in distress to file liens anytime they spend money on a property where there is a substantial risk that the title is flawed.

    I dont know how long one has to pursue it—but the lien would give em a bit of better position than what happened in your family case—but im assuming here that the majority of people in that boat dont want to spend on suits —-and face the question “im here–we need a new furnace–bank wants place—what do i do?”

  144. No DC… they thought about it, but choose to go for a Bigger Fish. Might set off suspecion if one came up with alot of ( so-called ) Free properties at one time. It was a Family decision, we demanded performance, denied and didnt sign nuttin. We are content that we have recouped the losses …. not necissarly in the traditional way. But its they only way they play. All or Nuttin! Anyway you can get it!

  145. Yes ER … I was preparing for a FEMA camp…..LOL! The investment still serves me well. Althou I prefer to live here in my Brick Home …. the big bad wolf can not blow the walls in ……. *grins*

  146. did they file a workmans lien for the 15k and labor?

  147. Are we to now, make Felonies for financial institutions legal?

    In effect that is center of the controversey under the label TBTF—if the govt has to step in and support –or Fed Reserve prints and hands out money to them –in combination——then it does no good to have economic sanctions.

    But the govt could take the position that individuals not endorsed by companies–were guilty of this or that—-but its like they are cutting brush now—knocking down low level people in big organizations–or bigger thieves that are operating on the periphery of the system—–it seems like there must be one enron of finance—–but they as a group have said they are so complex so intertwined and so very important that nothing can be domne except the headlines–a billion here and there—reducing dividends but not compensation

  148. Yes DC, what you say about the mobile/modular homes is true. A couple of years ago I bought a 2004 1980sqft for 20k cash (clean title ..hahaha). Mom needed a backup plan for the kids and grandkids The NADA was was almost triple ..but seller had already moved and bought new home .. sold it to us for what was owed. Good For Us but bad for the seller. He said after making double payments for six months… he desperatly needed to get rid of the payment.

  149. I tried release for examination by certified QDE–to determine by expert exam the validity–pending contracted date of delivery of note–when I had 1st right to see it—-after reciving it via mail —once its in your hands directly you cant prove that they gave you a copy–absent some trustee possession of custody as you were trying to set up—yes they really want to destroy the trail of custody

  150. The test was mobile homes in the early 1990s—-they would sell an average mobile home with list 20k add on 9 k for a lot of nice looking but poor quality furniture–etc—-finance the package as 30 yr loans

    the payments were not so high but young people in that target market group are in low end jobs and must be free to move—so they hit a wall as soon as they try to move—-

    i saw mobile homes 5 yrs old that cost 20k or more sell for 2500—even then there would be fights with the lot owners on lot rent

    there wre servicers there to and trusts–it was a dry run–next up mcmansions

  151. California courts laugh at the original document requirement as evidence argument. I presented written evidence of the non-existence of the original note (‘… document not available in paper format…’), and when opposing counsel stated they had the note in their office, I moved to have the document sequestered by the court. The judge denied the motion, stating there was hardly enough room for coat closets, let alone a secure evidence room available. The funny part is that such sequestration takes place at a sheriff’s evidence locker or the U.S. Marshall.s evidence locker, not the county court house.

    That was the first indication the judge is being unduly influenced by the banksters.

  152. @ DC……. YES….. YES AND YES!

  153. @DC…. they still live in the house. They bought it in 2007 and recinded in 2007. Hired a New Attorney in 2007 and stopped making payments, witch prompted FC action… they are on the 3rd plaintiff since 2007. You should see the title now …. They have been there in limbo and litigation for 6yrs. They did everything right, & Lost six years of their lives…..

  154. There was a title examination? by an atty?

  155. making improvements on somebody elses’ deed?

  156. How long have they been in the house w/o payment? Are they offsetting the 15k ???–basically had that stolen–or prepaid rent—they at breakeven?

  157. When the kids walked out of closing … their projected mortgage payment had doubled and was now almost $1200.00. Yes.. they qualifed for the payment … The finished the work on the house and in less than two months later went to refi away from the PMI ….. all Hell Broke Lose then!

  158. Our government and judiciaries are hiding the truth…after exhaustive research and discovery the Ocwens are lying, cheating and stealing with the blessings of our politicians…they can do something.

    The Obama administration has stated: the banks have done nothing wrong, Hmmmmm really. Satisfaction of a debt and multiple payoffs are not against the law now? I’d like to know which law the DC clan is referring to.

    Then selling something under false pretenses that does not legally belong to you…Hmmmm again, last time I checked that was a felony, for all of us. This behavior is not subjective, it is intentional. The cover up is at the highest level of government. And there is more to come. Foreclosures are on the rise, once again.

    Are we to now, make Felonies for financial institutions legal? A very, very scary thought.

  159. @ER

    There is a bright spot for them that is of great value—buyer beware. Better get cynical really quickly in this new “anything goes” age. Better to get a lesson early for a low price. better than what is soon to happen to millions of baby boomers ….every boomer I know plans on selling their homes in next 3 years and head south–a new age: Empty Nest McMansions. A large house can be just the thing for teenagers—but can be pretty disheartening after they are off at college and beyond—huge empty shells that cost a fortune for utilities–maintenance. At about 10 years all sorts of things will be failing for the boom builds—appliances certainly if not at 5 yrs—cabinets are falling apart, furnace, roof, chimney, those nice stone base showers–bottom is now cracking—-garage floors–sidewalks crack–all faucets in the house start dripping–rebuild–try to get 10 year old hot-tub parts–hot water heater limed up an eaten through–water softener, all central fixtures-motors————-all these have 7-10 year lives—cliff coming for mcmansions

    i guess the retiring boomer will defer all these costs and push em dow onto the new walkins–like you said er–spend 15 k up front—geez just carpet will eat up half

  160. The FHA inspector was at the house 3 times prior to closing and had just passed the house hours before closing. Yes … Ocwen was so nice to let them turn on the utilites prior to closing and replace all the broken water pipes, hotwater heater and furnace… you know…SPEND THEIR MONEY FIRST… then change the terms at closing! Them Buttwipes knew FHA would never touch the Title! Ocwen/US bank at the last minute offered them inhouse with PMI that was more than the P&I.

  161. Actually it matters a lot. I cant put my finger on it, but iv seen commentary if not caselaw that indicates, logically, that a deep discount suggests something unseen is wrong–and can destroy the assumed bona fide purchaser status–ie takes subject to the prior fraudulent activity.

    2006—-the realtor-brokers would do anything to get volume and fees –alter the applications in a way which nearly or actually amounts to deception by misrepresentation

  162. My house payment is $704.00 with 75k in upgrades…they want the entire thing, for no investment. We are all in this boat together. I am certain no matter what is presented the house is gone, because the judges are NOT listening. There has to be an answer. We have millions of people being victimized here and no one is aligned on this. It is just my thoughts; that it does not matter whether or not we like each other, we have a common ailment and problem. And if there is no solution collectively and no punishment it will continue. This is everyone’s problem.

  163. Yes DC…. it was on the market for almost 2yrs. Lots of Damage… Inspection report was the key to the price.

  164. They bought a $148k house for $82k?

  165. @Poppy… what you say is True! And a Proven Fact! I know what they did with the kids …. and I figured out a way to give them back what they been giving…… The kids will never own the house and will eventually have to move when some coffer steps up …..and the Losses are dumped on the Taxpayers…. but thats Ok… they have another Home waiting for them, courtesy of MERS and my Retirement Dollers……….

  166. what happened tothe house?

  167. Yes DC …. it is a very sad day when a young couple who did everything right is scammed. Even with an Attorney representing them (Or NOT) is easy for them to get taken advantage of. They believe what they are told … the wording in the docs are oblivious to them.

  168. Does it really matter what they bought, as long as they could afford it? The dirty fraud is the banks and originators, not the homeowners’. The originators forged applications, faked appraisals and stole the lines of credit from the real lenders. That behavior has nothing to do with any homeowner. Just so you know, if you don’t already, Ocwen is the last stop for “DEFAULTED” loans. What I am saying is many of these loans were defaulted prior to signing the applications, they were sitting in a pile (committed ) and waiting for a buyer of the loans. When that did not happen, they were defaulted for insurance and paid or seized by the line of credit provider. Again, I can prove this, at least with Ocwen, New Century…Home 123

    My case is very real and compelling, but do not trust the courts.

  169. The kids bought something within their means, a 82,000 house. Wonderful Family Neighborhood. The lowest tax asessment in the subdivision for land tax was their house, coming in at $148.000.

  170. Or Wedding Gift for the Kids was $15,000 cash for finishing the remodel and contruction so they could refi to LTV60/40. The Bomb came about the title after the money was spent (put into the house) and the refi was applied for. Nice Scam!

  171. Its easy to say–they can sue tis person and that —-but we know that its easier said than done–and 1st time buyers in particular have no stomach for buying a lawsuit just starting out——they wanted to buy a house and furniture–have a family—-its just awful

  172. Title Insurance ?… I guess the morning of closing when their loan went from FHA to convential insured and they signed two sets of docs @ closing … their attorney dropped the ball ….. Why did FHA Title Insurer catch it and not their Attorney who was PAID to do it? Why didnt their Attorney tell them about the title and the Lack of Title Ins? Ocwen/US Bank/New Century/Home123 ….. so many parties involved and they all Kept their mouths shut! They all wanted to collect the Almighty Paycheck!! Greed ..pure and simple.

  173. @SC
    I wish a lot more young people could hear such anecdotes–it should get coverage–that is awful to burden a starter couple with such stuff—and that was then—now more likely —-but 95% of people would say that cant happen

  174. Also filed claims with the Title insurer and they have skillfully denied them. They will make you go to court, which we will, as soon as we can get one piece settled down and prepare for trial with Ocwen.

  175. US Bank is not the Trustee for Ocwen. Ocwen has no rights, just servicing. In court right now with them, have zero balance on my account and the Hunoval Law firm, debt collector is trying to foreclose for 100% of the previous note. New Century is the culprit. I have proof of the lies…absolute proof about them. The case revolves, for them around payments not being made, according to them and the judge is listening, even with a zero balance ledger…go figure! I keep saying the same thing…please listen, this is where your issue is.

  176. SC,

    About your kids, I have a question. A really, really stupid question…
    Isn’t that what Title Insurance is supposed to be for…?

  177. No Person or Corporation should be able to take 7 yrs of someones life by playing the system! Its Just Wrong! And we need change! I can not imagine that OCWEN/US Bank could or would be allowd to discharge their debt and charge the kids Income Tax for something they will NEVER OWN. There is something wrong with that picture …..

  178. @DC, … your last statement is so True! My daughter and her family are in the same boat as ER. They were sold a house by a bank that the bank didnt own. If you think ER got it … the kids title had multiple liens from banks and contractors alike from the previous owner. After I discovered the title ….. I had them recend the loan. Of course they the servicer did not deny the recission, or accept it ….. they sold the loan to a debt collector and again since then. Their credit has been tied up and they have been tied up in lawsuit for almost 6yrs on their 1st home.. Can not do anyingthing… they are just stuck .. in LIMBO. Your Right about one thing …. The legislators dropped the ball on fixing the Titles and Protecting the consumers. To bad for the debt collectors and servicers that NOT ALL BORROWERS were/are Deadbeats. 7yrs .. no trail ….. POOF!

  179. All of these people collecting have bought the debt…don’t you get it? The notes are paid in full. The forgeries are necessary to foreclose. The judges only care you have not made a payment since ????? The judge NEEDS to know the people in court are there erroneously and are lying. The law does matter, but you need to hook the collection behavior to those particular laws or infractions. The rest is moot.

    The only issue in court is authority and loss. These folks are the one’s who must prove ownership, proper assignment or they have legally purchased a debt that is due 100% of the face value and suffered by your behavior. This not the case and under the law debts do not have to be paid multiple times, which is what is going on. All of these notes are paid. Jeez…that is what Neil is telling you. The beginning folks, that is where the proof is. Originators are NOT lenders. And the scam is bigger than these loans…it is hooked to pensions.

  180. I think my preocupation with the twin 14th amendment issues involved —denial of equal protection, people are treated differently under the law on a large scale—–some are subject to double recoveries–some not—–and the differences are arbitrary

    but the system should not compel the maker of a note to face dual liability–when by practice a type of duty of assurance must be laid as a basic right for homeowners who have no input into the processes used by the collection industry–the industry’s negligence has exposed tens of millions of non-defaulters as well as defaulters or those odd few such as you ER where you were sold something the seller did not own–making you wonder if they gave the other guy anything resembling a proof of payment.

    things like these that have happened simply cannot long occur so outrageously–so unashamedly. I just do not understand how the bank attornies can be so unethical–to the point of apparent facilitation of criminal conduct.

    bank atty asks for contract clause that revents homeowner from cancelling his insurance policy

    later the preserver by all impressions leaves doors open to appear wind damage resulting in massive freeze damage and a claim

    house overinsured—freeze damages =FMV?

    what does this sound like?

  181. would the english do it again if they get a chance? guess they never stopped

    “Though it may seem a barbaric practice of the past, child labor is still alive and well in the U.S. and around the world, and international efforts to stop abuses of child labor by 2016 are moving slowly.

    The U.S. Labor Department this week released a report that found 134 products in 17 countries that may have ties to child or forced labor. Major companies like Chuck E. Cheese have been fined for allegedly violating child labor laws, and popular products, including Hershey chocolate bars, have been accused of having ties to child labor. Thanks to opposition from big agriculture, the White House recently scrapped rules proposed last year that would have prevented minors from performing certain agricultural tasks. ”

    Except if my kids want to work on the farm as every ancestor has for about 1000 generations—hands off thanks

  182. ER
    Population has nothing to do with good or bad——only whether there is food for the population to keep growing—-and at a certain point of overpopulation–the stress factor for some populations causes individuals to go nuts—criminal activity rises with stress on the population —its been done with rats

    some human groups are less bothered than others—

  183. @JG
    To be sure there are probably a slew of cases that state that the law as applied to the common man should be simple enough that they can understand it. If it is too complicated–it invites the offlevel treatment we see—the guy with the most lawyers wins

    Such a system does not meet conlaw equal protection–if similarly situated persons receive disparate treatment under the state law

    There is a duty owed by the courts and legislators to prevent this—i fear federal expansion—but if the states cannot provide due process then their statutes and courts fail—that is probably the conlaw last argument—i dont see a lot of conlaw arguments–

  184. Louisiana applies it instead of english common law–but thise people sure dont get the conlaw—thats english—or maybe better to call conlaw “anti-english”

    Im rather skeptical about the English—seems like they have practicing peasant genocide for at least 300 years—1st scots, then irish and then indians –and always africans and periodically germans

    the bill of rights is definitely anti-english—–and that is what is being steadily eroded—people get confused about the english view of what peasants and slaves are—-frequently people say that the english including those southern plantation owners treated their slaves [or old world peasants] as personal property –chatells [from which we get cattle] —but it wasnt that good–no peasants and slaves were actually considered to be fixtures—sale of the estate included the peasants—

    the US constitution picked it up in the direct and indirect taxation–there is a virtual ban on “direct” taxes by the federal govt —defined as tpoll [voting] taxes and real estate taxes—–because they did not want the north to levy a tax on plantations–thus slaves were considered as affixed to the realty—-of course you can detach a fixture–like cutting a tree–but it started out as real estate–and that is the way english look at us peasants–ie not Lords—our value is attached to the land—or in later gyrations the factory—-separated from the income stream we are what –mit as an englishman had it down pat—worthless 47%–not attached to the revenue stream

  185. JG,

    “If it’s only a matter of time before it’s all bad, I don’t want to see it.” You won’t. Cuz it won’t be all bad. It can’t. Know why? There is a lot more good than bad in this world. Proof is… humanity totals over 7 billions people. Couldn’t have happened if it was more bad than good. Most would have died. Rather than expand, humanity would have remained at a low number.

    Think about it…

  186. dcb – you is sooo right. It’s all arbitrary and fraught with bench law.
    It is so not stinking uniform and predictable. And one tenet of the stinking law is that it must be predictable. Things change so much today you prob couldn’t even make or even want to try a stare decisis argument. And yes, enraged, the deck is very badly stacked. Between ‘while we were sleeping’ legislation and bench law (MERS is an agent), it’s almost, but not quite, impossible for a homeowner to defend his rights, including his right to due stinking process. I get cranky when the neck goes and takes the head with it. I guess what drives me is that some rat b’s got together and created a system which has enabled events which have lead to the situation we’re in – globally. My sister is a staunch advocate for right to life. I don’t fall there, at least to her degree, but I’m nonetheless grateful for the anchor she and her group provide. If there were no anchors here at all, God forbid. If it’s only a matter of time before it’s all bad, I don’t want to see it.
    I am not inviting political debate, but even so, I have to say I think Obama would have been a good president had he not had the entire world on his stinking plate, and no, I can’t and won’t even try to defend some things he’s done which can’t be denied give a whole other appearance. So I guess maybe key words here are “would have been”. Okay, we’re messed, but someone has to fight or it will be all bad sooner than later.

  187. DCB,

    “time to pull out napoleonic code”. From someone who dealt with it for years, it is a human institution and it has its flaws: an extraordinarily complicated jurisprudence comes to mind…
    See, the way it works is: the law is the law (granted). It was written in the early 1800s and it hasn’t been modified. Bur…how has it been interpreted since then? Talk about case law!!!

  188. ER

    This foreclosure stuff is extraordinary—there is no uniformity–nor predictability. It is simply an unconstitutional bunch of gobbledygook—the overall effort by industry trade groups and legal administrators normally works hard to make things conform to a uniform system–one thing it allows is multi-state practice by in house counsel that do not want to deal with 50 totally different schema—but it appears local [state] bar associations are not working double time to bring uniformity to this regime——it is rigged in that regard—time to pull out napoleonic code

    SECTION 1400-1402

    1400. Authentication of a writing means (a) the introduction of
    evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that
    the proponent of the evidence claims it is or (b) the establishment
    of such facts by any other means provided by law.

    1401. (a) Authentication of a writing is required before it may be
    received in evidence.
    (b) Authentication of a writing is required before secondary
    evidence of its content may be received in evidence.

    1402. The party producing a writing as genuine which has been
    altered, or appears to have been altered, after its execution, in a
    part material to the question in dispute, must account for the
    alteration or appearance thereof. He may show that the alteration was
    made by another, without his concurrence, or was made with the
    consent of the parties affected by it, or otherwise properly or
    innocently made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or
    language of the instrument. If he does that, he may give the writing
    in evidence, but not otherwise.

  190. SC,

    I agree but… which law? I’ve been reading JG and DCB for a long time. What i get out of it is quite simple: for each issue, there is a law ruling a certain way and another way ruling contrary to it.

    Remember, we started out with 10. And then someone came and said: “I tell you what: I’m not going to strike them. They’re still good. What I’m going to do is add one. just one. Love each other. If you do that, it will take care of all the other ones. Following them will be a breeze.” Last I checked, there were something like 4,700 just in my state. Multiply by 50 states and add the federal ones.

    And that’s all I have to say.

  191. @dcb – I do intend to revist Raft and I’m also looking forward to
    reading the mat at your latest link. But they better get Excedrin back on the shelves pretty damn quick. It doesn’t matter what story is told – I won’t believe it or care – I want the damn excedrin, and if they messed it up, I’m gonna scream! This is not a plug, but I’d happily do one.

  192. Section 1520.

    The content of a writing may be proved by an otherwise admissible original.

    Section 1521.

    (a) The content of a writing may be proved by otherwise admissible secondary evidence. The court shall exclude secondary evidence of the content of writing if the court determines either of the following:

    (1) A genuine dispute exists concerning material terms of the writing and justice requires the exclusion.

    (2) Admission of the secondary evidence would be unfair.

    (b) Nothing in this section makes admissible oral testimony to prove the content of a writing if the testimony is inadmissible under Section 1523 (oral testimony of the content of a writing).

    (c) Nothing in this section excuses compliance with Section 1401 (authentication).

    (d) This section shall be known as the “Secondary Evidence Rule.”

    Section 1522.

    (a) In addition to the grounds for exclusion authorized by Section 1521, in a criminal action the court shall exclude secondary evidence of the content of a writing if the court determines that the original is in the proponent’s possession, custody, or control, and the proponent has not made the original reasonably available for inspection at or before trial. This section does not apply to any of the following:

    (1) A duplicate as defined in Section 260.

    (2) A writing that is not closely related to the controlling issues in the action.

    (3) A copy of a writing in the custody of a public entity.

    (4) A copy of a writing that is recorded in the public records, if the record or a certified copy of it is made evidence of the writing by statute.

    (b) In a criminal action, a request to exclude secondary evidence of the content of a writing, under this section or any other law, shall not be made in the presence of the jury.

    Section 1523.

    (a) Except as otherwise provided by statute, oral testimony is not admissible to prove the content of a writing.

    (b) Oral testimony of the content of a writing is not made inadmissible by subdivision (a) if the proponent does not have possession or control of a copy of the writing and the original is lost or has been destroyed without fraudulent intent on the part of the proponent of the evidence.

    (c) Oral testimony of the content of a writing is not made inadmissible by subdivision (a) if the proponent does not have possession or control of the original or a copy of the writing and either of the following conditions is satisfied:

    (1) Neither the writing nor a copy of the writing was reasonably procurable by the proponent by use of the court’s process or by other available means.

    (2) The writing is not closely related to the controlling issues and it would be inexpedient to require its production.

    (d) Oral testimony of the content of a writing is not made inadmissible by subdivision (a) if the writing consists of numerous accounts or other writings that cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the evidence sought from them is only the general result of the whole.

  193. Well, while we were sleeping, those with influence with legislators and their stinking committees (read MERS et al imo ) got together in l998 and got CA best evidence rules changed. Probably hit other states, as well. CA’s can now be found as CA code sections 1520- 1523. No one seems ready to believe this yet, but imo it’s because the notes were all digitilized and traded electronically, prob under Art 9, with no endorsements on the notes.

  194. @ER

    I spent the 1985-1993 managing squads of litigators. after a few years of beating our collective heads against walls–with a budget of $5-10 million/yr ——it occurred to me that the main reason that there was so much long drawn out totally useless litigation was that there were a lot of really badly written statutes. Or the statutes and regs were obsolete.

    In my view there is an awful lot of this stuff that fits that –there should be a special set of statutes governing foreclosure rights–not left to the wanderments of caselaw–the UCC is so screwed up and slanted in favor of collectors that people are virtually assured Denial of Due Process–that is not “RIGHT”.

    From 1994 on–I only wrote legislation–after spending a lot of time designing the system being implemented. The US federal and most states utilize my “model” for assessment and enforcement of excise taxes. There should be consistency and therefore predictabulity of result and ease of adminitration and not more likely than not an unconstitutional denial of due process

    The current system of dealing with foreclosures –including UCC 3–are sadly failing in meeting these tests. There should be a lot more focus on basic con-law ———in a tax context its called an internal consistency test–that the same income should not be taxed twice by two different states using the same system–the real basis for this rule is not being forced to pay twice—-there seems to be no sense of the concept in bank attys despite their frequent chest thumping —they do not grasp the true legal fundamentals needed to actually draft legislation that hangs together and delivers the expected results consistently and cheaply

    there is absolutely no justification for the sloppy state of affairs–the ABA etc have done a horrible job of working up uniform law to untangle this mess–no justification for leaving tens of millions without certainty as to the debts they may owe–its unconscoinable

    yeah im old but there is little litigation interpreting my legislted systems–which is a good thing because they pay for all the highways and roads and the airports–i never cared for litigators–always seemed pretty shallow –hardly legal scholars

    they dont train for that in law school –they pick it up usually by becoming underpaid prosecutors–then graduating to defense and ambullance chasing–never scholars–

  195. @Enraged, I agree with you that the system was rigged. But where I disagree with you is the Rule of Law. its like I said … they set the rules of the game to increase profit. … Its all or nuttin …. Its a battle of the Minds. Ignorance of the Law is not a defense …. Not for you and Not for them.

  196. This article reviews the legal underpinnings for traditional financing of mortgage loan originators and consumer lenders and proposes that, by taking advantage of the provisions of revised Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), lenders providing financing to mortgage loan originators and consumer lenders can assure themselves of having a perfected security interest in the underlying mortgage loans or consumer loans in circumstances where, under traditional concepts under Article 9 of the UCC, perfection could be challenged

  197. There is a presumption under art 3 that the document they “present” is authentic and the maker and indorser signatures both authorized and authentic. To rebut the presumption one must offer controvening evience —something that casts doubt on one of those three features
    Then the burden of proof shifts to the presenter that it is the original and the indorsements are good. Rafto lays out whatmust be proved and who should do it.

  198. DCB and JG,

    There is something profoundly endearing in your relentlessness with disproving, and your refusal to admit, what we’re all here trying to make you see: the game was rigged. You both keep on pulling out rationality and rule of law as though you were holding on to them for dear life sake.

    Right now, they apply only to us, screwed over homeowners. If you have a few bucks, you’re exempt from the law. That’s how the game plays out. But it is refreshing to read your prose: it means that there are still plenty of of old timers who believe in truth and law. I bet there are more people like you two than actual crooks.

    In a way, you’re both very uplifting. I hope you spend a lot of time teaching your grand kids right from wrong. For all i know, the future of this country might very well be in your hands.

  199. .The appearance of the original may furnish information as to its authenticity and significance that may be lacking in a copy, such as handwriting, paper and the like.

    This would cover the negotiation by indorsement???

    im thiking maybe Fed Rule evidence 902 may be the now you need to have the record keeper authenticate the document–many times have record keeper present the document——at a company i was with we had a library of documents such as real estate docs, called “title and contracts dept”—–the mgr must offer it up as evidence—-same with tax returns–etc

  200. Tell us again, please, about the presumption of authenticity.

  201. “Oftentimes the rights asserted by parties in court are derived from a written document, such as a will or a deed, and, historically speaking, reproductions or oral testimony regarding the content of such documents was simply not reliable. Because of these circumstances, a best evidence rule emerged, requiring that if a document was the source of the rights, duties or responsibilities of a party, the original document itself should be examined to determine its contents. Hand-written reproductions, or someone’s mere recollection or belief as to the contents of a document, were considered fraught with too much potential for human error or outright fraud.

    Even in the modern era, four somewhat overlapping reasons have been advanced to justify a rule preferring production of the original:

    1.The nature of documents is often such that the exact words are “of more than average importance, particularly in the case of operative or dispositive instruments … where a slight variation of words may mean a great difference in rights.”

    2.Secondary evidence — whether parol testimony or copies — is susceptible to both human and mechanical error. The rule, therefore, enhances the probability of accuracy.

    **3.The rule promotes the prevention of fraud because it allows the parties to examine documents for any defects or alterations, and it dampens any desire to color testimony as to the contents of documents, since any testimony is subject to immediate corroboration.

    4.The appearance of the original may furnish information as to its authenticity and significance that may be lacking in a copy, such as handwriting, paper and the like.

  202. Having the original is half of the requirement–authenticating it is the other half——also UCC requires it as “possession” 3-301—-but UCC allows a presumption of authenticity–ergo maybe better if its considered non-negotiable

    it appears that par for the course is that collection agency atty simply states or mails the document–that is not authentication—-its not the atty’s business record—is it immaculate conception—springing from nothing? Where did it come from? Who had physical custody? See BNY v Raftogianis

  203. @sc – no but I’ll try to run it down. Better be good!

  204. Best Evidence Rule

    “A rule of evidence that demands that the original of any document, photograph, or recording be used as evidence at trial, rather than a copy. A copy will be allowed into evidence only if the original is unavailable.”
    from Nolo’s Plain -English Law Dictionary

  205. @JG… I would be cutting off my own limb if I told … but you and DC are smart enough to figure it out on your own. Of that .. I am confident.

  206. @DCB
    I just read what I wrote—I didn’t mean YOU are dense—I meant someone who doesn’t understand the “smoking gun” of Tower 7—not you!

  207. @JG… did you review Bayview vs Nelson? Keep Googling you’ll love it! @DC… are you ready to take the Bar yet? @Enraged … I expected nothing less from the banks ….. hahaha…. forgiving discharged debt to collect credits off the 25 bil settlement. What made anyone think they were going to play by the rules this time? After 8 years .. Trust Me … TBTF makes up the rules as they go along. Rule #1… its their way or the highway. Rule#2 .. we do no wrong, we do not apoligize , we cover our asses no matter the cost and there is no exception to rule #1. …. (or so they want you to think). There is no middle ground or comprimise with these monsters…. Its a Take All or Take Nothing game. What can I say …. just playing by their rules. *snickers*

  208. Yes, DCB—“pull it” refers to controlled demolition. The building was ALREADY RIGGED for demolition…as were the two main Trade Towers. You absolutely cannot legally rig a building for demolition while it is being used…building 7 is the smoking gun (along with Silverstein on tape saying “pull it”) about the truth of 9/11—you’d have to be pretty dense not to see that.

    I believe it all relates to the timing of the subprime fraud.

  209. has anyone saved or recently accessed the description of documents that were on DOCX price list—i remember seeing a few very detailed lists—idividual document prices—and for a whole mortgage file as i vaguely recall——they did 60% of assignments nationally—-they had a price tag of about $35 on the assignments of mortgage—i think the loan file–which easily could-should have included per the PSAs the original UCC 3-301 possession stuff —–But if they are reproducing the whole loan file that implies the note as well–see your PSAs

  210. JG,

    I bet it’s been done already. I’d like to hear from homeowners who pulled that, though, and got the judge interested… Any volunteer?

  211. DCB, sweet, sweet old man with lots of illusions…

    Have you ever listened to Larry Silverstein? A few months after 9/11, when people started talking about “demolition work”, he was forced to publicly admit: “We had to pull the plug.” And then, he made a fortune (a couple of billions) out of National Fire Insurance Co., which is no other than… AIG!!! (my former employer). And the whole damn thing was reinsured, i believe by Llyod, CNA and Zurich. Made a few bucks there too. Welcome to the world of insurance where people pay good money to buy… money!

    Thing is: demolition work is something you plan weeks, months, days ahead. You prepare it. Knowing where to put the explosives and detonating them without tearing the entire neighborhood is a science. I used to handle those cases of demolition gone wrong. It was already set up from the day before, when, for the first time in months, they “failed” to send security with the sniffing dogs that had been patrolling daily since 1993 (remember? The first attack on WTC?)

    Coincidence? I think not!

  212. @shadowcat – why do we want to see that case you – sort of – linked?

  213. Well, sc – you and enraged inspired an idea. I couldn’t do it, I’m a total eejit with computer stuff, but those who can might. Do make a computer generated copy of your note with signature and take that sucker to court with you to demonstrate how easy it is to produce an alleged original. Might be worth something. *Then take the back of someone else’s note in some case and staple it to your copy of the note: voila! A note which appears to have your sign and is endorsed (ultimately in blank, of course). There must be some software available to people besides the banksters that will do this. Also, there was a simple test online which I saw to determine if the sign is in pen ink instead of computer / copy ink. *When banksters merely file a copy of a note, and the original is not around, there is no way to determine if the back of the note copied is the back of your note or someone else’s.
    The best evidence rule says the original must be produced. In NV, for instance, it’s NRS 52.235. In fed court, it’s Rule 1002.

    “The best evidence rule requires production of an original when the
    actual contents of that document are at issue and sought to be proved…..In proving the terms of a writing, where the terms are material, the original writing must be produced unless it is shown to be unavailable for some reason other than the serious fault of the proponent”. Young v Nevada Title Co., 103 Nev. 436
    The endorsements are material “terms”, as in one’s signature. imo.
    Check your state’s best evidence rule if in state court or Rule 1002 if in fed juris. And find cases in support.

    “The procedural requirements are imposed by the United States
    Constitution (which mandates due process – sic) ….:” In re Hwang

  214. How do they “pulli it” what does that mean? Did they set dynamite charges so it would fall straight down? Is that standard procedure? To keep the building from falling sidewase?

  215. @ER

    I understand, I have lifted signatures myself: Linda Green, Tywanna Thomas and a lesser known—which i pasted into a word? doc. or another type and then sent nice side by sides–to LPS Board Nov 2009.
    I understand there is really good signature scan software that can be used to take that paste job and read it and apply the auto-pen to that piece —just the signature. Very difficult to detect. Requires an electron microscope to read depth of groove and width–exactingly—do a graphic output to demonstrate the step pattern of machine-applied pressure on the stylus.

    I was using such pens to make graphics in 1985—-I am sure with all Iv seen that they can reproduce your signature with any coloe ink you want.—i would like to locate an expert with the microscope and reading software this side of FBI. Most QDEs dont have the training or equipment to separate a really good fake –where they knw the ink type and size of pen-point.

    This is why I have concluded that UCC is deficient–obsolited by technology. The focus upon physical possession of documents –to the debtors risk—the burden should not be upon homeowners to detect failures by banks and non-bank collection agencies to detect a complete intentional forgery.

  216. Isn’t it illegal to have a building rigged for demolition that still has employees working in it?

    How the hell is Larry Silverstein not in jail?

    Oh, yeah…I forgot.

  217. DCB,

    There are many programs that allow you to convert scan documents into documents you can modify. It’s used a lot in graphic design. You can also “lift” parts of documents and transpose them onto others. I know it’s hard to imagine for us, old farts who grew up with type writers, but it is the truth. You can highlight designs and “lift” them.

    Welcome to the world of techies. And guess what? It is all made possible for banks thanks to the money we give them to operate and buy those (quite expensive) programs.

    Many judges are old farts too, who grew up with type writers. When they start catching up on technology, watch out!

    Learn more about editing scanned documents:
    Workshare Professional
    Workshare OCR Server

  218. @Lies
    but it is not my signaite form my original closing

    you are saying that your signature was reproduced?

    On NOTE or Mortgage?

  219. at DB i am just saying it is my signature because i was a customer of wells fargo and wachovia but it is not my signaite form my original closing

  220. thank you everyone. such great advice. i should have gone this ssummer to court but got to scared and didnt go. discovery process now, do you guys think it is positie that the plaintiff asked for more time. which means they do not have material.? or is it negatice lwaves them more time to fabricate

  221. @LIES

    Are you denying your signature–im confused

  222. sorry John G i read your question again. it was my mortage that is recorded that has my signetire with my middle initial. it is my note , unrecorded, presented at foreclsoure that has typing below the sig line with my middle inital but my signature they presented has my signature in one swoop unlike my mortgage.

  223. DCB,

    I grew up in Bavaria (among other places). Planegg, next to Munich. Absolutely gorgeous. Best beer in the whole world. And no 21-year-old stupid limit!

  224. to john G. YES!!!! thats what alerted me to the fact it was robo signed. i am a nurse an my signature i sign on charts is with out my middle initial is different looking then a signature where you sign your 1st stop sign middle initial the have to sign you last nemae . as signature in one fast swoop looks different.

  225. SC,

    I didn’t “contact” them but I checked their commission. Two out of 5 don’t have one (either it didn’t exist at the time or it had long expired), one had a stamp in Michigan for an assignment/transfer in FL (somebody had to “teletransport” himself to witness the signature…). I thought everyone was checking since that infamous Linda-Green 60 minutes. Apparently not! People are still jumping into the fight without any ammo whatsoever.

    Can’t cry if they lose. Guys, doing your homework is real work. Don’t wait for your attorney to do it all. He ain’t gonna. Not his job.

  226. contact the Notary on your Documents. The Notary Signatures and Seals were also stolen

    then she confessed—

  227. contact the Notary on your Documents. The Notary Signatures and Seals were also stolen

    yes—when i did that the 1st thing she said was “what day was it signed?”

  228. Granny was irish—–with norse influece
    rest bavarian hillbillies

  229. Before you admit to anything, contact the Notary on your Documents. The Notary Signatures and Seals were also stolen. Trust Me!

  230. DCB,

    Why are you writing in Celtic, especially with that German name of yours…? Another mixed-blood one, huh?

  231. “safe” economic wars—-war on drugs–war on terror—global warming –now thats a long war

  232. JG,

    Happened a lot. Happened to me. Originators and banks lifted signatures from documents and placed them on others. As much as I hate to remember, Obama pushed very, very hard for a fully computerized society. Remember? A “no paper” society. To save the trees…

  233. Why we won’t see a foreclosure moratorium, ever. Why we are left with individually fighting the banks. Why, in the big scheme of things, people don’t matter. Why “Live today as if it were your last” is so true. Fascinating article.

    Final Conflict 2012? Engineering World War III

    By wmw_admin on September 29, 2012
    By ADRIAN SALBUCHI – New Dawn Magazine Sept-Oct 2012

    The Five Types of War…

    When Report From Iron Mountain was written back in the sixties, its authors went so far as to study whether substitutes could be developed for war but – alas – they surmised that war had to be maintained, even improved in its effectiveness. War could, however, take on unexpected and more subtle characteristics. The Report’s recommendations included:

    § A giant space-research program whose goal was largely impossible to achieve (a black hole, budget-wise and hence able to feed the economy);

    § Invent a new, non-human enemy: the potential threat of an extra-terrestrial civilisation

    § Create a new threat to mankind: for example, pollution

    § Implement new ways of limiting births: via adding drugs to food or water supply

    § Create fictitious alternate enemies

    Almost a half century later, some of these recommendations have been achieved (e.g., 1: a military and civilian space program), others are on-going or in the making (3, 4, and, if Hollywood’s PsyOps machine is any indication, number 2 is no doubt on the books), but 5 is the real keystone: “creating fictitious alternative enemies,” of which we’ve seen so many recently: Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Islamic Terrorism, and now: Iran and Syria.

  234. ER you ask how much? How much will they do if they can?

    There is a history of London et al dealing with peasants.

    1) The Highland Clearances (Scottish Gaelic: Fuadach nan Gàidheal, the expulsion of the Gael) was the forced displacement of a significant number of people in the Scottish Highlands during the 18th and 19th century, as a result of an agricultural revolution (also known as enclosure) carried out by hereditary aristocratic landowners, such as the Duke of Sutherland. The changes were seen to be supported by the government, who gave financial aid for roads and bridges to assist the new sheep-based agriculture and trade.[1].

    There was mass forced emigration to the sea coast, the Scottish Lowlands, and the North American colonies. The clearances were particularly notorious as a result of the late timing, the lack of legal protection for year-by-year tenants under Scots law, the abruptness of the change from the traditional clan system, and the brutality of many evictions.

    In Ireland, the Great Famine was a period of mass starvation, disease and emigration between 1845 and 1852.[1] It is also known, mostly outside Ireland, as the Irish Potato Famine.[2] In the Irish language it is called an Gorta Mór (IPA: [ənˠ ˈɡɔɾˠtˠə ˈmˠoːɾˠ], meaning “the Great Hunger”)[fn 1] or an Drochshaol ([ənˠ ˈdˠɾɔxˌhiːlˠ], meaning “the bad times”).

    During the famine approximately 1 million people died and a million more emigrated from Ireland,[3] causing the island’s population to fall by between 20% and 25%.[4] The proximate cause of famine was a potato disease commonly known as potato blight.[5] Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland – where one-third of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food – was exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate

  235. @lies is all they tell – are you saying that your copy of the note from closing shows your middle initial in the line typed below your signature
    and the one the bank is now presenting does not have your initial
    in your typed name below your signature?

  236. AHA! MSM’s new marching orders are in: start selling people on the idea that democracy must be… well… done away with?

    Did Flaws in the Democratic System Cause the Financial Crisis?
    Published: Friday, 28 Sep 2012 | 6:25 AM ET
    Text Size
    By: Liza Jansen, special for

    Contrary to popular belief, bankers and politicians are not to blame for the financial crisis [Really? Who is then?] Rather, it’s systemic flaws in the very nature of democracy [Read: people don’t cheat. Democracy cheats. All the fault of Democracy! Lady Liberty is gonna shed a few tears over that one…] that allowed financial imbalances to take root.

    “Social plateshifts fostered excesses of leverage and a dearth of thrift that brought capitalism to its knees,” David Roche and Bob McKee wrote in their book Democrisis.

    McKee blamed politicians, particularly those in democratic economies, for allowing the credit boom to take place. “Politicians did not do anything about it, they fail to control debt from rising in their countries which threatens democracy,” he told CNBC.

    He argued that democracies have to reconceive themselves to address the core causes of modern-day problems, rather than treating symptoms, such as slow economic growth, joblessness and debt.

    “The next five to ten years will be decisive in the extent to which politicians are able to revitalize democracy,” McKee said, comparing democracy in its current state to a computer anti-virus program.

    The authors examined non-democratic political systems in successful emerging economic powerhouses and found that, although non-democratic political systems can successfully drive economic growth, not all democracies must be replaced by authoritarian regimes.

    McKee does not think China will overtake the U.S. as the world’s leading economy without making its regime more democratic.

    Paul Donovan, economist at UBS, told CNBC that democracy is necessary because it allows freedom of speech and freedom of expression which encourages innovation, “but some things need to be taken out of democratic processes and put into institutions which are not democratic but may have democratic oversight.”

    Social unrest is on the rise as economic weakness continues, with protests taking place in Greece and Spain this week. Tens of thousands of people gathered in Athens and Madrid to express discontent over new austerity measures.

    Last week hedge fund guru Ray Dalio told CNBC that he does not know if we’re beyond the point of being able to successfully manage the global financial crisis. He said he is worried about how another leg down in economic growth would cause social disruptions, and referred to when Hitler came to power in 1933 and the depth of the Great Depression.

    “The fact that the Neo-Nazi party is on the rise on Greece does indicate that the connection between the rise of radical elements and depression remains a phenomenon, even in 2012,” Dalio said. “In other, richer countries this doesn’t seem to be a trend at all, but it’s one reason to recognize that dealing with short-term economic crises (like unemployment) is also a good long-term move.”

  237. So the question is: at what point to we decide that there is a limit to cruelty? How many people will have to be pushed to suicide before someone starts saying: “Jeez, as much as banks are people, people are… well… people too! Maybe we ought to start protecting them.” And the next question is: where the hell is MY letter?

    Fair Game
    How to Erase a Debt That Isn’t There
    Published: September 29, 2012

    “We are canceling the remaining amount you owe Chase!” says a letter that JPMorgan Chase sent recently to thousands of home loan borrowers. “You are approved for a full principal forgiveness of your Home Equity Account,” says another, from Bank of America.

    Jackie Esposito, of Guilford, Conn., got a letter like that. But she wasn’t elated — because she doesn’t owe the money anymore. She and her husband filed for bankruptcy three years ago. The roughly $64,000 they owed Chase has been legally wiped out.

    What’s going on?

    Cast your mind back to February. Five of the nation’s big banks, including Chase and Bank of America, agreed to pay $25 billion to settle state and federal claims over questionable mortgage practices and promised to work harder to help borrowers who were in trouble. To prod the banks, the government said it would give them credits against the amounts they agreed to pay.

    So, to the ire of customers who couldn’t get banks to work with them before, banks are now forgiving debts that no longer exist.

    “When I got this letter that said they were going to relieve our debt, I just about fell over,” Ms. Esposito said last week. “You can’t forgive a debt that you’re legally unable to collect.”

    Others have received similar letters about phantom debts. A borrower in Florida received word this month that Chase was erasing $190,065.10 of debt that had already been wiped out. Bank of America told a Virginia resident that a $231,767 home equity loan was being forgiven, even though the debt was discharged last May.

    Neil Crane is a lawyer in Hamden, Conn., who represented Ms. Esposito and her husband in their bankruptcy. He says four of his other clients have recently received letters from banks claiming to forgive discharged debt.

    “I never thought in my wildest dreams that the banks would do this properly,” Mr. Crane said last week. “But I think it’s really wrong to be foreclosing on mortgages you don’t own and relinquishing debt you don’t own.”

    It’s bad enough that these letters are inaccurate. But even worse are the tax problems that they may create for people like Ms. Esposito. In most cases, the Internal Revenue Service considers debt that is forgiven to be taxable income. One exception occurs in bankruptcy; when a debt is discharged, it is not taxable.

    But the letters sent by Chase and Bank of America clearly warn that the forgiveness will be reported to the I.R.S. If so, these borrowers may have to prove that the banks erred in claiming to have forgiven the debts.

    I ASKED spokesmen for Chase and Bank of America how they could forgive debts that no longer existed. Both gave the same unsatisfying answer. Very similar letters had been sent, both banks said, to two very different types of borrowers. One set of borrowers has outstanding debt that the banks are offering to forgive. The other set has had their debts discharged in bankruptcy, but the bank still holds a lien against their properties. Releasing the liens provides a benefit to borrowers when they go to sell their homes, and both banks said the letters were intended to notify borrowers whose liens were being released.

    Why not take care to write letters specifically tailored to each borrower’s situation?

    Dan Frahm, a Bank of America spokesman, said the bank would work on clarifying what was in the letters to borrowers. And, late Friday, the bank put a more extensive description of the forgiveness and lien release program on its Web site. Not a bad idea, since nowhere does Bank of America’s letter discuss releasing the lien. Mr. Frahm estimated that 12,000 Bank of America customers whose debts had been discharged had received these letters.

    Tom Kelly, a Chase spokesman, conceded that the bank “may have caused some confusion for customers.” Its letter does note that the bank is releasing the lien on the property.

    But even this is incorrect in Ms. Esposito’s case, Mr. Crane said. Her lien was actually eliminated back in 2009, during her bankruptcy proceeding.

    All of this made me wonder: are the banks’ forgiveness letters a way to gain credits for debts these institutions are improperly claiming to have extinguished? The banks say no.

    But Chase appears to be claiming to release a lien on Ms. Esposito’s property that it does not hold. And under the mortgage settlement, it could receive a credit.

    So I asked Joseph A. Smith Jr., a former banking regulator in North Carolina who is monitoring the settlement, how he planned to vet the banks’ claims of relief provided and credit earned. For example, how will he ensure that institutions do not receive credit for releasing liens that have been eliminated?

    “We will review compliance with this requirement as we will with all of the consumer relief requirements,” Mr. Smith said, “through review of the corporate records relating to such transactions.”

    Good luck with that.

    AS for Ms. Esposito, she said she found the bogus loan forgiveness letter from Chase especially upsetting because of the years she has spent trying to have the bank modify her first mortgage. She pays 9 percent on her loan and cannot refinance it into a lower-rate mortgage, given her recent bankruptcy.

    Chase won’t help her modify her loan, Ms. Esposito said, but it is happy to help by forgiving a loan that has already been discharged and releasing a lien that is already gone.

    “There is no chance that this group of institutions can help homeowners,” Mr. Crane said. “They should not be in charge of fixing problems they helped create.”

  238. Not if dba’s acts were fraudulent ……

  239. First of all, servicer is concealing/protecting debt buyer “investor.”

    Federal Reserve Opinion to the TILA Amendment (now Rule) addresses multiple creditors and more (this is FINAL even though it reverts back to the date it was sent to Fed Res. Never accept the term “Lender” from Courts. We are interested in the CURRENT CREDITOR, not the former Lender (and former LENDER is deeply flawed as there was no lending on transfer of collection rights — which is what subprime lending was about.) Problem is that concealed debt buyer investor comes into courts under the guise of the REMIC (phony) trusts. Thus, we need to go that Trust, and the Federal Reserve Opinion, to attack the CURRENT CREDITOR standing.

    There is NO valid Mortgage/Note in these subprime refinances. The original mortgagee remains the same (until they dispose of collection rights — which they do not disclose to the borrower). No valid Mortgage/Note BECAUSE the prior NOTE is NOT paid off, and the prior MORTGAGE is not validly discharged. All possession arguments must be tossed out the window. But, you must be able to have some evidence to show this in court. Courts rely on the attorneys presenting their case for foreclosure. This is false reliance, and they rarely give an opportunity for discovery. Courts want PROOF. It is there, need to trace it, get it, and show the court.

    It is the concealed debt buyer investors that we are battling. This is why I am so angry at Neil. He too, has betrayed. He is well aware of this.

    The subprime was born out of loans that were reported to GSEs as in default and risky. You would not even know that this was reported about you, you would not even know that you are now classified as subprime. No one would tell you. But, if the GSEs did NOT purchase your refinanced loan, you know you were subprime. This is especially problematic if you were a GSE loan BEFORE you refinanced. How do you find that out??? Not easy. GSEs will not disclose if any prior loan was a GSE loan.

    Nothing on credit report will reflect a prior foreclosure item. In fact, unless you look closely, credit report may disclose little (however, someone who is well versed in reading credit reports will be able to pick up slight discrepancies). Credit report will report the prior loan as paid —- but, they will not disclose that it was not paid by you!!!! Someone else paid the GSEs off to acquire the collection rights. So, yes the loan was paid — but just not by you — you remain in default with the GSE.

    No new mortgages could be issued on the above scenario. But, LOANs in the false form of mortgages were issued by the subprime. They were just not valid mortgages as they claimed to be, because you did not qualify for a valid mortgage. Relate it to credit card debt. If in default, the collection rights can be sold at anytime. This is not balance sheet assets, but rather income to the debt buyer — if they can collect.

    Same with the false mortgages. Although, people were not told they were reported as in default (some may have actually been in default — then ask yourself — how do you think you would qualify for mortgage??? How do you think you refinance a default loan???) You cannot. You refinanced debt collection rights. Not a secured loan. There is a reason that loans were not sold to GSEs. Big question is — was it a GSE loan BEFORE you refinanced???

    Collection rights carried at face value — not the loan itself. These loans are not, and never were, a part of bank’s balance sheet receivables. The problem with the banks is that they securitized the cash pass-throughs to the collections rights — and then purchased the securities themselves. THOSE securities were on the banks balance sheets — until the government purchased them.

    “Loan” collection rights still there after trust liquidations because it was collection rights that backed the trusts. Collection rights do not go away — despite liquidation of the trust. Collection rights survive the trust liquidation.


    Federal Reserve’s Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 60143 (November 20, 2009) – Final Rule at 75 Fed Reg. 58489 (September 24, 2010), definition as to creditor under the TILA, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1641, et seq.,

    ALSO quote —

    The Squires v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137581 (U.S.D.C. Ala, SD, decided November 29, 2011), which addresses the Federal Reserve’s Rule

  240. DocX … a dividion of LPS. Dirty Birdies …. left messes everywhere. Eweeee ………………….

  241. Its not nice to not Share the Cheetos. I’m tellin … nanny nanny boo boo

  242. Can a corporation ratify the act of its dba if it wanted, and does that answer depend on registration of the dba?”

    A corp bd of directors can ratify a presidents agreement –etc—

    There is some uncertainty as to whether DOCX was a separate entity or a division of LPS —–could LPS ratify DOCX’ acts as its own? I would think so if they were trying to retain officers for example to whom DOCX owed something—-but the noce thing about ratification vs an authorized person with delegated authority is that the corp can pick and chose what to ratify—–and run from anything it wants no responsibility for

  243. 🙂 … Bayview Loan Serviceing vs Nelson…Electronic Document……/14

    We reverse and remand. BACKGROUND On November 22, 2004, Bayview filed a complaint to foreclose a mortgage against Nelson and the other defendants, …

    Silly Neil… I know how to sneak around your babysitter.

  244. 🙁 … Bayview Loan Serviceing vs Nelson…Electronic Document……/14

    We reverse and remand. BACKGROUND On November 22, 2004, Bayview filed a complaint to foreclose a mortgage against Nelson and the other defendants, …

  245. In the IL case, the plaintiff’s (BAC) attorney executed the assignment of the coll instrument to its client. Is this never to stop? The h.o. made a production of this, but without (strategy, I sure hope) reference to the obvious impropriety and patent conflict of interest, the same one which exists every time the employee or attorney of the assignee executes an assgt.
    Anyone interested in AWL as original lender might want to look at this case (davies link around here somewhere). Whether or not a dba may enter a contract in its own right is going to be interesting, because as this answer points out, that would include a contract with MERS and there was a MOM. Does the act of a dba (or anyone) of providing a MOM appoint MERS as ben by itself, without a contract with MERS? *
    A corporation may ratify an act (not a given, corp must evidence its ratification by at least preponderance if not clear and certain – I don’t know standard- but can a dba? Can a corporation ratify the
    act of its dba if it wanted, and does that answer depend on registration of the dba? I don’t know, but I bet it isn’t rocket science and even if we here don’t know, someone does. Wish he’d pipe up.
    *I have already posited with little reception that anyone to be bound by agency must sign the agreement of agency (that’s the law). The lender does not sign the dot, though it’s unavoidable to acknowledge that he provided it. If MERS is the agent it post-consent order claims thru its members it is, where is the evidence of that agency? When it comes to real property, agency may not be implied, first of all. Agency may be found to be implied in other deals, but not with real property. It must be expressed, i.e., ‘you are my AGENT to do this and that’. Agency can’t be found by implication in the dot as a matter of law – and it’s not expressed. The word ‘nominee’ is not an expression of agency, wasn’t even intended to allege an agency because they didn’t want an agency, their choice to avoid the word makes that clear, and anyway, the lender doesn’t sign the dot. In fact, the language in the dot trips over itself. MERS and its pals chose the word “nominee” for public record and then went on to describe acts of an agent which the nominee could perform. So people (and courts) throw up their hands and say well, then, MERS is an agent. At best, any MERS’ agency in a dot is found by implication and isn’t expressed as required for real property agency. Consequently, any agreement which purports to evidence MERS’ agent status must be proffered and it must be relevant to the document at issue. The only document I’m aware of which might support a MERS’ expressed agency is the membership agreement, which is never tendered and imo it’s because it exposes the illegitimacy of the whole operation. MERS made the great unwashed think it was all about saving time and money for recordation, but that’s just the tip of the iceburg of what MERS is really about.
    I doubt anyone is going to start demanding this evidence; no one even demands evidence so and so and the so and so’s in the chain of the note are MERS’ members. And as I’ve asked, who is going to authenticate the out-of-business entity’s autograph on anything, like that membership agreement? They have to try to rely on business records exceptions. Good luck on that if we have counsel who knows what she’s doing.
    Since the agency at issue must be expressed and not implied, no one could rely on AWL providing the MOM dot as evidence of MERS’ agency with AWL nor imo could it be said that a MERS-contract-less AWL or even CW ratified the act by supplying the MOM. The act of providing a MOM dot might find MERS as an agent by implication of a legitimate business, but that’s not the bar. And a business, or anyone, can’t ratify an act which as a matter of law requires written expression.
    lay opinions, as always

  246. Sorry Neil …. I think I cleared out the room. I”ll go to the corner now. Did you leave me some Cheetos? *grins*

  247. Bayview Loan Servicing brought to you by Citi Bank … “snorts”

  248. Did you know that Snowballs put out Fires? “SPLAT!

  249. Somebodys knockin … Should I let him In? … Lord its the Devil, Just Look @ Him! ..

  250. Didn’t you Hear? Photocopy a copy of a Note (that you dont own) and claim the abandonded title (left by the Investor who didnt get the Note). And Walllahhhhh …. You have a Lucritive Business with Lucritive Profits! Who wants to Play for Big Money?

  251. Somebodys knockin … Should I let him In? … Lord its the Devil, Just Look @ Him! .. Just Singing …..

  252. Bayview Loan Serviceing vs Nelson…Electronic Document……/14

    We reverse and remand. BACKGROUND On November 22, 2004, Bayview filed a complaint to foreclose a mortgage against Nelson and the other defendants, …

  253. @JG “can a dba contract?”

    I think they did it a lot—-if you think about it and apply to “failed” trusts[ ones that did not file loan schedules with SEC for example] —then the creditor investor joint venture–and/or the bank trustee —are effectively DBA “Trust 123-XYZ”

    a reason is that trusts are usually exempt as entities under state income tax rules—–as well as immunity from liability for the “trustee” typically under trutee immunity statutes

    the income is not otherwise taxable if mostly owned by pension funds–themselves exempt—but the JV is often taxable itself as an entity–or liability apportioned —but they usually catch nonexempt foreign investors for exempt–make em pay by apportionment of jv income across all states and local jurisdictions wherein the jv property sits–the homes

    as i think about it–there are lots of local jurisdictions whose taxes are being evaded by the failed trusts—too bad they would rather lay off firemen and cut retirement pay–raise taxes on everybody else–when there is so much taxable income to hit–the very people shoving costs onto the local jurisdictions/////

  254. Lies,

    “…he has offered to go to foreclosure court for me and observe…” In my opinion, that would be a mistake. Well-intentioned but a mistake nevertheless. Whatever your friend observes and relates will be tainted by his own biases, fears, misunderstandings. You’re already consumed by fear (it transpires in your posts). You don’t need someone else to add to it.

    Why are we, as a country, in the mess we’re in? Because we keep delegating to everyone (media, friends, doctors, attorneys, judges, etc.) the job of observing, analyzing and drawing conclusions for us.

    Wait until December and go to court to observe with him if you’re too afraid to go alone but don’t send him to get the feel for it on your behalf. The only way you can win is by taking control of your situation while learning to be detached from the outcome. You took that fight because:
    1) it is the right thing to do for you;
    2) What was done is unacceptable for you and you want redress;
    3) You want to leave your mark by taking part in the fight (maybe);
    4) You’re pissed and you want revenge;
    and whatever other reason YOU may have. They are your reasons. Don’t allow yourself to be distracted by taking on someone else’s reasons. And learn to be in the fight for the fight’s sake. Understand also what your attorney’s motivations are. I know what mine are: make a good living, revenge (it happened to him before he decided to specialize in foreclosure defense), leave his mark, break new grounds and… political aspirations (that i am not completely convinced he is aware of yet but that are very palpable…)

  255. Bayview Loan Serviceing vs Nelson…Electronic Document……/14

    We reverse and remand. BACKGROUND On November 22, 2004, Bayview filed a complaint to foreclose a mortgage against Nelson and the other defendants, …

  256. I should have noted that davies’ IL case might be good for its demonstration of denials against a claim.

  257. @davies – can’t find your comment, but followed your link to that IL case re: AWL, BAC, and FNMA. I’ve only read part of it, but the h.o. is in trouble, imo. First of all, the sentence structure stinks, which drives me nuts in pleadings and, okay, in posts or even comments, esp when the intent cannot be deciphered for love or money. Secondly, the h.o. has alleged at least 2 diff dates that FNMA owned the loan. The h.o. alleges AWL could not engage contractually, but then insists AWL should have executed an endorsement. Imo, if the court finds in favor of the note to AWL, I think, and there’s disagreement about this I believe, that the note should have been endorsed by CW dba as AWL. Courts are keen on keeping related entities separated. I learned this in Mike Tyson’s bankruptcy (!)
    And the h.o. might be just plain making part of the banksters case for them with that UCC fict payee stuff because of what the UCC says about fict payees and is actually cited by the h.o. And the h.o. repeatedly asks the question “can a dba contract?” (and I still can’t tell if the dba were reg’d or not from the pleading) He better know that answer and it better be ‘no’. Even Perry Mason told us never ask a question (like that) for which you don’t know the answer. Now here’s an attorney who needs to study Walker and Nosek. I was hoping to find something really substantial, but so far, ‘not so much’ – UNless
    the answer to that question is in fact “no”. I don’t know. Then what?
    (the banksters always have this at the ready) Don’t know that, either. Do you? Anyone know?

  258. @lies is all they tell

    you said
    they use many general forms depending on the case.

    mine was is induced into default case

    so the lawyers with thousands of cases use prepared forms–do you fit yourself into the form or does the atty?

    if you have the inclination read raftogianis

    there is a basic general underpinning for all cases–the entity claiming payment via foreclosure must meet UCC 3-301 —you must walk away with an original note or a surety bond

    possible arguments ??? to be “original” it must be authenticated by those who have been responsible for it–read rafto–by affidavit at least—because you cant tell a copy from the original—so your responses must include reference to the collection agency “not meeting ucc”, therfore I am subject to risk of double collection on the fake and real notes –therefore a standing problem—due process–deprivation of civil rights

    but you need to listen to your atty and hes probably got good–florida based law to support his case—-not the above academic interpretation

  259. enraged funny you said that about court. i have a friend form the hamlet that lives in a neighboring county and he has offered to go to foreclsoure court for me and observe. i will not be able to go until dec13 i work full time and i am not off until that date. it will be intresting to hear what he observed. i am intrested in the judge that has been signing off on all my motions. i will findout money when foreclosure court isi n session for him.

    yes i know you say i have a lawyer and i am the customer but the way it rolls in florida is some of the lawyers that get it have thousands of clients. this is because most of the case is via male with a hearing or trial here and there. with that said. they use many general forms depending on the case. mine was is induced into default case, there is a mer’s robos signed cases ect which mine is not just an example for you. so my affermative defenses included the fact that i was current on my mortgage when wells fargo told me not to pay. where in normal civil case that would be breach of contract. nulling and voiding contract. but it seems because htis is foreclsoures the judges judicate differently.
    i read an ohio case where the judge slammed the homeowner in court for listening to the bank. something on the line of they told you not to pay in order apply for a hamp loan they never promised whtey would give you the loan. which made no sense. they asked us not to pay before we can apply that is the breach not actually getting the modification

    i knoww i am making my self sick over this whole thing.

  260. Lies:

    I am not quite sure I see what the questions are. Can you resume them in the 1), 2), 3) format? What I read is a story.

    You do have an attorney so I suspect that he has all your docs. What you need is to compare both sets of docs and pull out all those that are different from the set you received at closing.

    If you do have proof of fraud, by all means, use it! And remember: your attorney is only as good as the strategy YOU design. The guy works for you. Dig into what he knows and what he’s accomplish thus far but keep control over the situation. Tell him what you want to accomplish, tell what to do, when to do it and how. You are the client!

    Lastly, one of the worst possible things you can do is second guess yourself and start beating yourself over the head for not having gotten everything in writing. Do you know that second guessing yourself at trial is THE reason people lose? The bank never ever second guesses itself. The bank affirms, states, declares. The bank does everything to destabilize you before the judge or the jury. Go to court and observe banks attorneys in the act: they’re pompous, arrogant, nasty, rude and absolutely full of themselves. It is an act designed to throw off people they deal with. They go to school to learn how to be like that. One of them (largest law firm in Columbus) told me once: “I am not being paid $500 an hour for you to waste my time.” to which I answered: “$500? That’s it? Last one they sent after me was making $750/hour. Your firm has lowered its standards! Bad economy?” The guy was livid.

  261. at enraged i am in florida near tampa. i am in discovery with an atorney that gets it. but hat doesnt mean the judge will. i just by the judge granting my case discovery with out having to motion the court for it is positive. would you be able to answer any of those questions. seems i am lost.

  262. And a good weekend to you all!

  263. Lies,

    So far, you’ve got a typical story.

    What state? Do you have an attorney? At what stage of your foreclosure are you?

  264. It all comes back to the contract, which is not a valid one. The complications are intentional. We do not have a lender in place who loaned the money on our deeds or note, period! The recorded deeds are erroneous. The originators borrowed money on our behalf, using our good credit, collateral and credit scores, then defaulted on them with the intent to gain either insurance, bailout money or FDIC payments. Either way, all a scam.

    Nothing is real here and the notes are not “valid”, or enforceable…because they circumvented the trust and have not disclosed who the lender is, which is what makes any contract valid or invalid, either way. The DMV has more oversight than the recorders offices in the U.S.

    Now, we have another bailout at 40 Billion per month from the Fed to buy MBS’. The reason is very simple; the entire Federal Pension system is at risk of collapse. Self-interest here folks. This is the reason no one is gaining traction in the courts, a cover up of saving the pension system. But, it will not work long-term. The MBS’ are junk and the only way to save this situation is the bailout, plain and simple. Now, they keep forgetting the taxpayers are almost broke and the middle class is almost obsolete. Way to go guys! Don’t be folled by the fancy language, smoke and mirrors. All lies!

  265. Neil: Except “Florida”. What about us Floridians??

  266. hi all i have a few questions
    1. what if they presented a note at foreclosure endorsed in blank…
    a. it is your signature but not from home closing. i banked with wells fargo…i have been a wachovia customer since 2004 so they have “many” coppies of my signature. it is just not the onw from original closing. you see at the original closing they included my middile initial in the typed below the line where i signed. on the mortgage i signed in using my middle initial , wells fargo presents my note with out middle intial. now we know why they dont record notes. all planned. also at closing i was handed an entire package of Blank paperwork. but guess what i remember signing everything in duplicate even triplicate.
    b. my note endorsement inblank is the rubber satmp of joan m. mills vp wells fargo. at 1st when i was served it looked ligit so did my signature and i put it away, waiting for my appt. with the lawyer then i noticed online that it was a stamp and signature did not match my mortage.
    with note of when this note was signed how does a judge know when this endorsement was signed?????
    2. assigments
    i have a fnm loan no assignments recorded. i have heard conflicting info.
    so there does not have to be assignments to own the mortgage???
    what i think is happening is NO ONE has the story straight. NO ONE realy knows. it is ultinately up to the judge and a lawyer to object to a ruling.

    3 correspondence

    we have asked for all corespondence ( and of course all transactions!!!!!! yes!!!!)

    i am part of the crowd that was told not to pay my mortgage to beable to apply for a hamp loan by wells fargo. what am i late 40″ i think i know by now to get “EVERYTHING IN WRITING”. well i called them the day before my mortgage was due and the due date. asking for it in writing. (yes call was recored by them for quality assurance) crying snd screaming asking for a supervisor ( i was upset) they ultimatley refused to put it in writing for me.

    continued to call me to make payments although they told me not to pay??? is suppose if i made a payment they could deny me a hamp loan. for being current. some what of a twist.

    4 wells fargo home mortgage is my servicer. wells fargo bank NA is foreclosing. wells fargo home mortgage just denied me a mortgage modification i never applied for. my last corresponce for loan mod was in 2011. i then receive a letter about short sales/ i am in foreclosure, i was dual tracked??
    the to top it off “this is joan from wells fargo your mortgage servicer this is an attempt to collect a dept anything you say will be used in that way” all the time

    i think if someone can honestly answer these questions it might help alot of people who turn to these websites when losing hope.
    i was lucky to have found neil in 2009 when googling mortgage fraud because wells fargo kept losing everything i faxed to them..

    has everyone seen ” zeigeist addendum” this was all planned.
    back in 1929. flouride inthe water and preservitives in our foods have caused us all to be doscile , not non caring blase. you see in 1929 people took it to the streets and demanded help ….now what do you see….homeless families.
    everyone on here must google birth certificates/federal reserve

    thanks everyone for your help forward

  267. This is a big part of the game, but the banksters are not being put to their proof. Of course these were bulk transfers, and I use the word loosely, with no endorsements on the notes with the possible exception of the original.

    I agree that this piece refers to proofs but he does not really address the proposition that there are two hurdles–the 1st of minimal right to bring suit is met by an art 9 filing of scheduled assets which is also demanded by the psa s -the 2nd is the art 3 satandard of no double claim –see 3-309 for example and comments thereto

    frankly i wish prof wouldv put some cites on those two statements re proofs

    the art 3 assurances of no double recovery are the constitutional side of this—the art 9 assignments if made by schedule are CR 17–less than certain–get creditor claimant in the ballpark—but he may not have the ticket needed to sit exclusively in the appointed seat

  268. dcb @ 2:22 – I followed your link:

    “D. The Shelter Rule

    It has always been a basic rule in commercial law that the sale of anything vests in the buyer whatever rights the seller had in the object sold. Phrased another way, the buyer takes shelter in the rights of the seller. Even legal rights can pass in this way, including “holder” status. Say, for example, that the payee fails to indorse the note (so no “negotiation” takes place) but instead sells the note to a new owner. The new owner is not a “holder” (since there has not been an indorsement by the payee), but the new owner takes shelter in the holder status of its buyer, and thus is a PETE according to both §§3-301 (defining PETE) and 3-203 (the shelter rule). In this case, the burden of proving proper ownership is on the person in possession of the instrument, and until that is done no liability on the note arises (since the maker of the note’s obligation to pay it under §3-412, see above, only runs to a PETE). The shelter rule even acts to pass on the original holder’s rights completely down the chain as long as the current possessor of the note can prove the validity of all previous transfers in between.”

    This is a big part of the game, but the banksters are not being put to their proof. Of course these were bulk transfers, and I use the word loosely, with no endorsements on the notes with the possible exception of the original.
    This material imo supports my proposition that a dot does not follow a note; only the right to an assgt follows.
    Good info and your comments were insightful, also.

  269. Your case is complicted—-well stated, thorough—but like most others you lose because “not in the interest of justice” if i remember it correctly—-the procedure is tangled in cal—-but to try to understand the basic standing issue that they must meet–it was to be resolved by a promise to deliver the note later?

    because you must interrupt seizure –you attacked 1st using the UCC presentment to get dishonor??–at least partly

    but idf you do not get the note or protection–denial of due process –state action depriving of civil rights–do you like federal–do you think a fed ct would be engaged in the sole issue of prevention of exposure to double claims? or is that impossible in cal residential realty?

    elexquisitor, on September 28, 2012 at 12:08 pm said:
    Update on my case. 3 causes of action + QT: violation 2943, slander of title; decl relief; and request for return of original note at end of case (2941). 2943 is CA QWR (copy of note) which defendants delayed answering until 21 days passed and I was forced to stop making payments in order not to affirm a fraudulent obligation. Then defendants sent a letter stating the ‘… requested document is not available in paper format…’, then filed NOD, usual transfer of interest, and months later answered QWR with a copy of the note. I fired my atty who directed me to BK, filed an amended complaint, and obtained prelim injunction under condition of making mtge payments to opposing counsel’s firm.

    Complaint stated I could secure rev mtge to pay off subject loan if beneficiary identified. 2943 allows for all damages. As defendants filed NOD instead of answering QWR, causing me to stop making payments, they became tortfeasors. I also denied defendants held beneficiary interest, denied the amount that was owing, and that property has multiple of remaining loan amt as equity in property. Most of my pleadings were focused on slander of title, with constant reminder of violation of penal code (115.5 – false filing). There is a placeholder about securitization if discovery allows, and recital that recent CA case law doesn’t apply to my case because it does not consider the public interest of having property recorded and available by disinterested party (counties) among other things (how much lower bid on Trustee Sale of FC home if title not clean, or unknown, and can’t be insured).

    But I focused on getting causes of action past demurrers, and now defendants’ answer has survived demurrers and the case has moved to discovery. Their answer states that their attorney says defendants’ possess the original note, endorsed in blank. Defendants presented assignments recorded with county recorder, but Calvo v HSBC issued since first PI, stating deed of trust loans are not encumbrancers and are not required to be recorded in order to conduct foreclosures (2932.5).

    In an attempt to reduce discovery costs, I filed motion to modify the PI, citing substantial evidence is available from parties as pleadings are past demurrer, and the change in case law since first PI, noting that questions of law need to be answered before questions of equity (the mortgage payments as ‘security for damages’), and asserted defendants are tortfeasors. I also stated the continued payments were never intended because the rev mtge would have paid off the loan in 2010, their answer provides only hearsay of their beneficial interest to receive such payments, and defined in my motion the corroborating documents necessary to confirm they are a party to the contract and that the court has jurisdiction over them in that context. And I requested a statement of decision on the facts used by the court if my motion was denied for issues such as why continued payments when equity exceeds debt and defendants are tortfeasors who injured themselves by their actions (filing the NOD), and why I should insure for security interest damages the damages caused by defendants for a fictitious loan without substantiation and a termination date in 2010, extended solely by defendants actions.

    The judge blew me off and denied my motion, citing there was no interest in justice or change in facts or law justifying a change. Furthermore, there would be no statement of decision, even though I cited statue and case law that appealable orders are judgments that allow statements of decisions, and that the Appellate court states it is reversible error per se to refuse to provide, because the judge would not have time to answer all the statements of decisions that would be presented. And no, the tentative ruling did not address the issues I raised in my request for statement of decision.

    This is the state of the CA judiciary today. The Laughistrators in Sacramento have raised court filing fees by 50% in the past few months, but not raised the standard for waiving fees of the Fed definition of poverty level. And court budgets have been slashed again in order to support all the CA programs has for illegal aliens.

    Any suggestions? Bear in mind an appeal would cost over $1k, and the Appellate court would only remand the case back to Sup. Ct to provide the required statement. I then likely have to file a 2nd appeal to actually deal with the motion to modify on the grounds the court abused its discretion in using the facts laid out in the the statement of decision response.

  270. Link to my case using deny / discovery in CA (previous Deny and Discovery post by Neil –

  271. @ER
    I dont know ER—I think all my ancestors agreed to was limited to the village—dont lie cheat and steal from your neighbor–in fact wasnt that neigbor thing in the text?

    my ancestors when they went out on the longboats —the rules did not apply—they became poor downtrodden dirt farmers after those monks made em feel guilty

    im wondering if it was the right thing to do—

  272. @ER
    Iv had occasion to monitor the activities of criminal elements in more traditional organized crime operations over the years—-Russian mafia etc

    They ALWAYS have sloppy records—it makes it easier to claim it was all a mistake

    the best criminals are foreign –they keep their “records” in foreign languages–just adds to the confusion–which set of records is the real set?

  273. DCB,

    When you go back to every single philosophy, be it Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroatrianism and what not, those 10 laws are constant. And they predate Judaism and Christianity by a few millennia…

    Judaism does not hold the patent over Gawd! Whatever Gawd is, it told all of humanity the same thing. Absolute. Not dependent on race, color, place, date or circumstances.

  274. DCB,

    “If I understand your facts, MERS has failed to prevent duplication of claims??? That is farly important—that would imply MERS does not screen or act as any sort of real chain—”

    MERS does not exist, in the sense that, being a computer system, it only keeps track of the data inputted by its members, whose list follows. Click on the site.

    As you see, it is quite extensive. Anyone of those accesses MERS database and updates it as the situation requires. Except that employees of MERS’ members are human. Those are banks employees, originators’ employees, title companies’ employees, pretty much anyone working for them. Again, check that list: we’re probably talking about thousands of companies and hundreds of thousands of people working for them, especially when you count all the banks.

    They make mistakes, they get lazy, they input the wrong info or… they are not being informed of changes. Personally, I don’t care which it is: bit is their sloppiness. Let them figure it out.

    What I do care about is that their sloppiness, dishonesty, greed or whatever causes me and millions of others like me some serious exposure to foreclosure. It’s one thing to suffer at my own hands. It’s another to suffer at the hands of some employee of an entity I have never dealt with and who has over me power I never gave him. Congress wants to legalize and officialize MERS. Fine. But it won’t me at my expense, if I can prevent it.

    Now, to go back to what you said: except for a very small number of homeowners, MERS records are a disaster. Members cut corners any way they could (hey, the economy is bad. And those employees are very poorly paid) and remember that the idea was to do away with recordations altogether.

    What I tell people is to regularly check their MERS info (like once a month or so) and to print what they see. They’ll soon discover that the data gets changed without rhyme nor reason. As an example, I have a Fannie. It was Fannie all along, except that, one day, it became Bank of NY Mellon. Mellon remained there for a couple of months and was switched back to Fannie. Someone F’d up. Of course, whatever happens in the MERS records never makes it to the county since it really doesn’t exist as transactions go. Other than documenting, documenting, documenting, I would have no way of proving what I say. So, every time I go on MERS, I print. it gives me the date the search was done right on the printout. Later on, if need be, I will demand in my discovery the entire computer file and especially those dates. And i can’t imagine a judge not going: “Huh! Interesting. No transfer, no assignment but the records were altered. Why? By whom? On whose orders? To reflect what kind of an accounting? Was securitization involved? Was there a transfer of trust or trustee?”

    When checking MERS, don’t limit it to the street address. Do every search they allow (by borrowers’ name, by both name and address, by SS No.,) and also do the “expanded search”. I promise you’ll find problems.

    It’s a drag. It’s almost a full time job. Hence my being so adamant that I will not settle for less than the time and energy I wasted on that.

    Not my screw ups. Members can fix them or pay my damages!

  275. Yes DC, thats the problem… those who found out about the titles first. The Banks didnt want us to know, They figured they could create more false defaults down the line and steal those homes back with the bad titles before we ever knew about it. I hope this helps you in Ohio!

  276. humanity was given 10 laws?????? do those apply to Buddhists? Maybe this is the problem—we just arent sure who those apply to as a burden and a benefit—-it seems as f there is some sort of exemption there if you live in london or New York

    maybe i dont get protected because my ancestors were just poor dirt farming peasant pagans in northern europe—-????

  277. I agree enraged … Glass-Steagall worked for us very well and it protected our intrests. Dodd-Frank is moving to slow. And the bankers have their hands in Congress trying to manupilate the words in Dodd-Frank … you know, “A Loophole” that alllows Wall Street to continue the theft by deception. Readers should know who the congressmen and women that voted to repeal Glass-Steagall, and they should also know the names of those manipulating Dodd-Frank and dragging it out … we dont need more regulation to cover bad, we already know that didnt work with the mortgages when they created more fraud to cover up the already existing fraud.

  278. @ER
    If I understand your facts, MERS has failed to prevent duplication of claims??? That is farly important—that would imply MERS does not screen or act as any sort of real chain—

  279. wow—you never stated the basis exactingly—–you had no choice but to cease pmt–its not your house

  280. Mandelman Matters is down again… Happens increasingly more often. He must ruffling too many of the wrong feathers…

  281. SC,

    Actually… I am debating whether this is good or bad. Dodd-Frank was, in my views, an attempt at compromising with the banks and WS rather than returning to sound practices and restoring Glass-Steagall, a perfectly good system which had proved itself beneficial to everyone but… banks!

    We’re going to have to decide whether we simplify and return to wisdom or we keep adding new laws and regulations, the result of which is only to make things more and more complicated.

    Remember that humanity was given 10 laws. Don’t consider yourself the center of the universe. Accept that there is something bigger than you that universally rules. Honor the people who brought you here (which never meant taking any abuse from control freaks). Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat and the rest. Don’t go after what’s not yours, etc. Those are absolutes.

    If everyone started to abide by them, we wouldn’t need to relativise by adding new laws just to fit the situation and risking to see them overturned to fit the order of the day.

    In my views, Dodd-Frank was a spineless cope out.

  282. @DC … You win the Prize! I sure hope folks like Hman get some help in AZ….@Enraged …. You Got It! When you see the Whole Truth, its not a pretty picture. Its hard to swallow … its deadly ugly toxic waste they created and found another way to profit from it at our expense and risks, and they tried to dump it on us. Shame on Them!

  283. I won’t comment on this.

    Court Delivers Loss for Dodd-Frank

    Published September 28, 2012


    A U.S. judge handed an 11th-hour victory to Wall Street’s biggest commodity traders on Friday, knocking back tough new regulations that would have cracked down on speculation in energy, grain and metal markets.

    Judge Robert Wilkins of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia threw out the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s new position limits rule, and sent the regulation back to the agency for further consideration.

    Wilkins ruled that, by law, the CFTC was required to prove that the position limits in commodity markets are necessary to diminish or prevent excessive speculation.

    He also ruled that the amendments to the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight law “do not constitute a clear and unambiguous mandate to set position limits, as the Commission argues.”

    The ruling is a major victory to traders just two weeks before parts of the new position limits rule were scheduled to go into effect.

    The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association brought the suit against the CFTC, arguing that the regulations would force their members to drastically alter their businesses, cost them tens of millions of dollars, and send customers fleeing.

    Wall Street has also long argued that regulators have not proven that position limits would curb speculation in markets and prevent disruptive price spikes.

    The CFTC and industry groups that brought the suit did not immediately have comment.

    The agency passed the position limit rule last year, in a bid to limit the number of contracts traders can hold in 28-commodities, including oil, coffee and gold.

    Read more:

  284. DCB,

    “It is obvious that the vast majority of homeowners of all stripes default and non-default are exposed to double claims on notes they thought were satisfied when the house changed hands.” Absolutely!

    It happened to me and I would never have known about it, but for servicer starting to play hanky-panky and my violently reacting and seriously investigating: when I purchased my house, the previous owner, my seller, had refinanced a few times. As I was pulling all the records, i realized that one refinance had never resulted in the recordation of a satisfaction of mortgage loan. When I further checked the MERS records, sure enough, that one loan still showed as active. It still does today: I regularly check MERS.

    That got me thinking that, since the mortgage goes with the house, I was wide open to an artificial default, incurred long before I even set eyes on the damn house. That is one of the reasons I decided to sue and to stop paying. Until such time as the record has been cleared up of any cloud, i will not put one cent toward it. Simple.

  285. Thats an old stat–debt now 17 trillion.
    “…the law is clear in all fifty states: unless the foreclosing bank has possession of the original promissory note the home owner signed at the closing, no foreclosure is possible. Why not? Because without that note, the bank is an inappropriate entity to do the foreclosure (in legal terms, the bank “lacks standing”). The law clearly says that only a “person entitled to enforce” the promissory note may do so, and that term is defined as someone in possession of the note or who has a logical explanation as to why it cannot be produced…In any foreclosure action, the home owner should demand to see the original note. If it is not produced, no judge should permit the foreclosure to go forward.”
    Summary of Argument
    “Standing”, and real party in interest rules are met at a minimum by conformity of the noteholders to comply with Art 9 re bulk ASSIGNMENTS of note and mortgage.

    Art 9 assignment is perfected by transfer of possession and filing a schedule of assets in the Secretary of State’s office–NY or Del. typically. The loan schedule was not filed in this cas—Art 9 not met.
    Then the claimant can honestly state I have a 1st blush slim right to enforce grounded in ART 9——claimant has a handicap at this point –but can still cure “right to enforce” under UCC ART. 3; specifically 3-301[proof of physical possession of original, and 3-309[affidavit of circumstances of lost note plus protection by court against double claims.

    But even if the note was obtained constructively by the claimant initially, sufficient to establish “standing” under CR 17; before the case is over the claimant must also meet the requirements of Art 3–presentment etc—where a slip or waiver can expose the maker of note to liability in hands of a holder who may not even be holder in due course[ie a thief]—-battle of affidavits ? !st claimants vs 2nd claimant’s
    Due Process-substantive 14th Amendment Right to settle the note 1st time–by obtaining from the claimant evidence of proper negotiation under Art 3 sufficient to defend against a second later claimant

  286. I just read this, an anonymous post borrowed by some site (and credited to “anonymous”. So, no copyright infringement here).

    It puts things into perspective. What we all seem to lack, nowadays.

    This cuts thru all the political doublespeak we get.
    It puts it into a much better perspective.

    Lesson # 1:

    * U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
    * Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
    * New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
    * National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
    * Recent budget cuts: $38,500,000,000

    Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

    * Annual family income: $21,700
    * Money the family spent: $38,200
    * New debt on the credit card: $16,500
    * Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
    * Total budget cuts so far: $3.85

    Got It ?

    OK now Lesson # 2: Here’s another way to look at the debt ceiling:

    Let’s say, you come home from work and find there has been a sewer
    backup in your neighborhood….and your home has sewage all the way up
    to your ceilings.

    What do you think you should do ……???

    Raise the ceilings, or pump out the crap?

    Your choice is coming Nov. 2012.

  287. @ER
    If I may trot out a concept;

    “Standing”, and real party in interest rules are met at a minimum by conformity of the noteholders to comply with Art 9 re bulk ASSIGNMENTS of note and mortgage.

    Art 9 assignment is perfected by transfer of possession and filing a schedule of assets in the Secretary of states office–NY or Del. typically.

    Then the claimant can honestly state I have a 1st blush slim right to enforce grounded in ART 9——

    But before the case is over the claimant must also meet the requirements of Art 3–presentment etc—where a slip or waiver can expose the maker of note to liability in hands of a holder in due course—-battle of affidavits ? !st claimants vs 2nd claimant’s

    Due Pocess-substantive 14th amendent right to settle the note 1st time–with evidence of proper negotiation under Art 3

    ibelieve this stuff has occurred —and certainly will again—or do we believe that thecollection agencies have been reformed so as to pass up legal opportunities to grab assets?????

    It is obvious that the vaste majority of homeowners of all stripes default and non-default are exposed to double claims on notes they thought were satisfied when the house changed hands

  288. @HMAN
    Admittedly its arizona which has the worst reputation in the country sadly, cause its probably nice there, but it would seem that somewhere they have to assert that the note is in default at least. If so then deny and demand presentment. They must present for you to offer payment or dishonor payment of the alleged note that you signed. under UCC —its not in default until they present and you dishonor ie refuse to pay —look at UCC

    suggest you might want to look at this very general treatise

  289. “””By demanding a look at the actual money transfers and accounting entries it is obvious that none of the parties who are foreclosing or supporting the effort to foreclose ever had a loan receivable from the borrower. Considering the $17 trillion given by the Federal government, the original obligations should be wiped out, the mortgage or other recorded instruments from these con artists should be removed, and the banks should be forced to pay back the money they received from investors.”””” EXACTLY what SHOWMETHELOAN has been asking for YEARS…. there is no loan. to the foreclosers.

    The courts weren’t listening before and many denied homeowner court cases – but now they are paying attention a little more it sounds like. Show me the loan……

  290. How would this apply in non judicial states, more specifically AZ. What can you Deny? The supreme court ruled that the assignment isn’t necessary before a trustee sale is initiated. Also, show me the note and the UCC protections don’t apply to a “trustee” sale as it is an action pursant to a trust deed. AZ has said time and time again the note isn’t necessary for the sale to commence.

    Much like CA they don’t want to look at the whole picture. The supreme court also stated the non judicial foreclosure was meant to happen outside the court system and be quick and efficient. Seriously, you have to sue them.

    What can you object to when the note and accounting aren’t necessary to foreclose.You must sue them and prove your case. This sounds great if you can make it work, I’m just not seeing it in my case.

  291. DCB,

    “Presumably in a judicial foreclosure state that means at least deny that the copy is the note and what if then also deny that it is your signature. Then they have the burden of proof on signature?”

    Remember that, in the days of computerized documents, pretty much anyone with some technical knowledge can “lift” any signature and affix it onto any document. “Show me the note” is intended to weed out that large-scale fraud.

    Deny and insist on the blue-ink original note. Not all judges understand yet what has been committed but, as they start being personally affected by the fraud, deny and discover will, indeed, get more and more traction. And make no mistake: it will happen. Judges are salaried people who rely on taxpayers for their livelihood. So are the military and all police forces.

    Once the middle class is gone, the taxpayers, as a species, will slowly and surely disappear. Judges and all employees of the public sector will find themselves without a job, without a salary and unable to pay for their own mortgages. They will default like everyone else. What they ignored for so many years will come to bite them in the butt. And when it does, they will have no one to fight for them since everyone will already have lost it all.

  292. @ JENN
    How do you know that #2 represents an interest in the note you signed? How do you know if you are getting credit for payments made past or present—-does #2’s numbers start with the last report of #1—thats something to hang your hat on. In that I mean to make you feel more comfortable that you are not simply dealing with a thief. But always you must assume two things as background–then you will be less likely to be surprised. 1) assume that #2 is a thief that is pocketing everything you give them—and giving nothing in return, and 2) they rarely keep promises made even in written agreements
    3) [added] sooner or later they want to crawl into secrecy mode–so when you realize how badly they screwed you–its too late to complain about it

    If you keep all these pieces firmly in mind—the only surprise that you may have is in how true these warnings are.

  293. Loan originated 2005.
    QWR for entire transaction history of the loan – info did not arrive until many request were made. Finally got a partial history!
    2nd servicer is unable to provide the copy of the transaction history prior to when servicing was officially transfered to first servicer in 2008? Odd? Not providing any transaction history for loan from 2005-2008 when our “Lender” was our servicer.
    Working on a mod with 2nd servicer – terms sound good.

  294. Presumably in a judicial foreclosure state that means at least deny that the copy is the note and what if then also deny that it is your signature. Then they have the burden of proof on signature? Vs the UCC presumption of validity upon presentment—but if the entire industry is negligent as a matter of consent—is the presumption already rebutted so as to give the same result; burden of proof is upon the claimant –to prove the note.

    Technically it seems that you could register demand outside court —by letter……non-compliance with UCC rules regarding your right of presentment …..might then be used as an affirmative defense to either foreclosure complaint or as the basis for filing to block or unravel a self-help provision for collection agencies.

    Beyond this it surely seems to me that people in those self-help states right to substantive due process under 14th amendment is being denied by state action that deprives them of protected civil rights—

    is the conlaw defense against risk of double payment on the note commonly raised in such states?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: