BOA Deathwatch: $2.43 Billion Settlement — Tip of the Iceberg

“If we know with certainty that misrepresentation to investors lies at the heart of the so-called securitization scheme, why is it so hard for Judges and lawyers to believe that misrepresentation to homeowners lies at the heart of the origination of the loans that were the most important part of the securitization scheme? In fact, why is it so hard for Judges and Lawmakers and Regulators to conceive and believe that Wall Street didn’t securitize the loans at all and only pretended to do so?” — Neil F Garfield,

EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: The settlement sounds big, but Bank of America has already announced that it had “put aside” another $42 billion for the defective acquisitions of Merrill Lynch, an underwriter in the fake securitization scheme, and Countrywide, a sham aggregator of residential mortgage loans.

The facts keep getting reported, but nobody seems to question the meaning of those facts or their consequences. The Wall Street Journal reports that dozens of lawsuits are still pending against BOA from insurers, credit default swap counter-parties and investor-lenders, each alleging that “countrywide wasn’t honest about the quality of mortgage backed securities it issued before the financial crisis. While it is true that pressure was exerted from Hank Paulson to make sure that BOA acquired Merrill and Countrywide to prevent a general financial collapse (you won’t have an economy by Monday if we don’t step in” (quote from Paulson and Bernanke to President George W Bush, it is equally true that BOA management pronounced the deals as the “deal of a lifetime.”

The very fact that BOA failed to peak under the hood before buying the car is ample corroboration of the handshake mentality being leveraged against each other as Banks scrambled to the top of the heap without concern for either their own companies or the country. Their lack of concern for their companies comes from the fact that they were receiving cash bonuses of pornographic size while those acquisitions went sour. Back in the days when management of the investment banks required general partnerships in which the partners could be personally liable, none of this could have happened. If the Bank fell, management didn’t care because they would still be rich whereas in the old days they would have been wiped out.

The settlement announced on Friday gives a very small percentage of money back to investor lenders and shareholders in the bank, both of which consist of groups of people who were largely investing for retirement. Next year, the writing on the wall is clear as a bell: either pension benefits are going to be slashed or there will be another major government bailout of the pension funds, some of which is already provided by law in government guarantees.

Either way, the people are going to be screaming at a continuation of an endless financial crisis that could be stopped on a dime by one simple magic bullet: admitting that the mortgage bonds were pure trash backed by no loans, and thus paving the way for the removal of the “mortgages” or Deeds of trust” that were recorded to secure the loans. But nobody wants to do that because ideology is still controlling the policies and the practical consequences of those policies is that more undeserving banks will be getting free homes for which they neither funded the origination nor the acquisition of the loans because the “originator” was never the lender.

Politically, the Banks are losing traction as representatives of both major political parties step away from the Banks, even while accepting huge donations from them. It is clear that the candidates who are receiving huge donations are probably bound by promises to back the banking industry as they desperate try to avoid the correct legal conclusion that virtually none of the loans were made payable to the lender, and none of the mortgages or deeds of trust were secured by a perfected lien.

It isn’t just that the the loan losses will fall on the Banks that were pulling the strings on the puppets at closings with the investors and closings with the homeowners; their real problems stem from the false claim that they were are holding valuable paper (mortgage backed bonds) whose value would not survive the worksheet of a first year auditor.

With only nominees on the note and mortgage and the obligation being owed to an as yet undefined group of investors whose money was used, contrary to written agreement and oral assurances, to be place bets at the window of the banks and hedge funds around the world and fund managers who were supposedly investing in triple A rated “Stable” securities that were “insured”, the investor lawsuits corroborate what we have been saying for 6 years: if the existing laws of property and contract are applied, neither the promissory note (at least 40% of which were intentionally destroyed) nor the mortgages (deeds of trust) are enforceable for collection or foreclosure.

The homeowner owes money to an undefined group of creditors, the balance of which is unknown because the Banks control the accounting and the accounting leaves out significant insurance proceeds, payments from credit default swap counter-parties, and federal buyouts and bailouts. The Banks are fighting to retain control of that accounting because if some third party starts auditing the money trail they are going to find that the “assets”  claimed by the banks are actually liabilities owed back to the parties that paid 100 cents on the dollar for the entire pool of mortgage bonds, none of which were actually backed by a legal obligation or an enforceable lien.

In short, if borrowers litigate they are fighting to get to the point where the banks and servicers are over a barrel and must settle — but only after making it as difficult as possible. Hence the strategy described in my seminars called “Deny and Discover”.

Because at the end of the day when  the number of cases won by borrowers exceeds the number of successful foreclosures (or perhaps far before that time) the assets are going to disappear and the liabilities are going to pop up in the banks. The consequence is that these banks will either have greatly diminished equity or negative equity — i.e., the BANKS will be Underwater! The FDIC and Federal reserve will thus be required to step in an “resolve these behemoth banks selling off the salable parts to smaller, manageable banks that are not so big they can’t be regulated.

As I survey the landscape, I see no hope for BOA, Citi, Chase or even Wells Fargo to survive the bloodbath that is coming, nor should they. The value of their stock will drop to worthless, which it is now anyway but not recognized, and the value of those regional or community banks and credit unions that pick up the pieces will correspondingly rise. The loans will vanish because the investors have no practical way of determining whose money went into any particular loan; the reason for that is that the money trail avoids the document trail like the plague. There were not trust accounts or other financial accounts in the name of the empty pools that issued the worthless mortgage bonds.

This is where ideology, law and practicality clash because of a lack of understanding of the consequences. The homeowners are getting a house not “free” but unencumbered by the originators who faked them out with false payees, false lenders and false secured parties. But the tax code already takes care of that. This isn’t forgiveness of debt. This reduction, in fact possibly overpayment of the debt was caused by the banks trading with investor money as though the money and the loans were the property of the banks, which they were not.

The effect on homeowners is that they will be required to recognize “income” from the elimination of the obligation, which is taxable and subject to Federal tax liens. The amount of that lien or obligation will be far less than the amount of the original loan, but the government will receive a portion of the savings through taxes, the investor-lenders will be compensated as the megabanks are resolved, and the crisis caused by a disappearing middle class will be over.

That will give us time to devote our attention to student loans and those “Defaults” which were also subject to false claims of securitization and in which the government guarantee was supposedly divided up without government consent as the originator, not caring about loan repayment, pushed students into larger and larger loans. What the participants in THAT fake securitization chain don’t realize is that under existing applicable law, it is my opinion that an election was made: either they had a loan receivable on the books for which there could be government guarantee, or they could reduce the risk by splitting the loans up into pieces and get paid handsomely for simply originating the loan. Simple logic says that the banks could not have both the guarantee from the government PLUS the elimination for risk through securitization in table funded loans that most probably also ignored the closing documents with investor lenders who advanced money for pools in which student loans were supposedly “assigned.”

88 Responses

  1. Well my sister tells me the part about the bankster telling her husband not to worry about a foreclosure until mid 2013 is just by word of mouth. They could not get them to put in writing. There has not been any foreclosure initiated again as of yet. The sale was canceled abouit nine months ago. Not a year like I thought.No notices of any kind and no more knocks at the door.The mortgage has supposedly changed hands recently and they sent a letter of objecttion.

  2. @Poppy

    Yep—Crony Totalitarianism is alive and well!

  3. @ All, for anyone who wants to check this out:

    Received this from a friend today?

    Subject: Who Is Brookfield Properties
    > We Need to Keep Our Eyes Open, folks…
    > ——
    > You can’t make this stuff up.
    > Read the NY Times Oct 13, 2011 to verify ownership etc.
    > I didn’t really understand all this Occupy Wall Street protesting
    > but it is getting clearer now…
    > Do you know the park in NYC that the Wall Street protesters are occupying?
    > It’s Zuccotti Park. Did you know this park is not owned by the city
    > of New York?
    > It is owned by Brookfield Properties.
    > Brookfield Asset Management received an Obama Department of Energy
    > Loan guarantee of over $160 million within 10 days of approving the
    > take over of the Park.
    > Brookfield is a Canadian company with assets of 70 billion. Google it!
    > It is all on their website-
    > And Why is the US Taxpayer guaranteeing a loan to a VERY wealthy
    > Canadian company?!?!
    > Who was just hired by Brookfield Properties as an attorney?
    > Vice President Joe Biden’s son.
    > And Who sits on the board of Brookfield Properties? Mayor Bloomberg’s
    > live in girlfriend.
    > Now, guess what company just received some of the last of the Obama
    > Stimulus $$$$$$$?
    > Thaaaaaaaaaaaat’s right… Brookfield Properties.
    > Isn’t life great in America!
    > Now, guess what? On a completely unrelated note, Wisconsin is
    > shaping up to be the swing state in the 2012 presidential elections.
    > Not Florida. Not Ohio. But Wisconsin.
    > Now, guess who owns the company that will be tabulating the
    > electronic votes in Wisconsin?
    > Thaaaaaaaaaaaat’s right, the biggest contributor to Obama, the puppeteer
    > George Soros. Whaaaaaaaaaaaat a coincidence!!!
    > Remember what Joe Stalin said. It’s not the people who vote that
    > count. It’s the people who count the votes.” (Stalin)

  4. @DC, … Treating the symptoms of a diease .. will not kill it, it allows it to grow more aggressivly. You must dig it up from the Roots and remove the contaminated soil. What did you think we were using the Shovels for?

  5. Ending on a Healthier Note … The anti-botic is working. The diease is in remission. Its not active enough anymore to pay its own bills. Dam … I was counting on that check to pay my bills! NOT!

  6. I hope this is a false alarm! keep me posted.

  7. I find it hard to belive at this time—the question is what will they do with a trillion dollars or more MBS—-gain control at fed of this stuff—??? massive REo rent experiment?

  8. DCB,

    I posted that thing earlier today and then, I did my research.

    Jury still out how legitimate it is. Don’t get alarmed. It’s coming from a Realtor. So far, nothing confirms it.

  9. IS THERE ANY SUBSTANCE TO THIS __COULD BE THE EMINENT DOMAIN SECURITIZER PR……..there are no citations —-i doubt they would announce this prior to mid-november???????

    Copied below is an email solicitation for me, CJ Holmes, real estate broker, to sign up for an REO webinar with absolutely scary news about the cancellation en masse of loan mods.

    This hit my email on 9/30/12 at 8:14pm:

    Dear CJ,

    Please make arrangements to attend one of the webinars listed below. You will be part of a group of select Sonoma city real estate professionals who will qualify to apply as an REO partner for one , or several of the financial institutions who have been affected by the recent cancellation of federal mortgage debt relief programs . HAMP has officially cancelled 1 million loan mods, as foreclosure filings are beginning to surge once again with the economy heading into the fourth quarter of 2012. The Treasury Department is reporting that 229,185 permanent mods have already re-defaulted and that 16% of trial mods have quickly gone back into foreclosure. These numbers are expected to rise significantly as the shadow inventory backlog becomes financially unmanageable for banks.

    In addition, the recent mandate by the administration that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac discontinue writing down underwater mortgages has paved the way for the initiation of a record number “strategic default” foreclosures. A documented 1.1 million homeowners have simply “walked away” from undervalued homes to avoid heavy IRS penalties that are scheduled to resume January 1, 2013.

    These recent changes in legislation have prompted increased filings in Sonoma city. Government controlled entities like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and HUD, as well as many of the nation’s largest banks are scrambling to dispose of REO inventories as quickly as possible.


    It’s news like this that inspires me to do everything possible to stop foreclosures NOW.

    Counties need to immediately eminent domain ALL securitized loans and foreclosures of securitized loans and stop the banks from fraudulently foreclosing. If we don’t stop the banks, they will foreclose on the rest of the 40,000,000 securitized loans they have left in this country, and everyone and our economy will be ruined.

  10. i know!

  11. Shelley, I posted that thing a few hours ago.

  12. One party tried to file it in Californina county records and they were not allowed to file it as they presented it. They did find an attorney who did BK for them. They were in a panic to try anything, They sent all the letters then hired a BK attorney. They were in a panic and did what they could while looking for an attonrey. So dont know what would have happened in Calif if they did not do BK. They lucked out to be happy with BK and their attorney. Finding a good attorney and then a decent judge are the key to wining. .

  13. @Shelley

    I’ll bet none of those were in California, were they?

  14. This state is a non judicial state, a contract state. This was directed to us by someone by email to go to county records to find it and use it to copy. So we did the same.

  15. The recorders office accepted it and it is public notice. Had to put a face page on it and get it notarized. Certified proof numbers strip on it of the mailing. All are keeping all docs and letters and documenting everything. I just dont know if my brother in law has the banksters on letter or phone for telling them they were on a wait list and not to worry about foreclosure until after the mid of 2013 one on one discussion. I left him a voice mail. I will send the generic Notice of Cease and Desist used for this. by email

  16. Shelley,

    “…then filed them on county record for public notice.”

    That I don’t know. All I’m telling you is that, whatever happens with the banks, you always need to posture yourself for a big battle. And you do it by writing and confirming and keeping a log of phone calls (who called whom and what was discussed).

    Record letters at the recorder’s? Never heard of it. Documents recorded at the recorder’s are pretty specific…

  17. EVERYONE of the people that did this sent their letters out ceritified mail with signature required and then filed them on county record for public notice.

  18. I honestly dont know if it is by letter or phone call. I will send this to them and make sure they send a letter certified mail to them asking for this confirmation. You are absolutely correct. The bank can surprize them and can not be trusted OBVIOUSLY. I diid not ask them if it was in writing. I will and get back to you. My brother in law is pretty bright I dont think he would trust it unless it is in writing. Will let you know.

  19. A freind that is in the real estate business sent hers in and she is now helping her daughter and son in the court due to she has hers stopped and is not in trouble right now, and I am thinking her daughter and son in law did not send the paperwork in. A man in Florida was given his day in court due to it and the case was reconsidered. He could not find an attorney so it did not go well. But he had his day in court and can go back as soon as he finds a good attorney.He stayed in the house for several more months. before he lost. I really hope you all find an attorney that will help you. The biased judges are the obstiicles. not judging by the rule of law. It is rare to find a good judge that believes in the rule of law. For some corrupt reason the judges are ruling by bias unconstitutional law for the most part. Good lawyers are worth the money. Look for funds donated to help you pay for attorneys. Funds are out there.

  20. @Shelley,

    When you say “Then my sister and brother in law demanded a one on meeting with the banksters and are told they are on a wait list to be scheduled sometime in mid 2013, not to worry about a foreclosure for now.”, did they ask for a confirmation in writing?

    This is the most important step in any contact with the bank. Always, always, always have it in writing. Also always, always, always grab the business card of the person they met and if they cannot have it in writing, always, always, always confirm by letter the meeting, the date and time and the name of the person they met, as well as the substance of what was discussed.

    And then, send it certified. Something very simple such as:

    “Dear so and so,

    Thank you for receiving us on (date) at (time and hour) in (place). As we discussed with (bank’s employee’s name) here is what will take place… And then, you list every subject and every promise made by the bank.

    At the end, you conclude by saying: “In the event that we may have misunderstood any issue discussed during the meeting, we will ask that you kindly correct any point of misunderstanding. Absent any response from your services by (put a date, two weeks after the date of your letter), we will conclude that our understanding is proper and correct and that everything will proceed in the time and fashion agreed upon.” It is certified and you keep a copy. That’s called documenting. You have no idea how powerful that is!

    And guess what? They never answer those letters. With that kind of letter, you can force someone to pay you sums they don’t owe you. Know why? It’s certified and it’s evidence. That’s how you build your file.

  21. THe banks never mail the information to you. Once I did all the letters above I did not hear anything from the banks for ten months. Not one call or one letter. Then I became scared and began my Pro Se case. I was not going to stand around waiting for the front door to be busted in. I knew the banksters had mod defrauded me. Then I began investigating everything. And WOW did i discover what had happened to me and millions. These letters have stopped more than I listed. A friend of mine in the mortgage business asked a man of knowlege if there was a quick method to stop a sale at auction at the last minute [when I sent the man from GA email to him.] The mans response was “YES” send a letter to Cease and Desist.” Very interesting HUH! I have al list of people these letters have stopped their foreclosure and sale even just before sale. Only one that it did not and I think it is because they are embarrassed to admit it was not sent. I dont belive it was sent.. Not ony that but the FDCPA letter of dispute not being answered and they dont. Allows for treble damages due to CPA violations and FDCPA violations.

  22. Yes—and it was orchestrated to happen at the SAME TIME as the COMPLETE FRAUD and deception of 9/11…”wag the dog” and steal everything in sight and then kill the witnesses to the truth…

  23. My brother in law and sister and the man in GA waited until the last minute note knowing they could or should have done something. It was way over thirty days and the banks still responded. They had been decieved and thought they were dealing with the real party. So it is never to late. But dont knowingly wait. Do it ASAP! I sent an email from the man in GA telling me sweet Jesus it worked. He is looking for an attorney like so many.

    Javgold I dont believe the truth has been said about why BOA bought Countrywide and etc. The story is the government pretty much told them they had to. To save the world. Rumors from nsiders tell me the big banks took out the smaller banks by statements in the media the smaller banks were in trouble and they had been trying to purchase them. I believe their intent was to devour them and spit us out. By fraud false assignments and fraudclosures. Then blame the victims for their crime. The banks were bad and riskie the homeowners were dead beats and liars. “THEY DID IT SYNDROME”! Fool the media the sheep and all Americans and rob the weath. Remember the Wizzard of Oz ” video? All designed and manufactureed to fail including our orchestrated defaults.

  24. @Shelley

    That is so interesting…good for you.

    I just found a letter I had received back in Dec. 2009 from my servicer that says that they are now servicing on behalf of Deutsche Trust Company (as trustee of the securitization), blah blah, and then at the bottom it says:

    “If you dispute this debt in writing or if you request proof of the debt or the name and address of the original creditor within the thirty day time period that begins upon receipt of this notice, the law requires us to stop our collection efforts (through litigation or otherwise) to collect the debt until we mail the requested information to you…”

  25. The banksters are under order to off load their riskie debt to establsh a healthier business model. As Neil has said be sure to send a letter of objection to their authority to represent and deni the alleged debt. See Neils letters and notices on the left column. Then get an a good attorney and proof of broken chain of title and PSA fraud. You have twenty days to object or they can consider your silence admissn of the alleged debt and acknowleding they are the party interest. Check out sending a letter of CEASE and Desist also. And the FDCPA letter on Neils list. I am giving I am under the understanding a Cease and Desist letter will stop a foreclosure days from a sale at auction. I know of one party that happened to.All the above stopped his foreclosure in days. My sister and brotherinlaw stopped their foreclosure and sale in just days with all the above including the Cease and Desist order. Then my sister and brother in law demanded a one on meeting with the banksters and are told they are on a wait list to be scheduled sometime in mid 2013, not to worry about a foreclosure for now. They have been waiting since a year ago when their letters stopped the process. They would be homeless with four children if they had not used the letters and told the party on the phone they objected to their phone calls and claims of party of interest.

  26. @beauduke,

    Key in msfraud bayview loan services and you’ll have the rundown of everything they have on that shoddy outfit. They have been sued left, right and across and haven’t always won.

  27. In a strange turn of events, after 2 1/2 years of fighting with BofA and right in the middle of “negotiating” with them on an acceptable remedy, they are transferring servicing to Bayview Loan Servicing out of Florida. Anybody have any dealings with them? Insight on them?

  28. CW and AHMSI were special customers of DOCX Lps–Alpharetta division—–check the price list to find your defective docs.

    60% of AHMSI serviced trusts had no loan schedule filed—-they did not meet UCC Art 9 assignment requirements. this is minimum threshold for CRP 17 standing. [No double recovery likely if Art 9 met]

    But still must meet some threshold under Art 3—but presumptions of authenticity work for the presenter there.

    If there was no loan schedule filed then there should be dismissal unless the original note is presented at summary judgment. No need to wait for trial–but need to demand it under UCC presentment authority.

    if no loan schedule filed–then the whole thing rests upon the presentation for payment or dishonor of the ORIGINAL note. Ergo the importance of being able to recreate the mortgage loan file aka in DOCX “recreate ENTIRE collateral file”–which screams INCLUDING THE NOTE at me. After all the ENTIRE file is the most xpensive item on the price list at $95–i would hope id get a nice looking note for that.

    and lest there be doubt about the creation of notes–see the $12.95 allonge “creation”

    these guys are very careful about the use of the terms” Create”
    and “recreate”

    So if you face either of this dynamic and inventive duo—1st see if the schedule was filed with SEC securitization docs—then look really hard at UCC 3—if no scedule was filed

  29. HOPEFULLY OREGON WILL FOLLOW WASHINGTON NEVADA COURTS BETRAYED ITS CITIZENS. I have not read all the details. The brief would not print out for me. Something wrong with the site. Hopefully the people are protected by the chain of title land securites pool analysis.

  30. @DC… Heres one for you. What if the origional Allonge/attatched to the Note were not scanned before it was shredded with the note. And the folks who recreated one… didnt create it to match the origional copy of the note and allonge left in the borrowers closing package.?

  31. @ALL

    For those of you that care to examine the UCC proofs of note authenticity–indorsement signature authenticity etc—not to detract from the UCC Art 9 –verification of assignment en masse which appears to be at the core of the securitization research

    see the link

    This is an oldie goldie—but the significance applies today—-especially if your servicer was previously a DOCX- LPS client –eg DOCX created an assignment or two for your benefit–ie to befuddle you—

    Note in particular you sharp pencil types–on page 2 of this price list “create note allonge” and “recreate entire collateral file”

    Now I have to “interpret” that lattermost collateral file. The PSAs commonly if not always described with some specificity what goes into the “mortgage loan file” and where that was supposed to physically reside. I would venture an aducated guess that the so called DOCX “entire collateral file includes a copy of the original note–just as the mortgage loan file includes the actual original note

    so the ability to obtain copies of the loan file and CREATING an allonge [ie clearly a new creation–not repro] should cause some questions in your heads as to why they recreate files and create allonges—-the allonge apprarently springs up by immaculate conception/deception all by itself–which seems to me that it was not affixed to the note when the allonge was signed–???? or did the DOCX transvestites actually get the loan files, pull the notes, and then somehow lay on indorsemnents by robosigners–is there a difference in terms of authenticity

    i posit to you all that the mere existence of this price list is contravening evidence to rebut the presumption of authenticity of any note which is presented for payment or dishonor–this is a big deal–look closely

  32. Duhhh…Carie! Why do you think they been calling the note holder an unsecured debt collecter …. How many years now?



    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.

    And the real/current creditor is NOT the security investors—no matter how you may spin it.

  34. Example… Origionator/lender borrowed $200,000 from WH line funded by the retiree/ Invester/lender to the Origionator /Lender. Origionator Lender loans you the principal loan for $100,000. If Origionator Lender did not sell the loan via reg with Sec… fannie etc…ITS NOT INSURED by Taxpayer. Then Origionator /Lender still owes the Investor/lender $200,000. Then there is the pretender investor/servicer … lets call them CW. CW files fraudulent claims in Judicial States with the courts they own the note and hold lien to title. BUT… the truth is MERS held lien and never released it to CW. Mers satisfaction of mortgage not filed and no lien in favor of CW. Homeowner wants to transfer Warrenty Deed, homeowner pays off BofA. But in order to grant warrenty deed Chicago Title would want proof to get title ins, PROOF NEEDED…. the homeowner must prove years old LP was released (????) Homeowner must prove CW paid off Mers/retiree/invester lender. (????). I would say the homeowner was in a pickle. Now dont forget CW collected on the CDOs etc up to40x that BofA would be liable to repay as succesor servicer. And the Cherry on top is that the Origionator/lender still owes the retiree/invester lender $200,00. And the homeowner is left thinking … how is my $100,000 going to pay off all these liabilites? How will I ever prove I satisfied the debt with out the origional note? How will I know another Proffer will not pop out from behind Mers in the Future with another copy of the Origional Note? OK… I have a headache now?


    “…In response to your email dated ______, requesting an accounting, ledger and balance sheet of our payments to the investor who owns the loan. We respectfully decline to provide you that information since that information has no bearing on your obligations under the promissory note and deed of trust that you signed. We previously provided you a transaction history that reported our receipt and application of payments we received on your account.”

  36. 4 more years of this ongoing cover up for a quadrillion dollars in credit fraud by Obama & the FED and we will be robbed of everything by these crooks. We will be a total welfare nation. Though we fund & pay for everything, these psychopaths will only allow us to have what they see fit, and they will pocket all of the rest. There will be no more personal wealth, small business or private property ownership for the American People. We can’t allow that type of tyranny & forced oppression to take hold of our lives. The framers of the Constitution never intended for the banks posing as politicians to control our lives. Everyone of these crooks and the FED need to be voted out.

  37. Yeah, 20 million are “illegals”….at that rate 30% of the population is in need….Just Great! Where do we go from here?

  38. CNBC just reported 100 million Americans are on welfare.

  39. @ Shadowcat

    You bet…crash and burn BOA.

    Times have changed and banks usefulness and societies well being is at risk dealing with them. They serve no purpose and people MUST change the way they do business, as they have ultimately changed the game.

    No longer is your money safe or your property. When this entire thing goes bust and in my humble opinion it will, people will be devastated. In fact, many who think this is just about people buying a house they could not afford are kidding themselves, we are way beyond that. It was only about 1-2% of home buyers, who are gone.

    Every single homeowner has taken a hit, if nothing else with significant reductions in value and discretionary money burned to a crisp. The bigger picture is redistribution…most Americans can no longer afford to retain real estate and it is now in the hands of the top 1%, while rental demands are climbing at a rate faster than I have ever seen.

  40. Poppy.. there is only one reason they would file the suit in CW’s name. There must be a CW LP on file at the recorders office and/or the court from the previous loan mod scam or default. BOA has a problem when the only bought the servicing rights …. if CW already clouded title. BOA left CW cases open in court for years and left LP on titles, BOA was in fact waiting for a redefault to get it off the books and fc in CW name. Those who did not redefault (or default in the first place) … Well ….. lets say BOA has alot of assets to write off their books one way or another. I prefer to pay them off and demand performance. It just tickles me Pink … knowing BOA has to pay all the Ins swaps back.. up to 40x the amount of the principal loan.

  41. As for BOA…crash and burn. If the government had let the big 5 dump for poor business practices, my belief is we would be on the road to recovery. Now, we are bailing them out again buying 40 Billion dollars of MBS’ per month, courtesy of the taxpayers again!

  42. @ Javagold

    Why? Because they bought 1.4 Trillion in servicing rights from Countrywide…$450.00 per loan. In court with them and it is a fact. Now, rap your head around that. Then they got a tax break from our generous government for the loss…DAH? What loss? Now, they are trying to file against me for the full amount of the note, which they do not own just by the purchase of Countrywide.

    The servicing generates far more revenue from the note.

    Oh wait, servicing a loan that has been paid in full? Yup…and they have filed suit in the Countrywide name, where Countrywide ceased doing business in 2009. Last time I checked the law, a ceased corporation cannot sue, be sued or defend and action.

    It gets better. In court they produce a “note”, where the judge will not enter this document in evidence and we cannot get this document, except as a copy. Okay!

    My point, even if they have a note, where is the PROPER assignment/authority to go to court and cash-in? Having 3 court cases, I have not seen one admitted into evidence, nor have I seen an original. And even if they have an original, what does that mean? To me, nothing….if it is not assigned properly. The production of documents is so persuasive now and perfected, you cannot trust your own signature, the copies are soooooo good.

  43. topic but i must post i opened a letter from Dept bof justice CA,yesterday after my 12 hr gig at the hospital- i should not have opened my mail, anyhoo- it says basically dear victim, bla bla refers to a loan modification scam i paid into at the outset of my scrap, well its an offer to go all the way to Riverside so i can be councelled at a workshop , and hurry because places are limited (omg im dying) “the service is provided at no extra cost to you”
    the “service” is for lessons in financial planning. (head in hands) with what, plans for what??? you have it all
    im so insulted i can eat my toast.

  44. It is Monday, first day of both the week and the month and… Monsanto is NOT doing well. Have a grand day, all! I, for one, am ready to take on the world.

    Wall Street Watch this Week: Harvesting a New Quarter
    By Rick Aristotle Munarriz, The Motley Fool

    “This may seem like a good time to invest in agriculture stocks — emerging markets are growing, and that creates a greater demand for farmed food. However, analysts see both companies failing to keep up with last year’s bottom-line results.

    Analysts see Mosaic earning $1.16 a share, just short of the $1.17 a share it served up a year earlier. The news gets hairier at Monsanto, where Wall Street’s looking for the chemical giant to post a loss that is roughly twice as large as the $0.22 a share deficit that it posted during the same fiscal quarter last year.

    It may not be pretty, but at least investors will get a clearer snapshot of the industry this week.”

  45. Very important case to watch. The entire article can be found here.

    Supremes docket income tax challenge
    Colorado man’s challenge to IRS says wages don’t count

    The government calls those who argue the income tax has no legal foundation “tax protesters” and labels their arguments “frivolous.” And usually judges toss their arguments out of court, assess them court costs on top of taxes, interest and penalties, and sometimes even threaten them if they file further cases.

    But now the U.S. Supreme Court – the nine judges who sit on the bench in Washington by virtue of their selection by presidents and confirmation by the U.S. Senate – has docketed exactly that type of case.

    The results? Who knows, considering the radical arguments offered by the pro se plaintiff, Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, a Colorado chiropractor who has been involved in a number of business ventures, including

    Among Maehr’s contentions is that while the government has the legal authority to tax, the Internal Revenue Service has used “unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased” manipulations to assess income taxes on that which is not income – essentially salaries and wages.

    Basing his argument on 10 years’ worth of research into tax law, he concludes that salaries and wages are the result of the mutual agreement among participants to exchange labor for money – and that’s not income.

    Income, he said, is the increased value of an asset, such as interest on money in a bank account, which can be subjected to income tax.

    He told WND his arguments repeatedly have been tossed from courthouses – in his case, nine times over the years – and he’s anxious to see what the Supreme Court justices may decide.

    In his petition to the court, he said, “The gravity of these fundamental law questions have never been properly adjudicated, and the evidence in fact available proves without a doubt that the taxation scheme being implemented against petitioner, and all Americans, is fundamentally and profoundly unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased, and is evidence of ongoing, willful, deliberate, and unconscionable fraud.”

    WND contacted the office of the U.S. Solicitor General, listed on the Supreme Court website as the defense counsel for the IRS, and office staff who answered the phone refused to comment. WND was transferred to an office for the U.S. attorney general, where officials also declined to comment.

  46. Here’s what happened with subprime mortgage “loans” (this is what crashed the economy):

    “CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) were the investments that most “mortgage” security investors were investing in. They are largely synthetic because they were not derived directly from the asset itself — they were derived from the securities that were derived from the loan “assets.” The banks that owned the REMICs (the banks did own them), would package different tranches from multiple REMICs into CDOs — and that is what the pension funds,insurance companies, etc. would invest in.

    A REMIC is typically structured with about say– 15 tranches. Since these were not mortgage loans by which securities could be derived for Triple A rating, these REMICs had to structure the trusts to provide credit enhancement that the rating agencies would use to “upgrade” the rating quality.

    Here is how the process went:

    1) the subprime loans were sold to one of the major banks (this is NOT reflected in any assignments, and only some REMICs disclose this). (will explain why not reflected in assignments in a later here).

    2) the bank’s subsidiary Depositor deposits the loans in an off-balance sheet trust (some Depositors were not subsidiaries of big banks — but they had corridor agreements to sell to the banks — which we also do not see by REMIC disclosoure — (Corridor agreements to sell to the banks, but the Depositor name would remain on the trust ).

    3) the REMICs are structured into certificates, which are all sold to the security underwriter (except the bottom tranche which the servicer would usually own).

    4) the security underwriters were subsidiaries of the big banks.

    5) the top tranches of the REMICs were rated the highest because the lower tranches provided support to the upper tranches — that is, given a default, losses would accrue to the lower tranches first.

    6) the big banks sold the top tranches to Fannie/Freddie and kept them for themselves (Louis Ranieri — grandfather of the subprime trust has explained this).

    7) Ranieri has stated that the lower tranches (credit enhancement) were sold first — to hedge funds, and other distressed debt investors, while the banks retained the upper tranches

    8) some of the tranches were sold to other big banks.

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

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

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

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

    13) Many of the original tranches to the bogus REMICs have been paid off.

    At the very least, by the TILA amendment, the remaining certificate holders to the REMICs could be considered your creditor (remember there are only about 15 tranches to begin with). Creditor is NOT the derivative security investors. According to the Fed Res Opinion to the TILA Amendment, when there are multiple creditors, the creditor who holds the largest percentage interest in the loan, must identify itself to the borrower. Thus, the tranche holder with the largest position in your loan — should be identified. This is not happening — foreclosures continue under the bogus name of the trustee to the trust.

    Again, and again, security investors, trusts, trustees, and servicers are not the creditor. And, Neil is on bad track when he starts saying that “security investors” funded the loan. This is in gross error, and has caused more harm than good.

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

    (from our friend anonymous)

  47. These jerks want a debt apocolypse. There is no other explanation for why these TBTF CORPS were never audited before they extorted the ongoing bailouts from the American people. These Politicians are too well educated to be this stupid. This is not rocket science….there is a quadrillion in debt fraud that was created by Wall Street on ALL CREDIT with our electronic signatures. Now add up the ORIGINATION… …THE U.S. TAXPAYER MONEY LENT TO THE FED BANKS BY THE TREASURY……..THAT WAS NEVER REPAID BY THE FED…The U.S. TAXPAYERS could only insure what we lent to the FED..Wasn’t AIG holding like almost $600 trillion in insurance claims at the time of the stock market crash..? No politician bothered to audit the TBTF and find out how much money they owed…? What was on their balance sheets that backed up their debt….? The FDIC did not want to audit their books and see what these banks owed….? How much they were lent by U.S. TAXPAYERS would determine how much U.S. TAXPAYERS could insure….. The FDIC did not tell these institutions the American people could never insure more than they originally lent …? None of these entities bothered to audit them and find a quadrillion in Wall Street fraud….? No way….! That kind of negligence is criminal.

  48. I understand DC, its not as easy as right and wrong when responding, because of the on going litigation by state. I came her to follow what was going on in other states. Our laws here do not necasarily apply to you. But the Harm they caused… was the same. How they did it was the same. Ive seen many come and go, Ive seen many deserving lose pro se. Having an Attorney to evaluate your situation speaks volumes. I am not an Attorney and I do not give Legal Advise. I was just here looking for answers and solutions.

  49. DCB,

    Your words. And don’t worry, we’re all heading that way… The stories we’ll have to tell when we’re on the other side! Man, I’m in for a big laugh. And you’ll get the jokes, I promise.

  50. Being old, garrulous obstinate and forgetful im not good with jokes–i forgot pompous

  51. @SC

    No offense intended by way of comparison—-but the essence of communication is rendering reasonably understandable “concepts”—i spent 30 years plus boiling facts down to those most relevant–and searching for the policy underpinnings—then communicating that to corp execs [one pager] and to legislative types–[one paragraph]

    om afraid im losing my edge because i cant see the responses to read whether i was successful of failed in my attempts–as with most things–even global warming—stuff boils down to understandable points–if they want that to happen

  52. “There is still a War to be Won! And that is to make sure this never happens again.”

    I agree. That’s why I am in that fight. Because when i win my case, it will open the door for more people to jump into it. Brian said it best: where are the wins? Where is the score card? Anyone of us who gets a win advances the cause a little more.

    Can’t happen without getting in the rink.

    DCB: my slip-and-fall thing was just a joke.

  53. @dc, you and Nancy Drewe to not talk above my head. As a matter of fact.. I understand and comprehend quite Well. Just dont ask me to repeat it ….

  54. Like Neil says Enraged, when one Battle ends, its off to another. There is still a War to be Won! And that is to make sure this never happens again. As far as our differances … I never pointed them out. But since you asked ….. I only asked for what was mine already, I never sued the taxpayer or invester for damages. I’d be sueing myself. I was Just protecting what I worked and paid for along side of my husband. No More .. No Less. The damage is done …. you can not give back Time lost. As far as the money making it alot better… thats a matter of opinion. I know where my Blessings are … and Money dont buy it!

  55. In short they rush to throw you in the street so they can freeze your house and claim a quick payout–typically the insured value is full note–on deep underwater homes—so the insurance proceeds for a silid freeze while water is pressurized–then thaw —is as much as the FMV–so they cash out once for fmv on your policy and once on their own—they may receive more on insurance that the note was for–twice fmv

    no wonder they rush to get possession in november

  56. But intentionally causing or permitting damage which is misrepresented as weather-related is something that benefits the claimant—and is insurance fraud—–i dont see how a slpi and fall benefits a collection agency

  57. SC,

    “I really need a new keyboard again, my wireless keyboard here is going haywire”

    Hey! Don’t go there. it’s my excuse for the typos. Find your own!!!~

  58. DCB,

    “Casualty insurance claims note post vacate claims due to stripping”

    Not just stripping… How about a good slip-and-fall or trip-and-fall resulting from walking alongside a property in disrepair…? After all, insurance companies sell money (very dearly). Everyone in the business of selling money should be required to start paying out of those profits…

    Nah. Bad spirit. Although… I might not turn down a good BI claim waiting to happen!

  59. SC,

    “you made the ride more Enjoyable”

    Are you going somewhere?

    And i don’t remember when we were disagreeing about anything. Can you refresh my memory? All in all, I’m pretty easy to get along with. i just don’t have patience for people who suck the joy out of life by being negative, negative, negative or people who whine constantly but don’t do the very minimum required to get out of their funk. Or people so full of themselves that they literally talk over everyone’s head by throwing concepts no sane mind can and even should grasp.

    Life is simple. It should stay that way…

  60. This is an interesting read…does anyone know what happened at his (Michael Waters) trial? I could only find this from 2011:

  61. Dear Bank Servicers, as an Investor … Bite Me! as Homeowner ..Bite Me! as a Taxpayer… Bite Me! I got tired of Biting myself in the Ass! …. Once I accepted the fact that there wasnt a dam thing I could do about our pensions and savings …. I went for the Juglar and drained my savings back out and paid off my mortgage. At least we will have a roof over our heads. Buttwipes are Disposable … Just sayin…

  62. hmmm i guess so if insurance co did not consider it vandalism–which was not covered–but ill ask again–adjuster i thought said no we dint pay –on the peculiar facts of the case–being the preserver left the door open —and no oil was put in the oil tanks–no other result forseable

  63. I really need a new keyboard again, my wireless keyboard here is going haywire…. Sorry

  64. @DC… if they send ins co so called proof your rights have been extingusted … they check goes to them and you dont even know about it.

  65. Mortgage is joint payee—yeah tough to prove unless they ask you to make the fraudulent claim for a cut of the payoff—check to you and them–you must sign off—typically the policy stays in place for 90 days after vacate–unless they record deed sooner—suppose that has anything to do with their atty holding the deed until dead of winter–after freeze has occurred??

    but they

  66. Yes DC they did … that is why they were removed as loss payee from smart homeowners insurance policies along time ago. Its hard to prove .. but yes they did. Are they loss payee on your homeowners policy? If so they made the claims in your name and your fees went up. They also left title in homeowners names leaving the sewer and taxes to run up in the homeowners name. City shuts off sewer, so water has to be shut off. Nobody is paying the bill. Homeowner gets judgement agaisnt them from city for sewer bill and the pretender leaves with a pocket full of cash. Yep! Yep!

  67. Casualty insurance claims note post vacate claims due to stripping—-

    Mortgage Fraud Leads to Increased Property/Casualty Claims
    Foreclosure, whether caused by economic circumstance or fraud, inevitably leads to vacant properties, increased incidences of property crimes, insurance claims, and corresponding losses to property/casualty insurance companies. When a foreclosure is pending, the property owners or their tenants may inflict heavy damage as a means of extracting revenge on the lender. This may include filing false burglary reports or committing arson in an attempt to generate cash from an insurance policy. Once the foreclosure is complete and the property is vacant, it is vulnerable to the “midnight recyclers” who strip the property of anything saleable, including appliances, fixtures, doors, windows, plumbing, and electrical wiring. In one extreme case, the entire house was removed, never to be seen again. Vacant, unsecured properties can also suffer water and weather damage from open or missing windows and doors and/or lack of heat, and they are at greater risk for fire loss because they may be occupied by squatters or vagrants.

    Mortgage fraud tends to occur in clusters. Concentrations of fraud in co-ops, condominiums, and townhouse developments lead to vacancies and reduced revenue for co-op or homeowner associations who cannot afford to maintain the buildings and common areas properly. This often results in an increased number of personal injury, vandalism, theft, and property damage claims. Concentrations of foreclosures and vacancies in detached residential properties also increase personal and property crimes, even in previously stable neighborhoods. Police agencies around the country report that buildings abandoned after foreclosure are contributing to higher property crime rates. Since those properties are often vandalized for any items of value, inhabited by squatters, or used for the manufacture of drugs, the slum-like conditions spark a downward spiral that radiates throughout the community, even in the most upscale areas.

    They make double claims

  68. Blahhh… what I meant to say ER … is you made the ride more Enjoyable! ~~HUGS~~

  69. LOL @ER …. See, you can be Funny to! Over the years, I know you and I have not seen eye to eye on all the issues. As a matter of fact we took very differant paths. Soon Both our Journeys will End, but I want to let you know.. I enjoyed the ride. God Bless You!

  70. No DC .. No BK … No liens.. (free and clear title)… go to local credit union or bank and borrow against title for tax. Just make sure you ask them 1st if they sell their loans. If they say yes .. tell them to take a hike and find one that does not sell their loans to wall street.

  71. Well, while waiting for Neil’s predictions to come to pass, life goes on and so do foreclosures. So since this is a self-help site, here are some pretty interesting How-to videos, for attorneys and pro se alike.

  72. true forgiveness of debt—–not an offset for damages–is taxable but tere has been an exemption inplace the past few years—it is phantom income–meaning an acctg contrivance–not cash flow–so you cant take a peice of the forgiveness and pay your 40% fed state on such a lump

    but exemption was to run out 12/31/12—i dont know if its been renewd–if not everybody that defaults may as well file bankruptcy–yeah talk to bk arty

  73. This is a fact in this state and I believe most if not all states. Everyone should check with a litigating BK attorney, not just an ordinary BK attorney. In these cases one needs a Bk that goes outside the box. Not just a black and white Bk attorney.

  74. hi shelley i just had a consult with the BK attorney. In Bk 7 you are considered non-solvent. when you are deemed non-solvent (more debt owed then earned) your mortgage debt is estinguished in BK. that is why it is important at the end of a case if you win or lose we must do a bk 7. in the tax law to pay discharged mortgage debt tax is a part about being non – solvent and only BK can establish that. hope that helps. and of course everyone please check with your own BK attorney.

  75. @SC

    Yes thats been my experience—they are reluctant to move an inch to put it mildly–they like to dictate terms and then feel entirely comfortable largely ignoring their written promises—either will not or cannot demonstrate proofs—–everything hangs on atty argument –no facts at all–

    Contingent liability—-ER noted persons in her chain prior –no release of mortgage—very problematic———–well i wonder if there are multiple loans showing on that person’s credit records

    was the debt released? how was that release evidenced

  76. @DC… You dont! They wont let you! Their Liabilites are to high … remember all the ins they collected early on in the nondefaut loans? Yeah …. all that Mulah… They HAVE to pay it back …. they would/will go broke. Yep … they needed the loan mods and refis, homestead exemption waivers to get the lien they didnt perfect. I wonder how that is working out for them with the Homeowners who dont need nor want a loan mod or refi. signed nuttin ….

  77. where the banks and servicers are over a barrel and must settle –

    If they have no right to enforce notes—they cannot extinguish the liability on those notes. If they cant extinguish the notes–they cant relese the mortgage.

    How do you settle with a thief??? very carefully?

  78. The Legislaters should have gotton off their Carcus and done something about this …. but instead they fattened their wallets.

  79. I meant to say ..Well so be it! Its one less asset proven NOT on their books.

  80. Your close Shelly, BK was the only loophole left for the borrowers to save their home. Or at least that is what the Buttwipes wanted you to think. Nobody…Absalutly Nobody should have to file BK for someone elses error! And if they dont want to fix it on their own … Well so be it! Its one less asset proven on their books. Without the home/land via the title …. there is no asset to gamble with. *Splat* That is how you fight Fire with a Snowball! Pfft….

  81. Perhaps it was to pretend they bought the loans when they just purchased the servicing rights so they could come in for the kill as debt collectors, that con people into paying charged off debt. Not owed them. A con game. They just did not think they would get caught. Thought they could continue to fool the public. TBTF to corruot to go down.

  82. Correct me if I am wrong, I am just a simple everyday person, and not an attorney, however it is my understanding that if the debt is proven to be dischargeable debt, meaning not secured by the mortgage , thebn the debt can be discharged in bankruptcy with no taxes owed, Am I correct or incorrect on this issue. Every homeowner then needs to file BK to stop the tax liens or the govenment needs foregive the tax leins , or all unsecured debt will be discharged and not owed. That would hurt the financial industry worse yet.

  83. @Neil, The students are sitting on the edge of their seats, When are you going to Read the Last Chapter?

  84. Yes Neil … CW claimed ownership of assets it neither funded nor exchanged funds to show proof of purchase. BofAs liabilities if they release those assets off their books (they did not recieve by cw .. a lie) the lien..the title the CW liabilities are what? 10, 20, 30, 40x the amount of the principal on note? Oh Boy! Is Neil Right! Like Great Grandma used to say … “It looks like they are up shit creek without a paddle’. yes.. plug your ears…i am singing again………………………… ZippaDeDoDa … ZippityDay … My, Oh My .. What a Beautiful Day!

  85. I am not sure I agree that this is the tip of the iceberg for BOA. BOA has keenly sold off most of its servicing rights. Sold off and closed origination units, wholesale lending etc. The stock has gone from a low of $4.00 to now nearly $10. The market has priced in all these problems, and BOA has survived, and will survive. This argument was sound 2 years ago. By all means they should have been closed. However, with free money they will survive as they recreate a new image. Notice all the bank commercials on TV,

    I had hoped for failure do to all the ill deeds, however the banking lobby is too strong and connected. Just look at the $25B settlement. There BOA now get credit [write offs] for second liens that would be worthless. These people will survive as they are the expression of the underlying disease symptoms that have infected the United States. This is not the same place I was raised in rural Indiana. It is pitiful.

  86. i hate BOA as much as anyone, but the question that must be asked is WHY did they buy countrywide and Merrill Lynch… i knew back then (this not 20/20 hindsight) and the guys making the big bucks did not know, does not make any sense at all !!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: