Unfortunate Decision of 9th Circuit

Hat tip to Darrell Neilander and Charles Cox for bringing this one to my attention.

Editor’s Comment: In a twisted display of circular reasoning and reverse logic, the 9th Circuit has issued an opinion that attacks the precise foundation of the Truth in Lending Act. Go to any seminar on TILA and the first thing they will tell you is that the purpose of the act was to provide the borrower with choice of lenders and the ability to apply competitive pressures on one lender versus another.

If a Borrower wants a loan and does NOT want it with Wells Fargo or Merrill Lynch for reasons of his own, then he has a specific right explicitly stated in TILA to know who the lender is and all the parties who received compensation in putting the loan package together for sale to the borrower and sale to the investors. Under Gale vs. Franklin, 686 F. 3d 1055, July 12, 2012, the 9th Circuit said that the right to know the owner of the loan does not apply if you are dealing with the servicer. This directly conflicts with the intent and content of the FCFB definitions in addition to defying  logic. It also strips the specific remedy of clawback of undisclosed compensation.

An additional reason for knowing the name of the obligee is to be able to confirm the balance due and to apply for HAMP or HARP modifications or settlement. How can you do that if you don’t know who the “decider” is?

As for asking for the identity of the creditor, the court incredibly concluded that “Failing to read and respond to letters may be impolite; however, ²a breach of [*1057]  good manners² is not always ²an invasion of any legal right.²  Spaulding v. Evenson , 149 F. 913, 920 (C.C.E.D. Wa. 1906). Richard Gale faults his lender, First Franklin Loan Services (²Franklin²), for failing to respond to his correspondence regarding ownership of his loan, and alleges that this failure amounted to a violation of the Truth in Lending Act (²TILA²), and Nevada’s covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Because Franklin was not legally required to respond in its capacity as loan servicer, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of these claims. However, Gale also alleges [**2] that after failing to respond to his letter, Franklin and the other defendants engaged in illegal conduct by wrong-fully foreclosing on his property. We remand these remaining state law claims to the district court.”

So as an aside, the Court cleaned out the carcass of RESPA as well. This decision cannot and will not stand in my opinion and the entry of politics and ideology clearly clouded the real issues of due process, statutory duties, and justice. But worse, the court put its stamp of approval on screwing around with the title records corrupting them beyond recognition.

This Court has given a back-door to those who engaged in such behavior and left the title problems for future owners, lenders and beneficiaries of trusts. In my opinion I would continue to plead the same actions and bring it up on appeal — perhaps in the state appellate decisions and maybe even direct to the State Supreme Court on public policy and urgency for consistency in decisions.

But once again, we have admissions that helped the court along in this wrong application of the law. The “FACTS” are that Gale “refinanced his home with Franklin.” In order to recite those facts, it would have been necessary to have the borrower admit that the transaction was real and actually took place. Now if Franklin actually did the loan and it was not subject to claims of securitization, this might be an inevitable admission. But Franklin does not appear to be one of the exceptions of those banks that did not play securitization PONZI roulette. The “Facts” show otherwise. [As soon as you see MERS” you know claims of securitization are involved.]

The same applies to “Gale defaulted on the loan.” How did that get in the record unless Gale admitted it? How does Gale know that there was a payment due? He presumed it because Franklin was the originator. With what is in the public domain now, we know that the loan might well have been paid in full or paid in part or that the payments to the real creditor continued to be made even after the borrower stopped paying. If the payment was made, there was no payment due, and thus there could be no default. But the Borrower here appears to have admitted it.

The one sort of bone thrown out to borrowers, is that the Court concluded that if the Gale claim arose after passage of Dodd-Frank, the results might have been different. They completely missed the point that the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank were already stated or inherent under common law and existing statutory law, both Federal and State.

In short, the 9th Circuit is treating the sham transactions and strawmen of the fake securitization scheme with the deference one might give to a king. If the shoe was on the other foot, such behavior would not be tolerated for even a moment. Can you imagine the same court finding that a borrower does not need to disclose his principal in a loan? This decision is twisted, absurd and wrong.

by Charlie Guy

In Gale v. First Franklin Loan Services, 686 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit held that a borrower has no right under the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) to require a loan servicer to identify the owner of a loan obligation. TILA requires a servicer to identify the owner of the loan only when the servicer owns the loan, and only when the servicer owns the loan by assignment.

In Gale, the borrower refinanced his home mortgage with First Franklin Loan Services, which both originated the loan and serviced it. After the borrower became delinquent, he demanded First Franklin identify the “true” owner of the obligation. First Franklin ignored the requests and proceeded with foreclosure. The borrower filed suit claiming, in part, a violation of TILA. The trial court dismissed the TILA cause of action as a matter of law, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

On appeal, the borrower argued that the plain language of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1641(f)(2), required First Franklin to respond to his inquiries regarding the identity of the owner of the loan. That section states that upon written request, “the servicer shall provide the obligor . . . with the name, address, and telephone number of the owner of the obligation . . .” The Ninth Circuit explained that this provision does not apply to all loan servicers, but only those servicers who are owners of the loan by assignment after loan origination. In this case, First Franklin was both the original lender and the servicer, so this section did not apply.

The Ninth Circuit also noted that, since a 2010 amendment to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, all servicers must identify the owner of a real estate loan if requested, under all circumstances. This change, however, does not apply retroactively to claims (like the claim in Gale) that accrued prior to 2010.

gale-v-first-franklin-loan-se

140 Responses

  1. The decision is “unfortunate” also “unlawful”…

  2. When you know the truth, you know that everything bad & I mean everything goes back to the ORIGINATION FRAUD…..& that very first lie & deception they told us all to believe…….that Satan could create something greater than his Creator and that first big lie & deception caused all of this fraud. Then you are truly free & independent.

  3. There is satanic activity justamere road away & a freemason lodge as well…..yep….all of the devils are here…..however in my house we believe in Almighty God and that’s all we need. They wield no power with their Creator.

  4. DC there have been quite a series of odd events tonight. I live in a tidy Whitey upright community so those whatchamacallits who came to my door tonight & told me to tie up my dogs or put them away…. was certainly no coinkidink…my little shipoo scared them & my 13 year old dog who is nearly blind…….they proved they are cowards who are just trying to intimidate. I live justamere road down from what has been labeled by “paranormal experts” as the most haunted place in the country. The place where Al Capons dumped the bodies…….I have no fear though….just a lot of faith.

  5. no doubt sizing you up for a ritualistic canabalism at midnite—must be beloved in your neihborhood—–

  6. Had a Wonderful Evening … Thank You!

  7. I just had a group of subverted black witches come “trick or treating” to my home. They wore no costumes. However, they revealed who they really were when they asked me to tie up my dogs…..I told them to get lost. What do they think I am, stupid…..? Next time they come around here, I will not even answer the door, I will call the cops & tell them there are perverts running around my neighborhood, disguised as black witches trying to sodomize the innocent.

  8. Ask yourself this question America, if Obama, & his minions & cohorts were not in on this commie plan to destroy our freedom & independence & he was really afraid of them, why would he be seeking another term…..? I will tell you why. Because not only is he in on it ……. he is a card carrying member….. Clinton was the set up man, Bush was the fall guy and Obama’s here to finish us off & install a complete communist dictatorship. He is a radical communist anarchist supremicist……right now he is a subversionist……but make no mistake, he is a pervert. If he gets a second term……he will do just what he whispered in Medveds ear……finish us off.

  9. HALLOWEEN FACT…..While we are all diistracted by cute little trick or treaters these spawns of Satan, who are hiding behind the scenes, will use this chaos to sacrifice more humans & animals on their pagan altar than on any other day of the year…….GOT CANDY…..?

  10. All the black witches are standing around their cauldron trying to conjure up some more evil concoctions…….& shadowcat….you could have at least dressed up for your biggest holiday…

  11. I do not have court in a few days liar……they are all hiding…..

  12. Make no mistake….there is nothing kind or merciful about this evil. It may be disguised as an attorney or a judge but just picture them all as the Manson Family and you will start defending yourself in a hurry because just like in that massacre, the cops & the media and the judiciary nor the politicians are coming to save you. You have to save yourself…..

  13. @David, Ivent is testing her Theory in Court in Just a Few Short Days. Lets See How It Works for Her Before You Try It. Might I suggest You Get an Attorney and Sue the Stuffing Out of Them, Cival Damages for Criminal Actions.

  14. Remember…..these spawns of satan…..these WHITE SUPREMACISTS always send in the BLACK WITCHES WITH THEIR VOODOO INCANTATIONS TO FINISH YOU OFF…..I HAVE SEEN IT FIRST HAND….THESE SOB’s ARE SERIAL KILLERS IN DISGUISE….

  15. The American people are allowing the pervision & sodomy by these FED CROOKS…….REPRESENTED BY THE ENTIRE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION…….HOLDER CALLED US A NATION OF COWARDS DISGUISED BY CALLING THIS A RACIAL ISSUE FOR THIS VERY REASON. HOWEVER……I AM NOT A COWARD ……I WILL CALL THEM JUST WHAT THEY REALLY ARE…….BLACK WITCHES & DEMONS……LAWLESS SPAWNS OF SATAN…..EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.

  16. You have to prove it never occurred David….I told you what to tell the judge down below…..Go back to the basics of the RULE OF LAW……DON’T BELIEVE THEIR COLOR OF LAW THEORIES….STAND UP FOR YOURSELF & TELL THE JUDGE LIKE IT IS….THE TRUTH…..THEY SET YOU UP TO FAIL……AND NO LEGAL TRANSACTION EVER OCCURRED………AND YOU KNOW THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NO LEGAL TRUST DOCUMENT……..

  17. No DC you do not need an attorney to fight these crooks……….the U.S. CONSTITUTION was written simply so that EVERY AMERICAN could fight for their legal rights. GO BACK TO THE BASICS OF THE RULE OF LAW…… These FED crooks have complicated it but it is still not impossible to fight them pro se. That is what these crooks want us to believe. They are complete perverted & sodomites…BTW…THIS HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT THE MONEY…..THIS IS ABOUT NOT ONLY MY FREEDOM & INDEPENDENCE BUT EVERY AMERICANS FREEDOM & INDEPENDENCE …!

  18. IVENT – so how does that help me in court – do I simply tell a judge the transaction never occured… when they hold up the signed loan docs – what do I say then..? I’d gladly tell them its all fabrication but thus far I don’t think that’s worked to well for folks… so, how do apply your comments to action… without starting a militia…?

  19. Those FED criminal bastards sent an evil black witch to my house to threaten me & that evil black with threatened my teenager daughter with bodily harm……right in front of my house…..My daughter is smart & told the evil witch to go burn in hell where she belongs ….! As I said…..THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAVE DECLARED ANARCHIST WAR ON U.S. SOIL…..THEY HAVE SUBVERTED IT SOO MUCH THAT MANY AMERICANS DON’T EVEN SEE IT…..IF THAT IMPOSTER & HIS COHORTS & MINIONS GET REAPPOINTED MAKE NO MISTAKE…..IT WILL BE COMPLETE BLOODY ANARCHY…ON U.S. SOIL…….THESE COMMIES ARE STILL ON THE CURB BUT ARE ALMOST ON OUR DOORSTEP & TOO MANY FAIL TO SEE IT..

  20. “How can we force exposure of the false refinance…”

    Well, because of the repeal of Glass-Steagal and DEREGULATION…it appears we can’t…and they know it…so the fruadulent debt collection and home steals continue.
    We need an act of Congress…but, they are the ones letting this fraud go on…

  21. IVENT–you are just so obvious—unrestrained–perfect example of what they might do—is it illegal–only if we can find how you get paid–then what a harsh letter? and warning–no enforcement–no expectation of enforceme–gotta hire an atty to get back damages for criminal acts–shoot somebody to death then go pay 30k to the family–use work comp tables to buy bodies

  22. David…..forget subprime……NO FINANCIAL TRANSACTION EVER OCCURRED……THE FED VIA WALL STREET COVERTED THE MORTGAGES INTO TEN YEAR BONDS & MASSACRED THE NOTES & TURNED THEM INTO UNCERTICATED STOCKS……..THE FED COMMITTED A QUADRILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF SECURITIES FRAUD ON A MASS SCALE……WORLDWIDE VIA WALL STREET……..THE COUP DE TAT OF THE TREASURY & THE POLITICIANS HAD TO HAPPEN IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THEIR PLOT FOR COMPLETE COMMUNISM…..THIS IS ALL FRAUD BEING COMMITTED BY TRAITORS & IMPOSTERS…..THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEDD TO SEND A STRONG MESSAGE & TELL ALL OF THESE COMMIES TO GO BOINK THEMSELVES….

  23. @ DAVID

    If one of the parties sends a thug out to beat you up—-to punish you for providing your info–requested under subpoena—then that is a federal crime–interfering with them getting evidence. 3-10 years[if physical injury]

    however if they assert the subpoena thing is the trigger for copperating with FBi —then its a state law issue –unless like anyone else it is argued by feds that your civil rights are infringed—-which means you are on your own and they can beat you up or worse for cooperating w/o formailities —im not saying this is necessarily fed practice–i do not know —and im sure it changes

    only thing ill say–is they let the non-banks get away with way too muchCiti in Indonesia does use bone-breakers–they will if they can get away witrh it is my point

  24. Hi Carie,

    I mistaken wrote “…I can see what you’re getting to – but how do we force the exposure. Bankruptcy courts here are brutal to consumers. They do dismiss debts easily…

    and it should have said – …they do NOT dismiss debts easily…

    sorry about that…

  25. Hi Carie,
    “…What you are challenging in BK is the status of the “debt” — secured v unsecured.
    In addition, there are actions for fraud in the origination of the false refinance. This is not discovered until the COMPLETE money trail is traced — including all charge-offs, insurance collected, and that pay of all REFINANCES, were fraudulent.
    No money in any refinance ever reached the prior party….”

    I can see what you’re getting to – but how do we force the exposure. Bankruptcy courts here are brutal to consumers. They do dismiss debts easily.

    How can we force exposure of the false refinance. Ironically, I have met with so many attorneys I couldn’t even begin to count. It seems fairly obvious that if the originator created the loan knowingly using fraudulent docs – the entire transaction is void. Saying that to an attorney gets a 30-minute excuse of why it isn’t that simple… Judges are paranoid of ruling for borrowers unless they forced into a corner. I’m told even when forced in a corner the judge will attempt to brow-beat the borrower’s attorney. I’m also told that it appears we might win – the case will be closed and brought into judge’s chambers to be negotiated and settled – the SEALED.

    I don’t know what to believe anymore but I know they have committed so much fraud it is almost comical. Our appraisal states we have 100k kitchen – imagine that a 100k kitchen. Yet, we only have ONE kitchen drawer in the entire kitchen – the kitchen didn’t even have electrical wiring for the lights – we purchased the appliances ourselves AFTER settlement and the list goes on & on. The initiated another Intent to Foreclose several months ago – so I sent pictures and the fraudulent docs to the TRUST – BofA Headquarters – and several other offices. They replied that they could not find any evidence of fraud – imagine-that… So, I replied by resending them the frauds and highlighted the documents for them. I specifically sent it to the TRUST again noting that our loan has NEVER met the criteria for the Trust.

    I also sent them copies of our rescission that was timely sent within 3-yrs of origination. They replied by “denying” our rescission. I explained that I thought only a judge could make that decision…

    Anyway – if you have any ideas – I’m open for suggestions because I know they are loading their guns to come after us. The past several months we’ve had various strangers drive into our driveway then back out when I go out the door. Even when I waive them in to find out who they are they simply back out and leave. We are the last house on the road – so it makes it kind-a obvious they are trying to look at the house.

  26. Black Pastor Manning fears these crooks will use NDAA to send all of the black people back to Africa…….or worse.

  27. CORRECTION….IF OBAMA GETS REAPPOINTED THE BLOODY WAR WILL BE ON U.S. SOIL & ABROAD…..

  28. Make no mistake these FED CROOKS ARE ANARCHISTS & THEY WANT BLOODY WAR…..IF OBAMA GETS APPOINTED THAT BLOODY WAR WILL BE ON U.S. SOIL…..IF ROMNEY GETS ELECTED THAT BLOODY WAR WILL BE IN THE MIDDLE EAST…..TAKE THE MONEY OUT & SUE THESE FED CROOKS AMERICA….!

  29. Shadowcat sounds just like an ANARCHIST WHO WANTS BLOODSHED………

  30. CUE THE GREAT LIGHT OF LOVE….THE TRUTH IS HERE….WARNING THIS IS THE WATCHTOWER…..& ROUND HERE …… WE STAY UP VERY VERY VERY LATE.

  31. @David

    The insanity that you have gone through (which is merely complicated illegal cover-ups) is because of the reality of the truth of the fraud of the subprime:

    (some info from my friend Anonymous…who can’t post here anymore because of legal reasons):

    “…Here is what we are discovering:

    Those “refinances” can be traced back to Freddie/Fannie charge-offs — where collection rights were sold, and purchased by stated Mortgagee and/or Servicer — with insurance funds.

    Those refinances are NOT secured loans.

    They are only reaffirmation of the debt collection rights.

    I am even finding this in PURCHASE of home — whereby the new purchaser took on the default debt (false or otherwise) of the prior owner (without knowing that this was the case). We are finding that this is HUGE.

    No one is discussing because no one is aware.

    Freddie/Fannie have all records, but refuse to divulge. This is why people are dealing with debt buyers. With each refinance, only servicing to the collection rights changed.

    However, refinances were PRESENTED as a valid mortgage refinance, which it was NOT. The actual debt buyer, for whom the servicer services — is undisclosed.

    Why BK is important, is to show that the debt is unsecured. Nothing more than credit card charge-offs, which can be discharged in BK.

    What you are challenging in BK is the status of the “debt” — secured v unsecured.

    In addition, there are actions for fraud in the origination of the false refinance. This is not discovered until the COMPLETE money trail is traced — including all charge-offs, insurance collected, and that pay of all REFINANCES, were fraudulent.

    No money in any refinance ever reached the prior party.

    This is what happens in debt collection.

    Only servicing of collection rights changes.

    Once people get this, the consequence is BIG.”

  32. There is No Cure for Stupidity! Nope! Banksters Feed on Stupidity! Yep! Idiots Think They Know All! Yep! Idiots lose their Home Everyday! Yep! And Shortly … Another will Meet The Dust. Yep! Yep! Only a Few More Precious Days Left ……. Time is a Wasting. Tick..Tock..Tick..Tock..Tick…Tick…Tick…

  33. That pope was clearly not an imposter because he didn’t ask me for my house or my money……just some candy….!

  34. A trick or treater just came to my door dressed as the pope…..how fitting…..!

  35. Meet the real RAINQUEEN……..& I am not in the service to any self appointed kings or queens..

  36. Better be careful or I will sig the righteous black people on you…I will go preacher Manning on all of your sick, perverted sodomite asses..! Yeah its Crazy…..try & CRUSH ME….!

  37. Hi dcbreidenbach,

    I’m not sure I follow your comment of providing protection… I did ask for protection nor want it – I simply want justice. I was issued a subpoena because our case was about real fraud and not merely hypothesized. The FBI is merely the Fed-Gov police force – they are there to collect evidence then submit that evidence to the DOJ. The DOJ does the prosecution parts. Our attorney was an FBI (DOJ) prosecutor for 10-yrs. She is now a judge. Her first comments after reviewing our case was – someone is going to jail over this mess… she was our attorney prior to the FBI getting involved.

    If I implied I was a victim for supplying info – I apologize – that was not the intention. When all this started I honestly didn’t know anything about this stuff. Our case has fraud involved from beginning throughout to the very end. The foreclosure mill used forged documents to foreclose. It is honestly hard to believe. We’ve battling since 2008.

    I have the material evidence of these frauds. I even have the letter from the gov official stating he gave the originator the fraudulent document. Yet, each time we’ve attempted to sue – we are stopped because these bank-lawyers make no bones about that they will make this lawsuit cost us 150-200k if we file and they will keep us tangled up for years. So, again I say – where is justice – where are our representatives…?

    It is frustrating to no-end. I had hoped Neil would take a personal interest in our case because I honestly believe it exemplifies everything he has been saying over the years. Our case shows fraud throughout every section of the process. Origination fraud – mortgage fraud – appraisal fraud – fraudulent conveyance – etc… Consider this the originator obtained the fraudulent documents from the country official to settle the loan – then obtained a fraudulent appraisal that was blatantly fraudulent because the house was never completed – then obtained fraudulent “Satisfaction of Completion Certificate” required to close the loan – THEN knowing the house could NOT be occupied – obtained a fraudulent Occupancy Permit – THEN (allegedly) sold the loan to Countrywide only 3-wks after settlement yet we did not move into the house for 8-months AFTER settlement and moved in still unfinished… So, not only did they sell our loan to a SPV to be pooled and deposited into a Trust as MBS… They did it ALL while KNOWING the loan never met the criteria for ANY of it… Our loan could have never been placed into the Trust because it has never met the criteria of the PSA – Purchasing & Selling Agreement – Prospectus 424b(5) – etc.

    Because of what the originator (and co-conspirators) did – we have been stuck in an impossible situation where we;
    • CANNOT REPAIR the house because of lack of proper permits
    • CANNOT FINISH the house for same reasons
    • CANNOT SELL the house because “we” would be liable for the violations left by the banksters…

    It has been 5-yrs of living hell.

  38. @DAVID
    I will not disagree with your detail but did not read closely enough to embrace it–but as to the larger framework, Bernanke and/or official fed publications stated that federal enforcement was being done by agencies with enfocement powers. They have all stated that non-banks operating in the sphere–collection types—are a problem only now addressed. Bernanke indicated that the fact of enforcement by public enforcers is problematic for all sorts of reasons—and that most issues that would fall into an uncovered aea–eg collection, are better addressed by “private enforcement” —vs public enforcement. That means a victim must muster resources in a lopsided manner against collection agencies. Actuall the claimant could be a syndicate that bought collection rights—or simply know how to obtain them cheaply.

    No trust—although they could use the trusts name—use the banks name—–steal houses and sell them using other peoples names–who ignore it–or dont know and dont care–people that know an empty house is a house that will be stripped–maybe sell strip rights

    These fabrications by organized syndicates are lurking in the morass thats declared off limits.

    The best that homeowners can do is try to get their original note back before/barrel head with the delivery of deed–if you dont get the note back with delivery to a QDE you cant even defend against the note in hands of a 2nd claimant

    dont look to or for feds for help

  39. Go ahead……..CRASH INTO ME….WE’RE THE KINGS OF THIS CASTLE & YOU’RE THE DIRTY RASCALS…COME ON AND…CRASH INTO ME…….& SUCK IT UP….& HAPPY HALLOWEEN….!

  40. Its like candy to my soul……exposing these crooks…..sweet I rock & sweet I roll ….

  41. Its the Devil stalking freely that concerns me.

  42. Hi dcbreidenbach,

    Per the FBI and DOJ regarding assignment issues – these folks are aware of what’s going on. IMHO – The lack of prosecution is an unspoken directive and has little to do with financial ability. As for finding enough evidence to prosecute – they have the ability to view any computer in this country that has a web-connection or internal loop. They could go into any business they wanted and simply take the computers. This isn’t about ability. They are not permitted to prosecute by our politicians because Wall Street owns them.

    The Attorney Generals could shut these fraudsters down in a heartbeat simply by ordering the state’s regulators to suspend their licenses from doing business in their states until they give-up the files requested. This is not rocket science theory. It is actually fairly simple – were the Trust’s properly securitized or not. Most know they did not comply with the law. In fact, the very creation of MERS was for tax evasion and so these illegal acts could be withheld from the public until they could get their lobbyists to rewrite the laws. Even the congressional reports state that these boneheads were so arrogant they simply decided to bypass 100s of years of law and do whatever they wanted. That is a fairly significant allegation…

    They were repeatedly warned and knew the mortgage bubble was going to implode 5-8 yrs before it started cracking. Yet, they still sold loan packages KNOWING those folks had no-chance whatsoever to repay that loan. These were called Payment Shock Loans within the internal documents of BofA – this was the term used when they were HEDGING AGAINST the borrowers ability to repay. Countrywide has two letters in the OCC clearly stating that they sold over 142-billion dollars of mortgage loans to consumers that COULD NOT REPAY – AND – CW knew these consumers could not repay AND they admit the consumers did NOT know they could repay because they amortized those payments based upon the teaser rates. That is so audaciously despicable it is beyond words. Using CW average numbers for the same time-period – that means over 960-thousand families were and/or will be foreclosed and their lives turned upside down – AND they have no-idea what or why. All those folks know is that they can no longer afford the mortgage. They have not learned (yet) that that was CW’s design in the first place. Where is justice – where is our DOJ – where are our representatives – why are these families being destroyed and the law-breakers allowed to walk AND knowing their loans were illegal

    Again – though – consider this – even those families that paid their mortgages for several years before the reset blew up in their faces – those families paid “unearned” interest on those loans and NOT a single penny was or is returned. That equates to thousands of dollars per family that was literally stolen from them because the statue is clear – those funds MUST be returned. The “unearned” interest paid is the difference in the mortgage payment that everyone pays in the first 5-10 yrs. Most folks realize those payments do not decrease the principle much. However, lenders are not allowed to keep it – that’s why it is called “unearned” interest. The creditor has not earned that interest yet… therefore they must return those payments to the consumer.

  43. @DAVID

    You said; ” After spending 1.5yrs (at that time) researching our situation I uncovered several other families using the same lender that also had very serious issues. ”

    This reflected some bad action at time of origination—that is where they have applied their resources yes. So if its on that end there is enforcement, but if they use street thugs to terrorize borrowwrs, engage in theft, forgery, deception—thats outside practice constraints–right?
    The question is whether they will tolerate physical harm inflicted upon a person requested to provide information to the govt w/o the subpoena.
    as i read your comment–and perceive field operations, unless they provide you a subpoena, the rules of protection do not apply. That simply providing information to them voluntarily –even upon verbal/email request does not rise to protection from retaliation?

    I think that is where this is landing. If you provide info to them upon a phone call—absent a subpoens you are not treated as protected witness. You know as ridiculous as that is from a public policy perspective, it is the kind of thing that actually happens because its easy for the govt atty to decide who he has a duty to protect by law–vs any discretionary action. They would be swamed with actions –abuses if everybody that wrote them a letter was protected.

    However if you prove that you were the victim of retaliation for conveying info to fed/state enforcement—is it simply elevating the damages–ie really bad is treble or can it add a cause of action—intentional infliction of emotional injury

  44. What’s wrong DC…..? GETTING NERVOUS….? ITS GODS LAW AT WORK….WHAT GOES AROUND……ALWAYS COMES AROUND……

  45. YOU ARE A DERANGED PSYCHOPATH ENRAGED……TIME FOR THE RUBBER ROOM FOR YOU & YOUR KIND……THERE WILL BE PLENTY MORE PERVERSIONS AFTER THE RUBBER ROOM THAT YOU ARE SURE TO ENJOY…….THERE IS LOTS OF IMMORALITY IN PRISON…..IT IS A LITERAL SODOM & GOMORAH THAT YOU ALL CREATED…..! ENJOY….!

  46. @LIZ
    As far as I can determine from examination of actions taken by Department of Justice–which controls FBI operations and certainly so in conjunction with other govt agencies there is a hands off approach in practice versus whatever is told to you –if it actually is FBI that is providing this unusual unpublished “advice”.

    Simple fact is that the funding and assignment of human resources of FBI and DOJ for mortgage fraud is as yet unimpressing. For the past year as I have read through public sources Justice staff has been frozen by headcount and the department is operating via limited use in expansion positions lawyers who “volunteer” for zero pay jobs at justice covering all this. To some extent it enables the volunteers to stay up to date for later use. However, at best these persons face a wall of overwhelming bureaucratic inertia. It may take 6 months to obtain a functional printer and copy machine. And they will not enjoy much lateral support from agency oldtimers at FBI. Justice is politically sensitive—-the AGs have not pursued these matters aggressively for a number of reasons. Personnel —-the offices are fanned by a revolving door. Building cases must be awful–even if they whave the “political will”. They must set policy with limited expectation of facing major players-debt collectors who can afford legions of attorneys. The AGs are outgunned. They must unravel rheams of info —have duty to grasp big picture plus the bordering nasty niches–insurance fraud for example. There can be a few who achieve this policy making —they try to set a policy to their minions, but it gets lost in budget games, as here, agency inertia and turnover. Thus in every agency there are old-timers babyboomers in layers intersperced with younger–some quite competent, others inexperienced, others who could care less after a life-time of observance of flawed politicized enforcement–jaded and cynical. The common tendency will be to do nothing to rock the boat–get along. and while that is occurring, the regulated community of interest whispers sweet nothings in the private world.

    In that environment right and wrong are fairly amorphous concepts.
    The feds are cynical, fearful for budget cuts–ergo there are morale problems. There is generational transition. Masses of employees are within a few years of retirement—then there ae gaping holes in the backfill. That I suppose is why they are inviting into Justice the “volunteers” ——What it does to policy is in question.

    At present other than the balleyhood but unstaffed task force of fed/state AG’s —so far they allow the class actions and private investor actions operate to enforce the law. resources vs resources.

    The volunteers supposedly are in an advance row if there is a thaw of enforcement budget. They should offer a bounty to their volunteers –a share of the award of any action she takes as a volunteer AG. They need to inject incentive into the payroll system—right now its backend loaded with emphasis on not making waves. They need to offer these volunteers something akin to tax bounty hunters commonly involved in real estate and sales transaction taxes.they could encourage information sharing with licensed bounty hunters. Pay investigators to do their work for them out of recovered fines—probably a Union violation there—advance the whistle-blower programs.

    Right now their action is limited to individuals who deceve banks in appraisals and value issues. They do not appear to be engaged in active involvement in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act—-so forth. One could suggest that they should be looking at the formatuion of trusts now. And they are vis appraisals which was where it started before.

    If there is another area where anyone has seen both FBI and Justice –id love to hear the facts.

  47. YOU ARE A COMMIE FED LIAR ENRAGED……YOU ARE A TWO BIT GANGSTER FELON..

  48. NEWSMAX CONDUCTED A POLL THAT FOUND…..MCAIN/PALIN WON THE LAST ELECTION BY A LANDSLIDE…….& I BELIEVE THEM….BECAUSE AMERICA IS A MAJORITY CONSERVATIVE STATE…..& THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH LIBERALS IN THIS COUNTRY TO VOTE IN THE LIKES OF A RADICAL HORSE WITH NO NAME LIBERAL LIKE OBAMA……….MAKE NO MISTAKE THAT COMMIE WAS POLITICALLY APPOINTED BY THESE TRAITORS IN CONGRESS…TIME TO TELL ALL OF THEM TO GO BOINK THEMSELVES AMERICA…..! STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS & STOP COMPLYING, COFORMING & COOPERATING WITH THESE FED APPOINTED COMMIE SHEISTERS…….!

  49. “The judges eyes got big & wide & his mouth popped open…..a look of utter shock came over him”

    Naaaaah. The judge’s mouth hung wide open because, in his entire life, he had never dealt with such a moron. The poor guy was wondering all along if he needed to call the EMTs and have the poor, delusional thing locked up. And come to realize, he now wishes he had.

  50. I told the judge first off…..the servicer told me the loan mod….THE OBAMA PLAN was denied to me by the U.S. TREASURY DEPT……..The judges eyes got big & wide & his mouth popped open…..a look of utter shock came over him..he knew their had been a FAKE COUP OF THE TREASURY BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION……& IN FACT…..THE FED BAILED ITSELF OUT (ROBBED US) VIA THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION…..VOTE THESE COMMIES OUT AMERICA……..!

  51. Hi Poppy,

    I tend to agree the issue of securitization is a moot point to most judges. What I am hoping for is sort-a what your are saying, “…When they didn’t properly pool and put the notes in the trust, it was a zero sum game for the lenders.” I’ve been warned that our courts here hyper-focus on the Note – that promise to pay is what they stand firm on. They presume that we borrowed the money therefore we must pay it back – end of story… So, I want to have all the evidence I can muster to prove that they were so arrogant and brazen that they did not merely defraud my wife & I – but they also defrauded the Fed Gov, Sec, Bank Regulations, FDIC, TILA – etc, etc… My point this far to the Trust is that the TRUST was defrauded by the originator just as my wife & I were defrauded. The originator defrauded the SPV therefore this battle is not between me and the Trust but is instead between the Trust and the originator that defrauded them.

    I have thought about taking a cancelled check used to pay our mortgage and give that as payment to the foreclosure mill and simply explain to the court – I will give this same check to them 360 times and that is the equivalent value of the Note… but I’ve been warned the judge would probably get ticked-off.

    My point is obvious – they could have done multiple things with the Note and protected their secured interest. However, they decided to take the Note to the pawn shop to get what they could at the time. In fact, they also purchased multiple insurances for the Note – just in case something happened. Well, something did happen and now they claim that they did not take it to the pawn shop but instead were good-boys and properly invested the Note. Bummer-dude though – all the documentation points back to the pawn-shop and the damn pawn-shop guy decided to shred it.

    I want to get the court to a place to see that THAT COPY of the NOTE is additional EVIDENCE of their illegal acts.

  52. Hi dcbreidenbach,

    That’s fine – “…just a very simple question: How does FBI express ” they accepted the case. ” ?

    That’s easy – they issued a subpoena for our files… They were interested in our files because it involved a local gov office that issued fraudulent docs to the originator. After spending 1.5yrs (at that time) researching our situation I uncovered several other families using the same lender that also had very serious issues. As with everything within the DOJ while investigations are on-going I am not allowed to divulge more… It is very disheartening and aggravating to know most of the foreclosures are blatantly illegal and the FED knows it too. They have no intention of fixing this thing or helping folks – IMHO – everything we see the Gov doing is strictly for show. They have to give an “appearance” of protecting the citizenry… It is disgusting and sad…

    Just so you know – I’ve been around this board since 2008 – I don’t post much anymore but still check it most days…

  53. The legal assignment PROVES the FED paid the U.S. TREASURY back…….the FED MUST HAVE THAT RECEIPT OR THAT PROVES THEY ARE FELONS……..TELL THE JUDGE THAT….

  54. as per David:

    Then consider the audacity that prior to default the Servicer is collecting payments on a debt that the Trust does not legally own? How could there be a default when the Trust never legally owned the debt?

    and as per IVENT:

    NO DC……YOU ARE WHO IS FULL OF MEANINGLESS B.S….THAT IS MY POINT……THE ORIGINATION FRAUD CANCELLS ALL OF THIS & YOU OUT……..& THE FBI TOLD ME SO….DON’T BELIEVE ME…..? WHY DON’T YOU CALL THEM & ASK THEM…..?

    input anyone?

  55. YOU & ONLY YOU has the legal right to demand the…..U.S. CONSTITUTION….. THE RULE OF LAW be upheld David. No attorney will do that for you.

  56. A friendly word of advice David…..don’t even waste your time legitimizing them by responding to them…..they are SPAWNS OF SATAN WHO WORK FOR THE FED COMMUNISTS…….You will know them by their many lies & deceptions….

  57. Ivent – so how do you proose families simply deny the financial transaction ever occured. Courts here are very liberal and would simply tell them it DID OCCURE regardless if they deny it… Our lawyer proved to the court that there were no assignments or chain of title – there was NOTHING showing the foreclosure mill had any legal right to state a claim – the judge IGNORED it – didn’t care – it didn’t matter someone loaned money – therefore WE had to SOMEONE and that SOMEONE that day was the foreclosure mill… thankfully we later proved the foreclosure mill forged the docs – but that still did NOT impress the judge… it was dismissed “without prejudice” so they will be back shortly…

    But more importantly – your venting does not help much if you don’t have any suggestions for folks to act on…

  58. David……they told me the same thing……The truth is, the FED are felons & no attorney or law enforcement agency or politician has the balls to stop them. They are leaving that up to all of us. The truth is, the politicians have failed to uphold the U.S. CONSTITUTION…..IN FACT, THEY HAVE WORKED IN CONCERT WITH THESE FED CROOKS TO DESTROY IT & DESTROY US…….THEY ALL NEED TO BE FIRED & REPLACED BY US……A RESTORED U.S. CONSTITUTION….& OUR OWN CURRENCY.

  59. @DAVID

    As you should expect your linkup to the typically incoherent IVENT renders your comments a tad suspicious.

    just a very simple question: How does FBI express ” they accepted the case. ” ?

  60. @ David

    “because someone “promised to pay”

    Yes, the originators that made contracts to borrow money from lenders for homeowners is who made a promise to pay, with repurchase agreements in place for a lender’s recovery. The contract is with the Lender and the originator, not the homeowners’. When they didn’t properly pool and put the notes in the trust, it was a zero sum game for the lenders. A legally enforceable contract includes, an offer, acceptance and CONSIDERATION, which was not given to the homeowner. It was given to the originator, which in many cases was not designated for a particular piece of property and like New Century was defaulted on. Their default, not the homeowner. It lent itself to seizures of notes from people they (the originator) owed the money to the rightful lender and breached the contract with the homeowner.

    This behavior means; there is no loan to a homeowner, no repayment to the originator, nor a default from the homeowner. My take on this entire mess, the securitization angle is NOT working, nor is admitting you owe the money to someone or believing the origination is an absolute for money owed. I just don’t see it.

    And the original “blue ink” note…so, it means what? I hold the title to my 87 y/o Aunts car, it does not mean I own it. Much of this posturing from the attorneys are lies.

  61. No DC ……YOU & few others are the ONLY MORONS here. YOU ARE PLAYING A DANGEROUS GAME BY PRETENDING THAT AN ACTUAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTION EVER OCCURRED…..& YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY CRIMINALLY DECEIVING MILLIONS OF AMERICANS…..IN REALITY……YOU ARE NO BETTER…MAYBE WORSE THAN THE ORIGINATOR FELONS………ALL OF THIS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THESE FED HOODLUMS WHO WANT COMPLETE COMMUNISM……..BY TRYING TO LEGITAMIZE THIS SCAM YOU ARE A COMMUNIST YOURSELF…..& BTW……PRETEND IS FOR PRESCHOOLERS…….!

  62. Hi Invent – I don’t disagree with your point of “Origination Fraud” – in fact, I’m been trying to raise those exact issues within our case because the origination fraud is so blatant – the originator literally used fraudulent docs closing one loan then originating another.

    The FBI was in our house for 3.5 hrs – 3yrs ago and they accepted the case. This was not some internet complaint form – this was a 3.5hr interview resulting in a subpoena. However, that said – try an find an attorney willing to fight this fight is impossible. Try to find an attorney that even knows what they are doing is damn-near impossible.

    The courts are ignoring the law – our government representatives ignore the law – so what are people going to do about it..?

    Here’s another illegal topic for folks to consider – what has happened to all that “UNEARNED” interest that these foreclosed families PAID to these lenders.
    TITLE 15—COMMERCE AND TRADE
    § 1615. Prohibition on use of ‘‘Rule of 78’s’’ in connection with mortgage refinancings and other consumer loans
    (a) Prompt refund of unearned interest required
    (1) In general
    If a consumer prepays in full the financed amount under any consumer credit transaction, the creditor shall promptly refund any unearned portion of the interest charge to the consumer.

    Isn’t it a bit ironic that these families beaten into bankruptcy but NOT ONE credit payment is returned for the “UNEARNED” interest these servicers collected.

    A typical loan – 250k 6.75% – 30-yr amortization… Let’s say the family paid their mortgage 5-yrs faithfully on-time. That family would have paid 97k in INTEREST ALONE… so, they default after 5-yrs and are foreclosed. That same family PAID over 42k in “UNEARNED” interest – YET is a nickel of that money ever credited back to that family – is any of that money ever returned to the family – WHAT HAPPENED TO THE 42k they were OVER-CHARGED…? That is considered a pre-payment penalty even under default…

    § 1639. Requirements for certain mortgages
    (a) Disclosures
    (1) Specific disclosures
    In addition to other disclosures required
    (c) No Prepayment penalty
    (1) In general
    (A) Limitation on terms
    A mortgage referred to in section 1602(aa) of this title may not contain terms under which a consumer must pay a prepayment penalty for paying all or part of the principal before the date on which the principal is due.
    (B) Construction
    For purposes of this subsection, any method of computing a refund of unearned scheduled interest is a prepayment penalty if it is less favorable to the consumer than the actuarial method (as that term is defined in section 1615(d) of this title).

    (d) Limitations after default
    A mortgage referred to in section 1602(aa) of this title may not provide for an interest rate applicable after default that is higher than the interest rate that applies before default. If the date of maturity of a mortgage referred to in subsection 1 1602(aa) of this title is accelerated due to default and the consumer is entitled to a rebate of interest, that rebate shall be computed by any method that is not less favorable than the actuarial method (as that term is defined in section 1615(d) of this title).

    (j) Consequence of failure to comply
    Any mortgage that contains a provision prohibited by this section shall be deemed a failure to deliver the material disclosures required under this subchapter, for the purpose of section 1635 of this title.

    So, per the above those families should have RESCISSION RIGHTS because the statute clearly states the disclosure was a FAILURE…

    Smoke-on that puppy for a while – why have we NOT seen anyone discuss the “unearned” interest payments being STOLEN from these families…

    Just a thought..

    Sorry for the long post

  63. Thanks, DCB, but we can decide for ourselves. And we all know you and Enraged are in love! So much so, you are starting to act and sound like each other.

  64. For some reasons my previous comment posted before I meant to…

    The DOT states simply “Upon payment of all sums secured by this security instrument…” It does NOT state that the borrower and ONLY the borrower must pay all the sums. In fact, another section of the DOT states DEED OF TRUST – PG 9, PAR 11 – Assignment of Miscellaneous Proceeds; Forfeiture. All Miscellaneous Proceeds are hereby assigned to and shall be paid to Lender.
    Again – “Miscellaneous Proceeds” seems ambiguous enough to mean ALL PAYMENTS toward the debt must be applied towards the repair or REPAYMENT of the debt.

    Therefore – if NO DEBT remains, a release must be given. However, what they are doing is suing under contract – because someone “promised to pay” the debt collector (foreclosure mill, etc) is attempting to sue under contract. They ignore the payment made because it was not from the one who Promised…

    It sounds crazy but that’s is essentially why judges also ignore the standing rules. Consider the arrogance of a court accepting an assignment 2-3 yrs after the closing date of the trust..? The courts might be able to accept the assignment however that DOES NOT give standing to the foreclosure mill to foreclose. The laws governing the assignment of practically all Notes is NY or Delaware and they are bound under the contracts submitted to the SEC and Fed Gov. A judge cannot simply accept the assignment to give the foreclosure mill legal standing. Maryland courts even accept “back-dated” assignments and “do-over” assignments to give these foreclosure mills the right to foreclose. It is an outrageous disregard for judicial process.

    Surely this is a violation of the FDCPA… Then consider the audacity that prior to default the Servicer is collecting payments on a debt that the Trust does not legally own? How could there be a default when the Trust never legally owned the debt?

    How do we force judges to obey the law?

  65. IVENT –need I say again for the benefit of readers you are a moron paid by the collection agencies to disrupt honest discussions—-exemplfy the worst in society.

  66. Why don’t you FED crooks just print yourselves some more COUNTERFEIT BILLS & PAY YOUR OWN BILLS……..? YOU WON’T …..BECAUSE YOU ARE FELONS & NO ONE OF ANY LEGITIMACY WANTS YOUR COUNTERFEITS…….WELL YOU & YOUR CRIMINAL FRIENDS AREN’T STEALING MY PROPERTY TO KEEP UP YOUR COMMUNIST CHARADE………!

  67. ALL OF YOU FED SWINDLERS & FRAUDSTERS ARE CANCELLED OUT…..OVER & OUT……BECAUSE OF THE ORIGINATION FRAUD…..

  68. NO DC……YOU ARE WHO IS FULL OF MEANINGLESS B.S….THAT IS MY POINT……THE ORIGINATION FRAUD CANCELLS ALL OF THIS & YOU OUT……..& THE FBI TOLD ME SO….DON’T BELIEVE ME…..? WHY DON’T YOU CALL THEM & ASK THEM…..?

  69. DCB,

    “This opens a lot of cans of worms for the banks” That was everyone’s take on it: whichever way that case went was going to determine pretty much once and for all how the game would be played in OH. Whether other states will follow suit is another story but here, at least, we know how the landscape is going to rapidly change. Imagine: there are about 5 major foreclosure mills who all have followed the same M.O. I expect at least 3 of them to disappear shortly since none of the banks has the documentation and scrambling to create it before starting foreclosure is going to be time consuming and cause major delays for the banks and, especially, for Freddie and Fannie.

  70. THEN…….WHEN ALL OF THAT FED FRAUD BLEW ITSELF UP…….LITERALLY……..IT WAS TIME FOR THE FED INVESTORS, THEIR MINIONS & COHORTS TO COMMIT…..THE BIGGEST INSURANCE FRAUD SCAM IN HISTORY BY THE FED…………AKA……..CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP INSURANCE & MILLIONS OF FRAUDCLOSURES & OTHER FRAUDS SUCH AS…….SHORT SALES…….CONTINUING TO COLLECT MORTGAGE MONEY THEY WERE NEVER OWED……….LOAN MODS……DEED IN LIEU………REFIS……..REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS OF INSOLVENT FED DEBT……ETC……..ALL COMPLETE COMMUNISM …….!

  71. Damn you IVENT—there is no justification for you to interrupt the thread with your meaningless BS when there are matters of portent being discussed

  72. The trustee must refile and prove the dates of the negotiation —IF the trust did NOT have a loan schedule filed pursuant to ART 9 and PSA. If the trust did have that filing–then the trust pleadings must assert that as part of the statements of fact–the note being ASSIGNED to the trust by an en masse Art 9 filing. I dont know whether it was or not in this case—–procedurally I THINK —that the refiling will either require a statement that the note was assigned to the trust initially via ART 9 scheduling—-or that the negotiation must be stated with care and proof of date of the negotiation by indorsement—if the indorsement was in blank –then the trust had to meet the ownership test by also asserting that it had physical possession. This will drag in issues such as agency. ie did the possession in the originator servicer warehouse under contract to the trust constitute possession by the trust?

    This opens a lot of cans of worms for the banks—but basically compels the banks to plead in accordance with UCC rules—offer up proof upon challenge that the holder obtained the note when and how–not mystical discoveries and presumptions of authenticity. I believe that the last is perhaps most significant—-if the bank must prove when negotiation occurred then the authenticity presumption is wiped out

    this is a good result because it prevents fraud –it prevents multiple claimants succeeding—-it preserves due process—but the homeowners will be argued to waive if they admit the loan is in default—ergo admitting the standing of the claimant to enforce the note and make the determination —this is the halloween trick side of this

  73. David…….the release is supposed to go from bank to bank when consideration is paid by the next bank. The releases are frauds. No monetary transaction therefore, because no monetary transaction ever occurred. The banks were CREDIT SWAPPING…….THEREFORE THEY ARE FELONS BECAUSE OF THE ORIGINATION FRAUD……THEREFORE, ALL SUBSEQUENT SALES OR TRANSFERS BY THE FED WERE FRAUDULENT……

  74. Imbecile

  75. ENRAGED……YOU ARE A FELON TOO…..YOU BETTER WATCH OUT BECAUSE YOUR OWN BARE NAKED ASS MIGHT JUST BE GETTING ARRESTED…….!

  76. Most Deed of Trusts are similar…

    DEED OF TRUST – PG 13, PAR 23
    23. Release. Upon payment of all sums secured by this security Instrument, Lender or Trustee, shall release this Security Instrument and mark the Note “paid” and return the Note to Borrower. Borrower shall pay any recordation costs. Lender may charge Borrower a fee for releasing this Security Instrument, but only if the fee is paid to a third party for services rendered and the charging of the fee is permitted under Applicable Law.

  77. FRAUDCLOSURE IS A BIG SWINDLE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE FIRST PLACE…..THEREFORE THESE FRAUD SUITS ARE BEING BROUGHT ON THE BASIS OF COLOR OF LAW…..NO LAW EXISTS TO BRING THESE SUITS………THESE CASES ARE OUT OF THEIR LEGAL JURISDICTION……..THESE FED CROOKS SHOULD BE ARRESTED….& BE TRIED FOR THEIR CRIMES CRIMINALLY……& THEN TRIED FOR TREASON….!

  78. And DCB,

    It’ hopeless. “Sit Ubu. Sit! ” doesn’t work. Do as we do: ignore her. I know. It is pretty hard but it makes the poor thing feel smart and alive. And since she’d rather pester everyone here with her insanity than work on her own case, we all know how it will end. It’s somewhat of a recurrent theme here: people posting instead of doing what they must to save themselves. Can’t do it for them. Let it be. She’s hurting herself. No one else.

  79. NO DC…..I WILL NOT SIT THIS ONE OUT…..BECAUSE the AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE BEING SWINDLED…….NONE OF THESE FORECLOSURES HAVE A BASIS IN LAW………BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO LEGAL ASSIGNMENTS…….& THEREFORE I WILL NOT ENGAGE IN A COVER UP BY LEGITIMIZING THIS COLOR OF LAW BULLSHIT……!

  80. DCB,

    Yeah but… the case is purely and simply dismissed! So the court ain’t gonna do anymore digging and Schwarzwald is home free. At least, that’s how I understand it!

    {¶ 41} It is fundamental that a party commencing litigation must have
    standing to sue in order to present a justiciable controversy and invoke the
    jurisdiction of the common pleas court. Civ.R. 17(A) does not change this
    principle, and a lack of standing at the outset of litigation cannot be cured by
    receipt of an assignment of the claim or by substitution of the real party in
    interest.
    {¶ 42} Here, it is undisputed that Federal Home Loan did not have
    standing at the time it commenced this foreclosure action, and therefore it failed
    January Term, 2012
    15
    to invoke the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. Accordingly, the
    judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is dismissed.
    Judgment reversed
    and cause dismissed.
    O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, LANZINGER, CUPP,
    and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
    __________________

  81. & PROPERTY……THIS WAS A FRAUDULENT…….CRIMINAL ACT…….THIS COUP DE TAT BY THE FED INVESTORS OF OUR WEALTH…….WHY….? THE FED INVESTORS NEVER PAID FOR ANYTHING……..ZERO…..ZILTCH…..NADA…….! THIS ENTIRE FRAUD WAS COMMITTED UNDER THE GUISE THE FED LENT US SOMETHING OF VALUE……THEY DID NOT……..THEY ARE CREDIT SWAPPING SWINDLERS WHO SELL INVESTMENTS IN NOTHING…….AND FRAUDULENTLY TRANSFER PROPERTY TO THEMSELVES THEY NEVER PAID FOR……! THE FED INVESTORS ARE NO MORE THAN BIG SWINDLERS & FELONS……!

  82. OK IVENT—Why dont you sit this one out while the intricacies of the Scwartzwald case are discussed

  83. The mainstream media is waving the banner today that the reopening of Wall Street is the symbol of Capitalism. Oh hell no its not! What the FED INVESTORS & their RICH CRONIES are engaging in is Crony Capitalism and make no mistake, it is a Crime Syndicate. There are no free markets because the FED INVESTORS used the issuance of CREDIT…….NOTHING OF VALUE to commit a COUP DE TAT of THE U.S. TREASURY DEPT….AKA…THE U.S. TAXPAYERS MONEY……!

  84. The long awaited Ohio Supreme Court case Schwartzwald appears to follow the Boyco opinions in the Federal District court. The case appeal was attended by Ohio State university Law Professor Douglas Whaley. Supposedly there was a distinct effort to showcase the UCC Art 3 implications herein —although Prof Whaley efforts seem to have fallen short of the mark if the issue as framed below speaks to assignment of the note and mortgage—-however for those who have dealt with a purported trust –that has failed to follow Art 9 assignment by way of scheduling assets –ie filing a mortgage loan schedule pursuant to the PSA terms—there was no assignment even under Art 9 and the Art 3 negotiation is all that is left —so the issue for Ohio is now bifurcated: if the trust had no filed loan schedule when formed there was no “assignment” and the courts must look to the timing of the negotiation of the original note. The timing becomes a matter of discovery because the collection agencies rarely date the signatures involved with negotiation of notes. But folks it is all about the note.

    Ohio has the majority rule: the mortgage follows the note.

    “Accordingly, the question presented is whether a lack of standing
    at the commencement of a foreclosure action filed in a common pleas court may
    be cured by obtaining an assignment of a note and mortgage sufficient to establish
    standing prior to the entry of judgment”

  85. ANYONE, aiding & abetting the FED in any way, either by allowing inflation/ deflation, fraudclosure, loan mod, deed in lieu, coercing a short sale, are felons & traitors…….!

  86. DCB,

    This is for you. Schwazwald is in!

    http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/schwartzwald_decision.pdf

  87. These are dirty crooks. That is a completely lawless ruling. I no longer blame the banks for this. It is perfectly clear there is real hatred of the American people here & this type of blatant lawlessness can only be coming from the top. From the FED INVESTORS, their minions & cohorts. The judges are worse than the banks in many cases. These banks know what they are doing is fraud & it is illegal & the judges are doing nothing to stop it. The judges are creating their own laws now for our enemies abroad. This is not only lawless & treasonous, it is the true face of evil on U.S. soil. These are the traitors from within who have no moral character. They can only be described as mob hitmen posing as the RULE OF LAW but they are the LAWLESS ONES. There will be a day of reckoning at the opiniin polls on Nov. 6th. These judges are, like the politicians, politically appointed and have a complete communist agenda. If these traitors don’t get it, that the people refuse to comply, conform & cooperate with complete lawlessness & complete communism then there will be a day of reckoning & I would not want to be these traitors. The just judge will not allow these demons to completely destroy everything he made & we built. That is guaranteed. They can arrogantly cackle away & rub their greedy hands together as much as they want. The Creator sees everything & in the end, no one & nothing will save them from their own manufactured destruction.

  88. YES—“ownership interest” is simply the “junk debt buyers”…or, the mysterious “investor”…

    What a crock.

  89. @DCB; shady connections & backgrounds. I second shadowcats response.

  90. IT’S UNANIMOUS! OHIO SUPREME COURT SETTLES CONFLICT OF FORECLOSURE OPINIONS!
    SCHWARTZWALD v. FREDDIE MAC
    Federal Home Loan commenced this foreclosure action before it obtained an assignment of the promissory note and mortgage securing the Schwartzwalds’ loan. The Schwartzwalds maintained that Federal Home Loan lacked standing to sue. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Federal Home Loan and entered a decree of foreclosure. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Federal Home Loan had remedied its lack of standing when it obtained an assignment from the real party in interest.
    Standing is required to invoke the jurisdiction of the common pleas court, and therefore it is determined as of the filing of the complaint. Thus, receiving an assignment of a promissory note and mortgage from the real party in interest subsequent to the filing of an action but prior to the entry of judgment does not cure a lack of standing to file a foreclosure action. {¶ 4} Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is dismissed.

  91. Has everyone read their note and deed of trust (or mortgage) to see if a ‘servicer’ is even part of your contract? I have an older loan, and I don’t see the term defined in either document.

  92. @DCB …. Yep! Yep!

  93. @Poppy

    Yes—all the contrived illegal craziness is simply because we are dealing with COLLECTION RIGHTS ONLY on (false) default junk debt…created out of thin air…”oh, what a tangled web we weave…”

  94. @ALL

    There is a growing body of evidence that in at least some caees–the opposing counsel in some of these cases has claimed an ownership interest –apparently with inside knowledge that loans have been abandoned by the trustees–they fight too hard to be acxting on behalf of clients and some have very shady connections and backrounds

    be wary and be afraid

  95. @ carie

    I was sending payments to a servicer, then found in discovery a zero balance on my account. Then in another court (Same cats) found a seizure of the loan with an amended repurchase agreement stating: the loan was to go back to Credit Suisse, who seized the loan illegally and any and all monies were to be transferred back to them in 2007. It is now 2012 and a lawyer, substitute trustee has transferred the DEBT (remember zero balance) to his own personal trust company, saying my payments are due from January 27, 2007, when the loan paperwork was signed in February 27, 2007. There’s more, too lengthy to put here. Suffices to say, all of it is a lie and the paperwork is “evidence” and very telling. There is no debt and the current servicer is lying too. Oh, the lawyer wants the servicer dismissed from the case and he is asking for legal fees from the servicer and me…double dipping, good luck pal!

  96. Indeed. Justice is the best beloved of all things in God’s sight.

  97. what you think so shall you be. focus on the positives, – the right thing, the truth, justice, these words i love.

  98. DCB,

    Fear of danger has never excluded danger. Life is, in and of itself, a dangerous proposition… if you want to look at it this way. I don’t. I view it as an exciting proposition with unlimited possibilities to learn something new. It’s served me well thus far. I don’t yake meds to tamper with: not sick in any way. I cook everything I eat: don’t like industrial food. And any time I take my car (which every single day, for an average of 100 miles/day), someone could cut me off or crash into me. Can’t think about it if I want to enjoy myself. Which I do thoroughly. Fear doesn’t have any room in my life.

  99. @DCB

    Like that “D.C. Madam” who was found hanging in her shed…and a few days before she is on tape saying “no way” did she have any plans to commit suicide…seems she had a lot of “info” on 9/11…that she had been threatening to share…

  100. very philosophical–until you hear your door kicked in

  101. DCB,

    Does it really matter how we die? The end result is the same, isn’t it? I don’t think about it. And I don’t view death as something to be afraid of. What matters is not if and when it happens but rather what we did while we were here.

  102. Yes, DCB…it’s very real.

  103. Im not speaking figuratively—–im talking multiple bullet holes–or poison–or tampering w/meds

  104. DCB,

    Everyone has to die one day or the other. Better die fighting than caving in and dying anyway.

  105. Be afraid.

  106. @DCB

    That’s right. They will kill to defend and hide their crimes. Our lives mean nothing. We are rats to them. Look at how many died in 9/11. No conscience whatsoever.

  107. DCB,

    I realize that. Believe me I do! What I also realize is that too much info can paralyze. Too much of the wrong info pro se can’t use will kill their case. Focus is the name of the game. Banks approach court with one or two arguments, tops. Pro se run all over the place and self destruct by trying to play (poorly) every angle they don’t understand and can’t adequately formulate. And by not understanding the most important thing they need in order to even get before a judge: procedures. That’s one of my biggest pet peeves. Giving useless info and omitting the most important ones.

    In fact, NG’s entire premise is that people have attorneys. he does, occasionally, refer to pro se but the type of info he gives is geared to attorneys. People here think they can grab that ball and run with it. Not so. Not if they don’t understand procedures. And getting before the judge (which is already a pretty big accomplishment) is no guaranty of winning. They need to be focused, they need to have one or two arguments, tops, and they need to be steadfast. Not much of that here…

  108. @ER
    The more effort and legal bases you bring to bear –no matter who you are–the harder they push back. Do not forget the Nevada witness that died just before testifying last year.

  109. And here is another excellent site on due diligence and evidencing mortgage fraud. It is not something you do in your spare time. It is a commitment that will steal years of your life. Might as well learn what’s relevant and how to do it well.

    http://diligencegroupllc.net/category/securitization/

  110. And for those intent on fighting in court but unsure of the process (that would be… a great majority of the people here, currently with a case pending and no representation) here is an excellent site with lots of info just for pro se.

    http://foreclosurecourtroom.com/author/foreclosurecourtroom/page/2/

  111. Monday 30 October 2012

    satish shetty:
    >Good luck to all! American Constitution still exists and is alive.
    >This is a bible on its own. If you read it, understand it, and follow
    >it you cannot loose

    There is no American Consittution that ever existed. There WAS
    The Constitution FOR the United States of America, [emphasis added],
    but that has been trashed and abandoned by the corporate federal
    government, and said corporate fedreal government has replaced it
    with the Consitution “of” the UNITED STATES. They “appear” to be
    similar documents, but are as different as night and day.

    THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, when spelled in all caps, signifies
    a corporate entity, a fiction. Just look at your driver’s license to see how
    your name is spelled, then find any rule in the English language that
    states a proper name is spelled in that fashion, [artifice]. Only corporate
    names are spelled in all caps. [To the federal government, all U S citizens
    are corporate entities. Look at your voter registration, as another
    of myriad examples.]

    The organic constitution, that most believe to be alive and well, does
    NOT EXIST in the federal givernment. The organic constitution enumerated
    Rights for the people, limiting government. The corporate federal
    constitution extends “privileges” to “U S citizens,” of which most, if not
    all reading this, are of that ilk, 14th Amendment citizens of the federal
    government, and there are NO restrictions on what the corporate
    federal government can do, and does.

    The corporate federal government was limited to 10 square miles in
    the Dictrict of Columbia, but like a tape worm, it has consumed and
    replaced its organic host. Evidence of this FACT lies in the reality that
    the corporate federal government has extended it tentacles into every
    CORPORATE STATE of THE UNITED STATES, [ALL corporations and
    none a part of the original Condstitutional Republic], and the corporate
    rederal government rules, [actually dictates], every aspect of your life.

    Few recall that this country was founded as a Republic, but the corporate
    federal government operates as a democracy, one of the worst possible
    forms of government, but I digress. Fewer know the differeence.

    The point is, failure to understand the above is failure to understand
    that under the federal corporate government, corporate Congress has
    plenary [unlimited] control of all [federal] U S citizens, aka serfs. The
    question you might want to know is, who owns/controls the corporate
    federal government?

    This is why not a single Wall Street entity has been indicted for all the
    [federal corporately approved] “fraud” involving the entire mortgage
    industry. Failure to comprehend the Ponzi scheme under which ALL
    U S citizens live, [that is, utter deceit of the de facto corporate federal
    government that has displaced the de jure Republic], is failure to
    understand why few are able to succeed in the onslaught against the
    American people, in ANY arena, not just the mortgage area.

    When you choose [mostly unwittingly] to live under federal jurisdiction,
    you HAVE to play by those rules.

    Do your own due diligence to disprove any of the above.

  112. Tnharry, DCB, I and many others keep harping on the danger of presenting pro se. There is a reason. Part 1 of a very important article to read before making the jump.

    Bias against pro se litigants
    Posted on September 23, 2012

    I go to courts a lot and I often see people defending themselves pro se in foreclosure actions. Some of them also go to court hearings just to observe and learn. And based on their experience and information they file motions and set them for hearing. Some of them they win and some of them they loose. Just like lawyers do. Every lawyer would tell you: you can’t win them all.

    But I believe there is a consensus among pro se defendants that judges often treat them like idiots. It seems like judges sound somewhat apologetic in addressing the opposing counsel. It seems like their message between the lines is: He or she is not one of us. He or she does not belong to the elite club you and I belong to. But, you know, I have to listen to what this idiot has to say. Among other things, he was coming to my hearings a lot and learned quite a bit how the system works. But don’t worry, I will not let him or her win, if I can.

    So there is undoubtedly a certain bias against pro se litigants. Why? I found an excellent article about this written 15 years ago, which explains it all. Nothing has really changed since then. Here’s the article.

    http://www.foreclosureprose.com/bias-against-pro-se-litigants/

    But please don’t get me wrong. In no way do I encourage you to quit doing what you are doing – defending yourself in a foreclosure. I just want you to be educated and know what to expect. And show wisdom and courage in dealing with that bias.

  113. Cash-strapped people with no credit counting on payday loans and now dealing with big banks. Instead of charging 521% annually, a mere 365% (1% a day!!!) is asked by Wells Fargo and USB. If it ain’t institutionalized usury, i don’t know what it is…

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-25/banks-pushing-into-small-loans-compete-with-payday-shops.html

    Banks Pushing Into Small Loans Compete With Payday Shops
    By Carter Dougherty – Oct 25, 2012 12:01 AM ET

    Banks facing lower revenue from debit-card and overdraft fees are ramping up marketing of small short-term loans, prompting regulators to question if they carry the same risks to borrowers as other forms of payday lending.

    The high-cost loans offered by firms including Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and U.S. Bancorp (USB) are meant for people who can’t access other forms of bank credit, similar to the clients of storefront or online payday lenders.
    U.S. Banks Pushing Into Small Loans Compete With Payday Shops

    Scrutiny of the loans increased on Sept. 21, when North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper asked Regions Financial Corp. (RF) to provide data showing its loans don’t violate the state’s interest-rate cap. That followed a decision in May by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to investigate payday-like products offered by banks, joining an inquiry by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    “They lend money at a high interest rate and get it paid back at the next paycheck,” Cooper said in an interview. “We want to come at this from all angles to prevent these kinds of loans in North Carolina.”

    The matter also has found its way into the judicial system. In August, a private lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Ohio, claiming that Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB) deceived customers about the true costs of its short-term loans.

    Traditional storefront payday loans are secured by a check, post-dated to a borrower’s next payday. Online versions require clients to have payments directly debited from their bank account. Consumer groups have charged that the loans prey on low-income people by concealing costs and ensnaring them in an expensive debt cycle.

  114. dc: Exactly.

  115. Here’s a good one:

    This is the brilliant, in depth (signed in writing) reply from my “servicer” when I asked him ‘WHY on earth does it have the name of OneWest Bank—the DEBT COLLECTOR—on my 1099 A tax form under where it says “LENDER”???’

    his reply… (drum roll…):

    “Because that’s where you sent your payments.”

    Wow. That HAS to be some kind of tax fraud…ya think?

    In addition, here is their response to my inquiry as to their complying with TILA (final Rule):

    “We respectfully decline to comment on your interpretations of the Interim and Final Rules cited in your complaint.”

    In other words—“WE DON’T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW BECAUSE OF DEREGULATION.”

    Their constant answer to the question of WHO OWNS MY LOAN—is this: “Your loan was securitized, and we service it”…

    But—sir—who owns the loan?

    “We have previously identified who the owner of your loan was and will not comment further.”

    But, sir, all you EVER said with regards to ownership was “Your loan was securitized, and we service it. Deutsche is the Trustee of the MBS…”—how is that an answer? I have asked you 10 times, and those are the ONLY words you ever respond with.

    “We disagree with your contentions that we have not answered your questions regarding ownership of your loan…Please refer to previous communications.”

    Anybody here seen the movie “Gaslight”?

    Deregulation has allowed them to send you in circles, and record fraud docs…and then steal your home…

  116. Is there any movement or status on FHFA v. Goldman Sachs??

  117. @JOE

    Think about catch 22–once you take the document into your possession, you can no longer prove its a copy. Why? Because if the QDE states its a copy—bank will say you swapped out the original for your own version —-and are attempting to defraud the court and them by asserting that your copy is what they gave you—–you need to carefull protect the chain of custody—keep the document they produce in hands of 3rd party untill you are satisfied its original—but also consider what happens if you do get something that you think is the original—–but no trail of custody—–in hands of bank etc—-

    next thing you know there is a knock on your door and BOA comes forward asserting that they have the original—you assert “cant be–iv got the original received from Atty Z—-”

    BoA says —-your purported original is not THE original–because you cant authenticate it by showing where its been–who the record custodian was before you got it-

    they make a MTD your defense of paid—-on basis that your document is not admissable evidence—people please tell me im wrong–but i dont think so

  118. HMAN

    The AZ court is able to reach that conclusion because there is no denial of substantive due process—ie you are not left with liability on the note once the house is seized–no matter who seized it—–the deficiency protection enables thieves to seize at will—so basically in AZ as i understand it—-maker does not have the protections of UCC Art 3 because of the deficiency rules——so the trick is to look at a commercial or unprotected debt –then you will be able to sort out what the AZ law is vs UCC–at present art 3 is not in force there vis homeowner promissory notes–is my inexpert guess

  119. IF bank X alleges you have defaulted—–and because you are late paying you ADMIT you are in default—–arguably the admission has two effects : yes I am late in my payments–and Bank X is properly raising the claim –because i am implicitly admitting DEFAULT IN FAVOR OF X—not just default in favor of an unknown person yet to be identified–i think this is what author is stating and what the interaction of pleadings with UCC may be

    If X alleges default—you arguably can rightly deny the allegation if you question whether X is the holder–because ONLY the HOLDER CAN DECLARE THAT THE NOTE HAS BEEN DISHONORED AND IS THERFORE IN DEFAULT

    Theoretically the allegation implies that X PRESENTED THE NOTE TO YOU AND YOU REFUSED TO PAY IT__IE DISHONORED THE ORIGINAL NOTE—this is very technical but UCC is very technical–trap for unwary—and i dont think most attys and judges understand what default implies vis UCC——defendants absolutely must understand UCC Art 3

  120. Does anyone know where I can locate a forensic document examiner? I need to have my promissory note examined for genuiness. I believe it was Adobe photo shopped.

    Joe
    testatime@aol.com

  121. Romney are you kidding me.
    all the home would have gone to foreclosure with Romney.

    Wow!!!

  122. The Ninth Circus has been named thusly for all my life ,, they don’t ever let the law stand in the way of what they want. President Romney should dissolve it and replace it with constitutionalist judges in a replacement circuit.

  123. hman, on October 30, 2012 at 12:17 pm said:

    “What you write is perfectly logically, however it’s a losing argument in AZ.”

    ditto in CA

    I thought that white paper Neil posted was very interesting ie “constructive trust”.

    It made the point it may be the only way to compel the accounting ect. ie shift the burden of proof…..

    http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/white-paper-asserts-sham-transactions/

    How would you write that up as a cause of action anyone?

  124. I will thank you! with some very good and useful stuff with references to successes in various courts.

  125. sorry my previous post – the quote was from satish shetty, on October 30, 2012 at 10:20 am

    Keep posting satish and everyone – we need intelligent discussion.

  126. dcbreidenbach,

    What you write is perfectly logically, however it’s a losing argument in AZ. Case law has stipulated that presentment is not necessary. Furthermore, AZ case law has shot down the idea of “default” to the wrong party, they’ve stated that the AZ defeciency statute will protect the Homeowner in the event another party comes after you. They’ve determined that the Trustee sale is not an action to foreclose on the “note” but rather on the DOT, and the UCC does not apply to the DOT.

    I am aware that the DOT is supposed to secure the note but the judges haven’t cared about this. They have stated that the Trustee sales process is supposed to happen quickly and outside the judicial system and when you sue them the burden of proof is on you.

    They will tell you that you agreed to MERS evidenced by your DOT signature, which you can’t dispute IMO. Even though I’ve alleged “lender” is defunct, no longer a MERS member, etc…

    I think this may have worked several years ago in AZ but the amount of bad verdicts has made it nearly impossible for HO to win. I think some of the good verdicts are going off record and can’t be cited as caselaw.

  127. “I have seen and read this blog and many individuals seek to attack other for what others write or their character including Neil Garfield who I see has been attacked at various times (a man among others like Max Gardner, April Charney who has taken the intitiative to lead) what what we write. “United we stand, divided we fall”. If we have to win then we should use the power of levitation wherein we all assist one another to inform, defend, and win. Not attack each other for our opinions. I have thus chosen not to participate and write here any more …”

    Please keep posting. It is my opinion that all the points of view will actually turn out to be correct – they are looking at the same elephant in the room from different viewpoints……What actually works in court on any given day in any given state is a different matter and there are many viewpoints for that as well… I wish everyone would cut some slack for free thinking. At least it really is free…..no one gets a penny for their thoughts by posting them on a blog.

    Personally I wish there was more actual detailed case discussion and no judgment when you bumble around trying out your understanding of it. You can never get from a to z unless you ask the “dumb” questions or try out your “dumb” ideas hoping for intelligent feedback from those more knowledgeable or experienced. Wish more of them would keep positing. What was “dumb” five years ago isn’t “dumb” today.

  128. I don’t get it!
    The suit was because he wanted to know who ‘owned’ the loan? Isn’t that an implicit admission of the validity of the debt? His suit is that because they failed to tell him who owned the loan, they denied him due process? They wrongfully foreclosed on him?

    Is that some sort of admission that the loan existed, he didn’t know who had it, but the people who foreclosed had no right to do so because he needed the one who had the loan to foreclose?

    What about validating the debt?
    What about full accounting?
    I’ve stepped away from this scene for such a long time, I can’t even form the words to make sense in this matter?

    The pretend lender is named on the Deed of Trust. He contacted the servicer? Why? There is a distinction here. Lender is XXX, Beneficiary is XXX, Trustee is XXX, and there is details about having the loan serviced with the servicer.

    RESPA says they have to respond to correspondence within so many days. If you count weekends and holidays, they have quite a bit of time to get back to you, even if they just say, ‘we are investigating your request, we will respond in 25 days, or 45 days, or whaterver.” Not responding and foreclosing sucks, but foreclosing on these new modification contracts is what’s clouding the situation.

    So many people have signed on with the devil, for modification, and then when they get screwed and go to appeals, somewhere in the background of these cases is a solid contract establishing the modification company/bank as the lender (of the mod) and the homeowner thinks they have a case against the original lender and they don’t (second contract for mod is first in line and took the place of the DOT contract that was there before).

    The goal here is someone is not telling the whole truth. This snippet if details and the info allowed to be exhibited in the court case is not enough to know what ‘really’ happened.

    Any attorney with this case is glad to be paid for ‘doing his job’ which is helping the courts to rule on these ‘secondary agreements people entered into thinking they were saving their homes’.

    For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

    Stop playing with these people. Until you know who you are…they will treat you as something lesser. When you know who you are, their courts will be of no use to you.

    Courts are for conflicts where two parties had a contract and now someone disagrees on the terms, or someone is failing to perform the obligations of their side of the contract.

    Courts have judges that decide who is not performing the obligation or to settle the disagreement by putting the terms on the table for both parties to see what they are with a witness (the judge).

    You hire someone and go to court over this…there is a valid contract in the background.

    Now if they steal your home (Calling it a foreclosure) that’s a criminal act.
    Who goes to court and sues a man for stealing their purse/car/money? You communicate with law enforcement over the theft.

    Now if there was an agreement to give the purse but they took the wrong one, or they took too many purses, or they took the car at the wrong time or brought it back damaged or didn’t pay for it like they said they would, or they stole your money you’d be filing charges not going to court.

    If they steal and had no right to steal it, they need a valid signature to clean it up. OCC settlement probably got a few, and the little $2000 check they sent to some they got a few more. But those corrupted titles are not clean.

    Anybody refinance with their original lender and got a note in the mail saying Paid in Full, and then paid the refinance? It would be interesting if they had filed that note that was paid in full with the county, if that would settle this entire mess. We are so used to not filing anything that when they give us something that should be filed we don’t know what to do with it.

    I don’t know. Just guessing out loud. I know someone that has that note with the nice red ‘paid in full’ on it. All these refi’s are probably ways to extend the obligation, but the original was paid, and would probably be the thing that closes the title for the original borrower who has the Grant Deed, or original Warranty Deed.

    I know nothing. I can’t give legal advice because I don’t know legal things.

    Check out how the 1% are being called out. Imagine not paying taxes and getting a bail out from others who paid.
    Imagine not paying taxes and getting a refund!

    http://www.politicususa.com/bernie-sanders-exposes-18-ceos-trillions-bailouts-evaded-taxes-outsourced-jobs.html

    Some of us are changing the Matrix to what we want it to be.
    If it’s truly a hologram, and I did learn how a hologram is made and that it’s based on how you see things, the image that is reflected back to you.

    If it’s truly a hologram, and what I see is based on how I’m viewing it. To create a hologram, your movement, your temperature, even the way you breathe while it’s being created, affects the image being created.

    How stuff works dot com.

    Imagine what power we’d have if we learned how to manipulate our part of the hologram for us.

    They know these truths, we don’t; yet.

    They’ve used our lack of knowledge to feed us the images they want us to see, and to give us the fear they want us to have, and to place hatred into our minds and hearts so we will reflect it for their purposes.

    We will stop playing their game, and those of us that do, will have an entirely new image of the world we want to see.

    This is our time.
    I think youtube has videos about the universe being a hologram, but it doesn’t teach how to manipulate it for our needs and purposes.

    If we can learn that part, we would be showing our power.

    A hologram is such that a piece removed shows the entire image. So I can be a reflection of the whole, even as being only one piece of the original image.

    We are One. Each of us are a reflection of the Creator. The image they spoke of Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[a] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

    I’m not of any religion; I do believe in an Original source of Creation (The One Infinite Creator); but there is some truth in all things shown; that’s why I share some of those verses. Sometimes things written/spoken trigger remembrances in us.

    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, Life, Free and Independent State, In Jure Proprio (in One’s own Right), Jure Divino (by Divine Right)

  129. satish shetty

    Thanks !

  130. RESPA merely restates the UCC Art 3 rights of the maker of a note–technically that maker may ask for presentment of the note at eacxh payment—and in some states is liable to the holder if the installments were made to a false caimant–thus the genesis of the 2010 RESPA provision—-the UCC rules predate this RESPA rule which primarily provides an alternative remedy to basic ucc rights

    The confusion that exists about homeowner notes and UCC —-required verification. So i thought I would test the operation of UCC

    so I walked into my local bank branch–walked shakiliy to the teller and stated firmly: ” here is a fine copy of a check written to me on your bank—I kept the original at home because it is bad weather outside and i did not want to have it blown out of my hand on my way here—but I absolutely swear that the original is in my possession and that i will not negotiate it to anybody else –or present it tomorrow for another payment then”

    I was confidant of payment because well gee –iv been going to that bank a long time and everybody knows my name–

    But to my shock and dismay the teller replied without a moments hestitation “Well it just doesnt work that way here–we only are allowed by the law to pay you if you actually present the original check to us because we have to look at the signatures on it to see if tey are forged or the document was not endorsed over to somebody else–”

    whereupon I stated firmly: “But iv got this nice copy right here–both sides of the check with account numbers and names cearly showing that Joe Sixpack made the check out to me and here I am demanding payment–and I promise you that I have it at home and have lots of good reasons why I simply cant bring it here—so ill take large bills now—trust me”

    Teller was unphased—“we cant pay you on a copy and a promise–this check is for $300—and there is sooo much fraud these days–although Id like to believe you–the law just will not permit it”

    All of which set me back–because I gave the deed to my house to that bank a year ago when the banks attorney told the judge, my atty and me the same thing about the note for several hundred thousand dollars—I guess the bank is just more believable than I am–because at that time the explanation seemed to convince my lawyers and the judge——I am still looking for the exception in the UCC Art 3 for banks and collection agencies —–something exempting them from all those rules—–I must be getting old–or have an obsolete version of the UCC—because I simply cant find the exemption???

    Anybody care to comment why the rule is enforced by the teller on a $300 check–but Im not allowed to apply it on a $300K promissory note? Im old and confused–I need help understanding why Art 3 does not apply to me???

  131. Perfect “10” ********** Yep! 10s fom Head to Toe!

  132. AUTHOR STATES:
    “The smae applies to “Gale defaulted on the loan.” How did that get in ther ecord unless Gale admitted it? How does Gale know that there was a payment due? He presumed it because Franklin was the originator”

    The UCC constitutes a system that has as its core the concept enunciated by AUTHOR here. Rarely is it raised however, in my opinion due to the preoccupation with the security side of the RE transaction. Ie assignments of mortgage etc. These are mere distractions Bank of New York V Raftogianis.

    One must look to UCC Art 3 to support the AUTHOR’s point to avert charges of “frivolous claim –or frivolous denial.

    The note is not in default until the owner dishonors that instrument. UCC lays out a series of steps which are supposed to be taken to reach that point. The purported holder of the note is supposed to present the original note to the maker [homeowner-borrower] so that the borrower can ascertain if that piece of paper is in fact the original note and not simply a copy in the hands of a con-artist.

    Only if the borrower ADMITS that the note is the original can the holder declare it to have been dishonored–ie the homeowner refuses to pay the note even though the holder has properly presented the original.

    The purpose of this process is to assure that the claimant in fact is a holder—with right to enforce the note under Art3-301. This is important because if maker does not dishonor the note then it is not in default. Thus only the holder of the original [or see art 3-309] is legally able to enforce that note meaning to decalare a default under the terms of the note.

    There can be no default unless there has been presentment of the original and dihonor of the original by the maker–ie refusal or inability to pay. A stranger in an office with a set of records showing a debt line cannot declare a default and proceed to collect on the note and enforce the secutity [mortgage] without the steps under UCC which are designed to assure that the owner of the note is the person who is paid. Aside from the problem that the borrower cannot tell who is the lender, if he ignores these rules –it makes it easier for the collector—but the borrower may end up paying the wrong person –ie a non-holder bluffing the claim–and still owe a sleeping true holder

    Thus even though a layman or igattorney ignorant of UCC provisions may apply a common sense approach—“yes the note is in default because I have not made a payment in a long time–it is not necessarily true that tbecause the true note holder may not be the claimant—thusthe homeowner does not owe every bank in the world –simply the collector who actuall holds the note only that party is supposed to be able to declare a default—after the homeowner admits the note is real and the refuses to pay it

    sure this is ignored by the banks–its a lot easier for them to bluff but inso doing the homeowner may be erroneously admitting to liability to a stranger with no right to collect under UCC–which is there to protect the maker from double claims–a

    check with an attorney and do not waive your right to examine the original note as a precondition to admitting that the party proffering a piece of paper is rightfully owed

    thus the author is correct–how can you admit the debt is in default IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTY MAKING THE CLAIM—if the original note is not placed into evidence by that claimant–its like paying a holder of a copy of a check–would the bank do that??

  133. Curious, was that one of the retired (senior) judges brought on????

  134. @louise

    It must be because the judges think they will lose their pensions if they follow REAL law—and not “bank law”. I can’t think of any other reason.

  135. It seems that the Court is prejudiced in favor of the banks. That is not surprising considering what we have seen so far. My question is: what inducement, if any, was the Court offered to do this? I say that, because even a peon like me can see the lack of logic and straight forward thinking is this decision. I certainly hope this junker is appealed ASAP. You know if they fired judges who make bad decisions, the planet would be in much better shape. Just wishful thinking…

  136. The best thing to do is to use this decision against themselves. Yes, There is a way to use their sword against themselves. I am about to file a case in United States District Court personally. I have spoken a lot. I have led many. I will now play the game that I have assisted many to succeed in little ways in various areas. I will publish the case as soon as it is filed. I know Mr. Barry in Malibu, California is vigorously fighting and is on the right track! Wish you well. I will launch some time in November 2012. God be with us! No need for corrupt politicians and their administrative and executive puppets or politicians whose survival depends upon very one’s we are fighting ( I am talking of both sides and you know what I mean). I will be taking the California bar next year but I cannot wait to take active role here.

    One important word of wisdom. I have seen and read this blog and many individuals seek to attack other for what others write or their character including Neil Garfield who I see has been attacked at various times (a man among others like Max Gardner, April Charney who has taken the intitiative to lead) what what we write. “United we stand, divided we fall”. If we have to win then we should use the power of levitation wherein we all assist one another to inform, defend, and win. Not attack each other for our opinions. I have thus chosen not to participate and write here any more but I will at least set an example. For those who agree well and good and for those who do not, I’ll pray for you.

    Good luck to all! American Constitution still exists and is alive. This is a bible on its own. If you read it, understand it, and follow it you cannot loose. We have not alternative but to win! and we will win for sure! Time will speak for itself.
    Satish Shetty

  137. And what should one do if the originating loan service company(online through Lending Tree referral), Maricopa Mortgage is found to be in violation of several Financial regulations and pleads “No Contest” to all allegations of misconduct. See Judicial Order No. 06F-BD116 against Maricopa Mortgage to cease and desist: Notice of opportunity for hearing; consent to entry of order @ Arizona Department of Financial Institutions.

    Original service sold the loan to Countrywide which then is acquired by BAC. And BAC forecloses without original note. After this the following occurs.

    Foreclosure initiated in Oklahoma County District Court case# CJ-2010-2530. Summary judgment issued after 22 months with District Court denying all plaintiffs request for counterclaims and objections. No discovery ever allowed. Case went to and is now referred by Supreme Court of Oklahoma in Tulsa County to COCA as of July 2012.
    Harry Milhisler
    405.520.8880

  138. Well, what about the servicer getting the PROPER assignment? Where is that paperwork and why is it not being presented? I have been paying a payment to Ocwen and my ledger FROM them has a zero balance. Where is my payment going Neil?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: