Tax “break” about to expire on debt “forgiveness”

Editor’s Comments on policy:

Depending upon what Congress does between now and the end of the year the waiver of a tax on debt forgiveness as ordinary income will expire. My take is that it should expire and that at the same time the debt should be reduced by virtue of payments received or due from  subservicers, Master Servicers,  insurers, and counterparties to credit default swap contract, where appropriate. This is because (a) it was never secured and (b) it was never funded or acquired for “value received” by the parties whose name appears as payee and mortgagee on closing papers and (c) the debts have been paid off multiple times by multiples sales of the same loan under the structure of an outright sale (of something they didn’t own), insurance, credit default swaps and even federal bailout.

The added reason is that the homeowners were defrauded: the appraisals were cooked and the borrower justifiably relied upon them as did the investors. So we are talking restitution here not forgiveness.

That would leave each borrower with a tax instead of a mortgage. It would also give back the money to the Federal government and investors. In many cases the investors are also the borrowers if they pay taxes or are depending upon a managed institutional fund that bought the bogus mortgage bonds. By converting the defective mortgage, note and assignments to a tax, the borrower’s liability would be reduced and payable in installments.

Obama wants as little Federal involvement as possible, but he is missing the point that a large scale fraud took place here that ended up corrupting the title records in all fifty states and in which investors suffered losses only because their agents, the investment banks, never shared the enormous profits they received from “trading” (Tier 2 yield spread premium), buying insurance in which the investment bank was the payee instead of the investors, and buying additional coverage from credit default swaps again making themselves the payee instead of the investors.

This is a mirror of the closings at which the loans were supposedly originated. Instead of making the investors or their REMIC the payee on the note or recording an assignment with actual payment in cash, the banks “borrowed” ownership from the investors and made a ton of money trading on it.

The Federal government MUST get involved here and straighten this out or there will continue to be uneven inconsistent opinions emanating from state and federal courts across the country making the title situation (and uncertainty in the marketplace) even worse than it is now.

The fact is that in most loans the amount received from Federal bailouts and the hedge contracts that were used, as well as the outright multiple sales of the same loans, have been paid in full several times over whether they are in foreclosure or not — and that includes the prior “foreclosures” that were put through the system based upon false, defective documentation and fraudulent representations to the borrowers and all others involved in the process.

The remedy I propose is indeed extreme if you look at it as a gift. But if you look at it from the point of view that the investors and borrowers were lured into the scheme by the same lies to support a PONZI scheme that collapsed as soon as investors stopped buying the bogus mortgage bonds, it is easy to see that the balance due from borrowers is zero. In fact, it is even possible that legally the overpayment left over after the investors are paid, might be due back to homeowners by virtue of the terms of the notes they signed. That might also be taxable but the homeowner would have the money with which to pay the tax.

This proposal would stimulate the economy by automatically reducing the amount of household debt based upon tax brackets, while also increasing revenue to pay back the Federal government for all the “favors” done for the banks. Whether the Feds decide to prosecute the banks for restitution would their choice.

As it stands now, as long as homeowners focus their strategy or DENY and DISCOVER and demand to see the actual transfers of money to prove ownership of the loan and the existence of an unpaid loan receivable, the decisions are already turning toward the borrowers, albeit slowly. One way or the other, this issue with taxation of the “forgiveness” of debt when in fact it was actually paid is going to surface.

Think about it. Comments welcome.

Tax break for struggling homeowners set to expire

142 Responses

  1. Something else that’s nagging me is that Berkshire Hathaway, the successful bidder in ResCap’s bk, was able to get ResCap’s loan portfolio “free and clear” of other claims. That could admittedly be
    general creditors, but I want to know if so, why would that be. I think there was some discussion of this issue generically (dumping investors thru bk) a couple months ago, but of course, I forget except that filing bk and dumping creditors and yet selling assets was a good trick. But as to THIS bk case, what claims were avoided? The rule I cited yesterday at 9:26 pm talks about perfection of a sec interest IF the security interest is pursuant to a sale. (And I still want to know why a security interest would attach to a sale, as in I don’t get that.)
    If investors in ResCap’s loan portfolio didn’t get security)interests “pursuant to a sale”, is BH able to avoid their claims /interest and get the loans free and clear because the bk estate would take the assets free of those claims and so could sell them free of those claims?! I’ve tried to do some more digging, but everything takes time.
    At the heart of my querry is why ResCap had a multi-billion dollar loan portfoliio in the first place. Why weren’t the loans sold to trusts? Why did ResCap own them to be the subject of the sale by the bk trustee? Did REsCap only own them because something was jacked and didn’t effect either a sale or unavoidable security interests?

  2. dcb – the link I sent you which I see won’t open (I’m going to try again for a good link because I want it looked at since it may strike a chord with isomeone in this mess) is about “sale-accounting treatment” and fas 125, which I think is what you are talking about. or maybe. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know for sure. If I remember from last night midnight oil, and only if, 125 has the elements for a sale-accounting treatment, and that’s what I think you described.
    Because I find these sale-accounting treatment deals when I’m looking into securitization, I at least feel confidant they’re relevant thereto.
    You know, between the UCC and accounting rules, it’s a lot to try to figure out. I’d just say heck with it, and still may, if it weren’t for the assgts of the notes in the “MERS” assgts of the dots – every single one I have ever seen. Either the assignments are false instruments or the notes are being assigned. Is there another choice?
    Last week I suggested that the banksters are conveying the notes to the trusts (at this date) in payment of the banksters’ own obligations to the trust. Now that gets complicated. Can they do this? Why or why not? Even if the assignment at this date is not in payment of the
    banksters’ own obligations, there are clearly issues. The fact that EVERY assgt includes an assgt of the note says non-conveyance was systemic, not a random failure on a few notes.
    I remember a case a few years ago where a title co. tried to use a note to retire “antecedent debt” and it didn’t work out for them. That’s all I remember. I’m not going to hunt for it because it may not be applicable here, with parties who 1) may hold security interests, if that’s the case and that might change things 2) may have a contractual provision, unless illegal, which provides for this. I guess I’m just including this for my own reminder to be on the look-out. I take that back. I just did a cursory look at antecedent debt and see that it is illegal to pay back an antecedent debt thru a new transaction if the
    debtor is insolvent. Hmmmmm….

    One way or another, there’s a reason those notes are being included in every assignment and I think it’s foolish to overlook this fact. If the assgt is legitimate, and I’m hard pressed to see how MERS has the authority, (disregarding that MERS doesn’t execute assgts, anyway, wasn’t designed to, was never meant to, was never going to, yet induced a borrower to rely on “MERS”), it’s evidence imo the note was not previously assigned to the trust. Hope it’s not another 2 years (post Consent Order) until homeowners make this assertion. So one strategy could be to let them get the assgt in and then nail them with it if one has, well, the kahunas. (In weidner’s recent case, the bankster fought getting the assgt in).
    lay opinions – ask a lawyer

  3. @JG

    the “trusts” under REMIC are required to be “passive” as defined–then they define passive and allow exceptions for those things you note—ie foreclosure litigation–REO–held soley for sale etc

    i was describing the theoterical basis for exemption of the business association from corp income tax

    i think that the servicers have totally misdirected the use of the trusts to do non-passive things in quantity if not quality

    for example —when REMIC law enacted im sure that congress would have felt that foreclosures were rare and that the trust operators would do their best to prevent the money-losing events

    but we now know that the 2004-6 predatory operators intended all of the loans to default and be a mere step in a larger plan to put assets in distress and then liquidate them with maximum money to the servicer vs the investor–a complete abandonment of the purpose and effect of the tax policy—i would take away trust status from all trusts where no loan schedules filed —missed window—i would attack those with high foreclosure ratios on basis that the passive purpose was shot—-i would definitely go after those where the servicer is setting up homes for seize and freeze casualty insurance fraud—and add to that those where they deliberately hold the houses wet w/o drying equip so as to encourage mold growth–to get mold claims

    in essence the purpose of the trst is no passive but rather a subtle subterfuge for active fraud schemes

    problem is that the income taxes and penalties would be charged against the innocent investors in some cases–if there are any innocents left holding mbs——-now actually the investors should be suing the servicers for recovery of the taxes which were triggered by the bad acts of the servicers–and assign the evil to the trustee bank deep pocket–the trustee is allowing its name to be used by scoundrels to intimidate people–and delude courts–when actually the active party here is a fly by nirte debt collector that is pocketing all proceeds by offset or thru more sophisticated shell games

    the insurance fraud just keeps going–the seize and freeze or mold encouragement or leaving doors unlocked for insider stripper theives etc–diverting cherry-picked homes to buddies for quick flips–this stuff does not justify protections under the tax code

  4. @JG
    “true sale” is a term of art—i cant recall off hand tax or acctg?

    but meant to distinguish from a financing sale—true sale means risk of loss passes to buyer–as in my examples—–if the transaction is styped as a sale but fails to pass risk of loss then its a financing

    sale means transfer of ownership—–means transfer of indicia of ownership–means not just transfer of title [legal ownership] but beneficial/equitable ownership

    i think that is why the PSA states there is a note sale agreement with schedule —necessary to transfer any interest—-and then there is language that says in event the transaction is determined to be a pledge or create a security interest —the financing statement which includes a schedule is required —an undertaking is made in the PSA that this will be done or has been done

    now—whats the difference–how can a sale revert to a financing?

    well —the “trust” started out as a mere acctg device by which a sponsor could dedicate the cash flows from an asset to a creditor–a non-recourse financing—this evolved in early 80s with offshore oil platforms—and financing of units in power plants—anywhere that a separate income stream could be identified and assigned to a creditor

    it evolved because corps were stressed—-did not want to show full debt on balance sheet——operating corps

    1st was kinsale head platform in irish north sea

    then it was moved to REMICs—so financial cos could have big asset pools offset by non-recourse debt aka MBS

    it was a gimmick to keep debt ratios low and ebitda looking good etc–bonuses high–debt low

    but there were actually all sorts of clawbacks–and your big 8 acctg firm would have to get an opinion that the debt was properly non-recourse and so there was constant tension between pricing of the loan which improved with with de fact guarantees –and worsened with the degree of lack of recourse

    the whole clawback aspect is now getting lots of attn by litigators today for the financial guys

    so the language and ambiguous assertions in PSAas etc derive from this fear that the clawbacks will be so rigorous that the sponsor will be deemed by accts to have simply issued MBS as its own notes secured by a pool of mortgage loans

    the accts would simply declare the trust was to be disregarded for acctg and probably tax purposes and all the loans and notes grossed up on the issuer balance sheet

    the 1st nthe eraly FAS statements required that the debt be disclosed in a footnote rather directly on the balance sheet–a contingent liabilitysort of

    if you worked at it by having an interest in an unconsolidated sub–that was subject to the clawbackyou could hide the liabiity completely—balance sheets degenerated to where they are today–the fake trusts allowed by REMIC etc

  5. dcb – ps – If the trust were supposed to be passive, I’m confused. If it’s the trust which owns loans and has the right of recourse, this would as a matter of course involve, say, litigation. Even if not,
    forecloslng isn’t something i’d describe as passive unless every h.o. rolled over and got lost. Still need sheriffs, etc.
    That reminds me. IF the trusts own loans and have the recourse, the trusts are going to own real estate, also as a matter of course, That’s hardly passive if for no other reason then they have to dispose of it.
    They have to maintain it, have insurance, pay taxes, hire people, etc
    Even if their alleged agents, aka servicers, do this stuff, they’re still acts of the principal. Plus they have materially changed the assets of the trust.
    Remember a credit bid by the trust causes the trust to be in title by way of the dot trustee’s deed. Is that the game? Some hijinx go on by way of some bs assgt of the trustee’s credit bid so the trust is not in title?! This explains a question I saw from a title-person. She couldn’t figure out who the seller was (think that was on a short sale), long and short. Even if an alleged agent takes title, it’s still title of its principal, i.e., the trust! That or it’s “thanks for the credt bid. See ya!”
    WHO is being shown as the seller on these re-sales, pray tell. Well, I can find that out with a little digging if no one weighs in.
    It just does never end.

  6. “True Sale” of an interest in a promissory note: Be aware that neither filing nor possession is necessary or effective to perfect the security interest. Perfection is automatic upon attachment if the “security interest” results from the sale of the promissory note. See UCC sec. 9-309(4). Once perfected, the security interest takes PRIORITY over the interest of a subsequent lien creditor and the originator/debtor’s bankruptcy trustee. See UCC sec. 9-317(a)(2); 11 USC sec. 544(a)(1)

    The 544 just ftr is the one I have meant in regard to Chapter 11, I think without looking, for anyone interested. The material above is from one of the articles I’ve been reading about the UCC and now about the 2001 amendments. My take on some of these articles is that they’re dangerous because their takes on the UCC can be flawed whether by intent or not (and I posit at least one in the ASF’s is willful altho they claim reliance on a comment they cite). That’s actually kind of hard to believe, but that’s what I”m finding. So then one has to go look at what they’ve claimed about article this section that in the UCC post-2001.
    One article claims all 50 states adopted the amendments, but I’d swear NY abstained.

    Was moving along nicely on my reading and got interrupted by *(#$!.
    I am still trying to figure out why a security interest would attach to a note that has been sold, unless it’s a retained sec interest. Nah. Or maybe, and just not applicable here??? I mean if i sell you a note and you don’t pay me, we could agree I retain a sec interest til you do.
    But that means you can’t enforce except to the extent of your payment as you and i discussed in ‘payment v promise to pay’. Right? Well, that is unless they changed that one, also. I have to keep in mind the little (very little) I think i know about the UCC is from many years ago. Didn’t I read that a bailee can now enforce a note?! Didn’t want to broach it since my first impression was red. But that’s distracting for now.

    I had posited before that what one gets without delivery is a sec interest, but not so sure because before my interruption I was reading a part of the UCC which defined the effective date of sale and now I lost it (and it had to do with delivery). I really appreciate your input because it stinks to take this stuff on alone.
    This minute I still stand on the banksters trying to assign the notes to the trusts in the MERS assgts of the dots. And that it’s an admission it wasn’t done before. I did catch a glimpse of assgt of a note as payment on an obligation (something I’ve advanced as a possiblility), but haven’ gotten to explore it yet, either.
    My main thing here is trying to understand why there would be an attachment of a sec interest when there is a sale . And actually,
    “true sale of an interest in a promissory note”? What’s that? I sell you half my interest? Why would that be in these articles about the UCC and securitization? I mean, I certainly understand I could misconstrue things, but it seems like double-talk. I think this is one of the reasons
    I thought ‘true sale’ as used here actually means sale and purchase of
    a security interest, a new concept to me (as opposed to a creation of a sec interest by operation).

  7. The trust is a passive business association. It theoretically does not engage in business which constitutes a burden on society or govt which requires a doing business license–provilege. The trust is a collection of individual investors which simply pool their assets for scale—to help finance homes–the public policy purpose of the trust.

    Thus the entity does not do enough to justify payment of an income tax at the entity level. this is tax policy–a pool of investors not taxed because supposedly helping put people in homes and putting little denand on govt resources–well it was a nice idea but it has lost its way

    there is no justification as the system has evolved–its just collection agents operating tax free—-

  8. @JG

    Art 9 is aimed at establishing a security interest. however the document which constitutes the agreement between the parties may convey legal ownership as well as equitable ownership—-the words of the agreement govern whether sufficient benefits and burdens of a bundle of interests transfer to meet transfer of “ownership” almost always connoting “risk of loss” —see Plantation Patterns. in tax context–who is entitled to depreciation.

    The full assignment of all interest can be recorded as a financing statement –attachment exhibit–and its a matter of constructive notice to the world.
    I dont know how else the world can be put on notice that “ownership” of

    a note can be accomplished Eg I assign you a note ownership with a document that says I hereby sell you all of the right title and interest in the scheduled notes–and schedule describes them by name address —date–amt–due dates etcetc——and state “and furthermore the sale is without recourse nor am i responsible for assurance of payment –and the notes are as is –buyer takes subject to any risks of predatory lending issues etc etc—and as seller i assert that all notes were destroyed —last section of sales agreement states “and notwoithstanding any other provision herein buyer hereby agrees that he has not relied on any statement or representation made herein”

    now this is a clear sale —

    of something–but more as a quit claim–vs warrantee sale—-now if you the buyer fail to record this as a financing statement—-lets say i put a provision stating “and in no event shall buyer allow this schedule or summary financing statement to be recorded—and the sales agreement is confidential

    Then i seller turn around and do a straight pledge agreement with a bank—-and duly record it—-your claim falls behing the bank–which of course you could smell from the disclaimers above

    maybe art 9 does not actually cover the rules of the sale—but the notice process operates to cut off other pledges

    the art 3 stuff in this context tells the maker who owes what–the art 3 stuff does not allow all sorts of contractual details—nothing like the sales agreement or some qualified sale

    the negotiation rules describe only wit or without recourse
    ie quit claim or warrantee

    I could make an “assignment ” like this: I hereby sell and assign all my interest in the attached schedule of notes with detail etc—in exchange for X dollars—provided i guarantee that every last dollar of principal and interest shall be repaid by the makers or i will pay any deficiency plus i promise to pay the buyer an amount necessary to equalize the interest rate on the notes compared to the current LIBOR–and i indemnify the buyer for losses of any kind arising from or relating to collection of the notes—-and i reserve the right to add notes from time to time as herein guaranteed in all respects —in exchange for the payment by buyer of an amount equal to the face of each note—and i will collect and transfer all payments received from makers to buyer

    etc etc–the latter might be called a sale–but its clearly a wareghouse lending agreement —you do not have to record it —you just lose priotiy–the most important aspect is the loan schedule—that is the core to notice and identification of assets to a sales or pledge assignment

    now you should be getting pretty nervous about

  9. Why do trusts have preferred tax status? If you know, please tell, tell.

  10. On nov 9th, I said this:

    “The trusts are now routinely accepting ownership via art 3 endorsements to notes, assets, in which they formerly held only a security interest, if that, and which probably didn’t qualify ‘trusts’ for any preferred tax status.”
    This is me eating crow no.1. Art 3 doesn’t convey ownership interest at all. It, if these notes are neg instruments, creates a right to enforce. And I have to think that if notes were actually sold to trusts, they woudn’t need art 3 endorsements to create a right to enforce. So as to me believing just now the trusts only got security interests, for me this is Tell No. 1. Tell No. 2 is the assgt of the note in the Mers’ assgt of the collateral instrument and the recitation of consideration, i.e., why would you pay for something you already own?

  11. @JG

    If you ever run into a settlement agreement and see a clause in it to effect that you must maintain insurance —without limiters—eg until you vacate—-then you will see the set up being constructed

    the insurable interest aspect is a bit amorphous–controlled by date that value of seized property is set for purposes of determining the amount of deficiency and forgiveness of debt if there is any

    if you transfer a deed as part of a settlement or even a dot—–but its not recorded until much later—–thats another indicator of an insurance scam—you must give considerable thought to whats going on–you must assume that it is the debt collectors objective to maximize collection on your insurance policy—as part of its liquidation strategy

    you might say—how could an insurance company put up with this stuff—-well if you signed up for a subprime loan knowingly or not–1st sign youll get is that the casualty insurance jumps

    why does the insurance company put up with apparent intentional set up or wilful disregard?

    well maybe thats the other side of forced place insurance—-not a bad deal for an insurer if the servicer places 100 perfrforming loan policies with your company—-at exorbitant rates–in exchange for a blind eye on 5 that are casualty insurance questionable claims—today a nice seize and freeze can yield more up front cash than a forcelosure sale–so the collector gets say 90% of FMV by insurance—then can sell the house for salvage—and get an empty lot in the end–abandon to city to clean up mess—-does this sound at all familiar to anyone?

  12. @dcb – well of course there’s something wrong with a a sieze and freeze as you describe. imo. Having ins with 2 cos. is probably not prohibited. Any insurance agent should know, I’d think. Dual claims would be and it sounds like that’s what they had in mind, which is
    insurance fraud, right?
    I agree with everything you said,including devaluing the property and getting insurance proceeds to someone else’s detriment (if that’s what happens and these days I’m not sure that’s true) and I’m actually horrified. Just seeing to it that a loss occurs to get insurance is wrong. I doubt your policy can stay in effect 90 days after you lost interest in the home. You no longer have an insurable interest. Btw, did you contact your ins co. when you lost interest? Maybe you didn’t and the bankster counted on this.
    You could contact the insurance commissioner if you think they were trying to double-dip . You could contact the AG but that might be a ho-hum because they’d prob just say they can’t prove intent to damage to collect insurance. Wonder if those funds are categorized or something differently. Bet they are.

  13. @IAN
    you said “you can file a RICO action.”

    Ha Ha–thats a joke right—how do i have standing to complain because 5% of the homes in my county were destroyed?

    This is Ohio—the insurance commissioners would carry the gas can for the collectors if they wanted to burn the place–the governor plans to use the settlement money to tear down the “extra” houses

  14. dcb et al, – working on it as I can. Looking at my notes, came accross some about Art 1-307. Could it be that the “MERS” inclusion of the note in the assgt of the dot is prima facie evidence the note (and possibly the dot itself) has not been previously transferred to the trust, either pursuant to 1-307 or well, logic?
    We have been, some of us, concentrating on shutting down the
    MERS assignment, but I remember a few years ago finding that
    one’s opponent’s ‘evidence’ will actually be evidence against their position, and this may be such an instance. Starting to look that way,
    certainly as to the note.

    As to the dot, if MERS is the nominal beneficiary (for is members) or MERS is an agent, MERS’ status in the dot would not require an assignment because something held by an agent is held by its principal, is it not? Isn’t that MERS whole premise? I have to think about this one some more, but right now, that’s where I’m landing: the assgt of the dot to the trust is an admission there wasn’t one / it’s an admission MERS is not the nom ben or agent of the trust/ investors.

    § 1-307. Prima Facie Evidence by Third-Party Documents.

    A document in due form purporting to be a bill of lading, policy or certificate of insurance, official weigher’s or inspector’s certificate, consular invoice, OR any other document authorized or required by the contract to be issued by a third party is prima facie evidence of its own authenticity and genuineness and of the facts stated in the document by the third party.

    Even if the assignment of the note does not fall under 1-307, it
    still appears a prima facie admission it wasn’t done before or it at least stands in conflict with averments that it was (which imo presents
    a triable issue of fact). Actually, can we think of a time when a bankster went on record with a date alleging transfer of the note? They don’t. They just rely on current alleged possession.
    Courts toss our reliance on cut-off dates as a mere contractual
    issue between the parties to the trust. So even if this assgt of the note is in fact prima facie evidence of its transfer date to the trust
    (got me how since mers can’t do it that we know of), our reasons for
    bashing it have to sound in law. Don’t know how else to say that. Why
    can’t a trust legally take a note today? “The trust closed on xx/xx/xxxx
    isn’t getting it, even if it should.
    But, one may not have to even make that argument.
    If one posits this is prima facie evidence the note has not been previously transferred to a closed trust, that may well strike terror in the bankster’s black heart and they may get lost or settle with an
    indemnification, or as I said, it might leave an issue of fact to be determined by trial (right after discovery). It could happen.

  15. dcb- I would contact your state insurance commissioner. If you show a pattern of seize and freeze you can file a RICO action. If the debt collectors are using force-placed insurance, it will get murky. Did your insurance company pay for any of the damage? Why is a debt collector or servicer listed as the named insured on homeowner policies? They aren’t the mortgagee, the creditor, the lender, the holder, the HIDC, the ‘bank’- I asked this last night. More fraud I guess.

  16. @JG

    Where does UCC state that physical delivery is necessary to make a sale vs a security interest–although it makes perfect sense—and the burden of physical transfer could be avoided by a warehousing agreement could it not?

    Id like to review your materials now—sorry i havent been listing your cites—the white paper–could you cite that again please

  17. @GUEST

    There is no cite on the AHMSI non-negotiable note–who was the originator?

  18. @ALL

    Does anybody think it is appropriate for servicers to wilfully disregard reasonably predictable damage to homes from seize and freeze –grab insurance proceeds—whether homeowners or their own?

    Is this not likely to damage recovery by investors? Is this not likely to result in greatly reduced value to the seized homes and neighborhoods?

    Another preserver described a similar scenario—noting that he had seen a house with a $860,000 mortgage—destroyed in similar fashion to my description–owned by a doctor previous to the damage —sold recently for $160,000—-the preserver thought the servicer was just stupid–exclaiming–we run into this every day–dozens and dozens of homes

    Im having real problems with this—possible insurance fraud–possible investor fraud—possible collusion on the “credit bids” by insiders—the fact pattern is rife with criminal potential–what does one do?

    It DOES affect the homeowner that lost the home: 1) if a claim is made on his insurance itll be a black mark for years; 2) if it happens –the servicer may send the homeowner a HUGE 1099A for forgiven deficiency–or pursue the deficiency if not forgiven 3) the credit of the homeowner is adverse 4) housing is being destroyed–less property for rent—-5) the tax base supporting schools etc is being destroyed 5) it certainly chills a homeowner who was toosed out using fraudulent documentation from using the courts to void the judgment and put him back in the seized home 7) what if the debt collector never had authority nor a right to seize–what if the true holder comes along and seeks to enforce the note–to take back the house from a frauder collector—the true holder has suffered a much bigger loss –who is responsible–the maker of the note?

    The homes im speaking of are not ghetto housing–they are recent construction high value most times

    what to do what to do?

    This seems like a pattern ——is it just my Ohio community-? Or is this happening in all cold-weather states?


    I was told a few months back by a nort-midwest [Ohio] preserver that for all homes he seized he was ordered simply to reduce the thermostat to 55 degrees –open all interior doors –change a lock and leave the house WITHOUT ANY WINTERIZATION –period.

    Thus the preserver left the water pressurized–no antifreeze anywhere.

    He stated that when he returned some months later to inspect etc, invariably the basement was wet and moldy from broken pipes above.
    He was a young honest kid– exclaimed indignantly that the debt collectors he dealt with–seemed to have no concept of what they were doing to the homes–because also invariably—there was no effort made by the collector or preserver arranger to switch utilities out of the foreclosed former owner name to the servicer. Thus also logically–invariably the former homeowner ordered the utilities to be taken out of the former homeowners’ names—gas, electric …..thus the houses invariably suffered major freeze damage–which the servicers also invariably allowed to mature into extensive mold damage.

    I noted to the incredulous young man–that i had also observed this personally and had heard others say the same thing—with one added point

    I had noticed on XMAS day 2010 my former home pouring water into the outside a month after voluntarily turning over the property—when i was visting my adjacent farm. When the house was turned over we were assured it was to be preserved–with great detail as to how. I had offered to allow that to occur BEFORE we vacated and to assist the effort to reduce risk of sizable deficiency–and huge resultant FORGIVENESS OF DEBT. The servicer attorner refused–asserting that it would be too burdensome TO ME. 1st time they ever expressed concern for my interest.

    I did not shut off the power–relied on the preserver to winterize as stated—-but the door to the outside inexplicably blew open having been left unbolted—-[deadbolt was left unfastened by preserver].

    The home was oil-heated–oil ran out at XMAS—parts of house froze and i prevented the whole from freezing—-i even put dry-out fans in place to some effect. Preservers later entered within days and seized my barn fans too—but did not put in dehumidifiers as recommended by the insurer. Oh yes the insurer—I contacted my insurance agent and adjuster and found out my policy–paid by escrow money—remained in force for 90 days after vacate.

    The adjuster contacted the servicer to arrange mitigation of damages. No response. UNTIL a few days later the servicer sent us a letter demanding we turn over any insurance money we received—AND providing claims forms and requests that we file a claim –and they would cut us in on a recovery–if it was warranted–the cut that is…

    we did not —if it was an intentional seize and freeze by the servicer–we would have committed a crime by making a false claim–even though the servicer got the benefit

    My insurer later told me that the servicer had its own policy—that he thought was claimed against

    does anybody see anything wrong with this?????

    to whom should i raise the issue–county prosecutor blew it off already

  20. Well, I have to confess this. I don’t’ know that the S & A agreements are done pursuant to art 9 or if they’re done pursuant to another article of the UCC, but my notes say it’s art 9 that finds that if there weren’t delivery of the notes in a bulk-transfer S & A Agreement, only security interests have been created.
    I probably shouldn’t even give my impressions of the UCC. It’s a very complicated code and I’m no where near a scholar, not even in the hood. In fact, I haven’t even read the whole thing. That would take a very long time if one wants to get anything. But I AM of a mind it holds the key.
    I’m not reticent, on the other hand, about limiting my comments to why I believe the notes weren’t delivered and that they were subject to bulk-transfer S & A agreements, here aka the PSA’s, and not
    transferred by article 3 endorsements. It’s the only thing that makes sense to ME. No one can bank on what comes out of me, not even what I just said “in limitation”, which is not to say I think anyone would. I’m not likely to stop throwing stuff out here, but if you read my comments, please just take them as either places to start your own digging* or get legal advice or for discussion. I would hate like hell to give someone a bum steer. And truth be told, it isn’t just that. I don’t want to have to eat crow by alleging something is fact which
    isn’t. I feel confident about everything I say, or I wouldn’t advance it, but that UCC is a humdinger.
    *If we all do a little digging, if there’s a hole to dig for that gang, we’ll get it dug a little faster, which, another truth be told, is my way of suggesting our common goal requires more than just me looking at the UCC. Try not to get in my face for saying that; I did pose it as a suggestion!
    Also, I saw today that Weidner is saying that these notes aren’t regulated by Article 3 (yahoo), but I can never get back to his stuff or get it to open when I do. I get the buzzline and that’s often it. Did anyone see that?

  21. fwiw, Something which makes ME believe (without regard here to NG’s issues, which as I say, I know could change everything) the ‘trusts’ only ended up with security interests is, for one, the fact that in many challenged foreclosures for about what? 3 years?, the banksters couldn’t find the notes. Then they allegedly found notes without endorsements. Then there were endorsements / allonges, No, it just isn’t likely imo those notes were endorsed or delivered. I don’t know if they planned it that way – I have no reason at least not yet to believe they did – or if the more likely scenario is because the loans were to be Art 9 bulk transfers (and they were to be) by way of what the UCC calls a “Sale and Assignment Agreement”. That’s what the PSA is. These particular S & A agreements called for all ends on notes and separate assgt of each dot, also. The UCC, which only regulates notes, does not require endorsements to accomplish transfer thru an S & A agreement, but, significantly, it DOES require delivery. The evidence of the sale is 1) possession and 2) the identification of the loan in the
    S & A Agreement, here the PSA (and on my limited understanding, the S & A agreements – I think – get registered somewhere. On normal, non-sec’n deals, I think and only think it’s with the S of S. Anyone? The only reason for endorsement is because the PSA’s call for them. It’s not a UCC mandate. And I’ll say this: it wouldn’t surprise me if the banksters were behind the end language so they could use the ever-handy blank endorsement at will for any number of who knows why reasons (well, one comes to mind, right?). But it proved too much work, if not impossible, as did the assgts of the dots. Some blank assgts of the dots were done or alleged to be timely done, but courts rightfully tossed them. So they pretend not only that sales were accomplished, but that MERS is a nom ben or agent (pick one, as I always say) for the investors. I don’t believe MERS is either as to the investors, but another time. (and think Walker and s & or a -or- psa- this is for me to remember or I will so forget).

    Endorsement and delivery of millions of notes down the line probably got put on the back burner until at least tomorrow, and then tomorrow becomes a week, a month, a year, never – til needed, til handy. Remember there’s a cut-off date. Now think, if you will, of the nightmare of trying to endorse and deliver these notes up the chain. Plus, the loans were moved by other S & A agreements up the line, not by art 3 endorsement of each stinking note. They didn’t physically shuffle those notes like what would be required to get endorsements from everyone up the chain. No stinking way. They had deadlines and wouldn’t do it, anyway. Hey! Since these notes had to have been moved along the chain by S & A agreements,
    wouldn’t all those have to be registered somewhere also? I really dont know much about that registration. Okay, next to nothing.
    No delivery, no registration. Now remember that the S (defaults) started hitting the fan not too long after the bubble got cooking in what, 2004? Their pants are down and they are blowing in the wind
    and looking at a tsunami. I supposed that conjurs an unintended image, but don’t know how better to say it.

    Somebodies heres and theres had possession of these notes – or -destroyed them and Lord knows why unless it had to do with digital notes, i.e, if the notes were scanned (MERS database?) and kept in digital format.** Course, that takes time, too. Maybe they
    tried electronic delivery and it didn’t work. Too many, whatever.

    And this is a lot of why I believe only security interests were created. The notes just were not likely delivered (probably to anyone along the way), which under the applicable UCC provision means the trusts only ended up with security interests, at best.

    Another reason the PSA might have called for endorsement is because at least FNMA , I do believe, is for some reason not required to register these S & A Agreements. I don’t now why, but would like to if it’s true.

    I believe they are now trying to belatedly accomplish an S & A-type
    transfer of the note to the trust by way of…….the “MERS”
    assignment of the note in the assgt of the coll instrument! WHY else does every assgt include an alleged assgt of the note?

    That assignment may well qualify as a UCC S & A agreement. Well, wait. It isn’t signed by the transferee, so as to the note, that may make it not an ‘agreement’. A UCC (note) agreement require two autographs, at least as far as I know.
    So even if MERS had authority and if MERS actually executed the assgt and if it weren’t too late as a matter of law, it would not qual as an S & A agreement. I think. As to “too late”, I don’t know.’ Past’ securities fraud or even a contractual violation doesn’t necessarily prohibit the transfer. I mean, it might be prohibited at this date and by law. I just couldn’t say why. I could say again what i’ve already said which is that by doing this, they foist the loss on the resale off to the investors.* But IS it prohibited by law, the one thing which would certainly nullify the transfer of the note in that stinking “MERS” assgt? It’s deceitful, that’s for dang sure. I didn’t want to drag the “MERS” assgt of the note into this, but I don’t know how
    it’s avoidable.
    Whether relying on a “MERS” S & A of the note or relying on a newly created blank endorsement or both, it’s a heck of a jury-rig, and one which doesn’t change the securities fraud or remedy it, either, whether the fraud was a result of intent or bs sloppy work. When the gov decided to throw all that money at the problem, I’m going to hazard they didn’t get the securities fraud. Got me if they’d
    have done anything differently if they had because of the alleged tbtf deal.
    But they have to by now, if this is true, don’t they? I just wouldn’t really know what to make of that. Too much bedlam to acknowledge the facts? In for a penny, in for a pound?
    At any rate, the banksters imo are pretending all these millions of notes were transferred by art 3 endorsements instead of the bulk S & A agreements, the ones that found only security interests at best for lack of delivery if not registration.
    Let’s say this is true and courts start to get it. Will they care?
    Do they dare? I think it’s possible a few already do. If this “stuff” is true, and I believe it is (outside NG’s beliefs) I can’t say I’d
    appreciate my rights and interests being weighed against ANY body else’s.
    These are lay opinions. Ask a lawyer.

  22. The only thing I’m really advocating in my comment is that if the investors only ended up with art 9 security interests (for lack of delivery of the notes) which is what I believe happened (at best, and this is inconsistant with NG’s isms), and the banks still owned the loans and the banks got paid on default insurance, those notes should be paid off by the third -party payments – at least to the extent of the third-party payment. I also tried to distinguish various theoretical applications of TARP funds.

  23. Without jurisdiction there is only four ways for a thief to get a house.

    1) D.I.L. 2) Cash for Keys 3) Short Sale 4) Abandonment


  24. Badger Cab v. Soule, 171 Wis.2d 754 (1992) as a defense to abuse of legal process. Bank lawyers are relying on this to defend themselves against our charges regarding the use of forged, fraudulent documents. We have pleaded RICO charges against the two defendant banks and the two law firms. The Court held in Badger Cab that the lawyers were immune from what they said in court action and that the other side had to sue after the action was finished. Bank attorneys are using the case law as though they have a free pass to commit crimes in legal proceedings in which they are representing a party litigant. We’re claiming torts based on the foreclosure case, not the just the BK actions. The acts of filing fraudulent documents in the county record and also with the BK court are ongoing crimes, not to mention the foreclosure without ownership interest. That brings us back to the standing issue and the misrepresentations made in both, I’m sorry, now FOUR court actions (foreclosure, fraud case, BK filing, and adversary), and four motions to lift stay. We even had a case (Lane v. Sharp Packaging Systems, Inc., 248 Wis.@d 380, 635 N.W.2d896 (Ct App. 2001) that found, as a matter of law, that attorneys CAN engage in a conspiracy with their clients. How about that. We’re arguing the Court is being defrauded, but it’s OKAY! LAWYERS ARE DOING IT! DON’T WORRY!

    We are also arguing that this is a collection action, not a secured mortgage. Attorneys are arguing that since they are collecting on a secured mortgage, they are immune from FDCPA. BOOYAH! This is an unsecured debt collection due to the nonrecording and undisclosed table funding.

    Back to the Treasury: I shoot my mouth off because I have traced my loan trust via the Bear Stearns CDS on certain certificates paid off through Maiden Lane 1, serviced by RESCAP for BlackRock. That’s like the trifecta of fucked-at-every-turn, An attorney I know has a condo in the GMAC-ResCap asset disclosure, and the borrowers get tossed into the dumpster because
    a) NOBODY FILED A CLAIM FOR THEMSELVES (other than the attorney and one other borrower)
    which resulted in b) A WINDFALL FOR ALL THE ATTORNEYS DISPOSING OF THE ASSETS VIA FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE. And they get to fund their dissolution with stolen properties. With the permission of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Could it get any better?

    Now, everybody, go to the headings on the left side of the page. Find “Wisconsin Law”, and read the 134.15 Statute. Now read it again, and again. “bonds or notes in the similitude of currency, no longer redeemable.” Now go to your State statutes and search “notes, currency, bonds, default,” and see if you can find statutes related to notes and bonds. I think every state has had problems with the old securitization scam at one time or another.

    JG, thank you for your thoughtful responses. I hope you’re as well researched as you sound. The derecognition is the result of the trigger event. The liability stems from the conversion of the fee-based profit from the front end to the subsequent write-off after the BORROWER PAYMENT STREAM AND THE COUNTERPARTY DEFAULTED. Therein lies the “trigger event” that requires the dissolution of the trust. Remember, the “true sale” makes the depositor liable to, who, trustee, right?. If there was never any “true sale”, the whole loan resulted in the payout from the counterparty swaps (35%), and are carried as assets even when the loan is seriously defaulted. My loan still runs a declining balance on the Bloomberg, with the modified balance being paid by the servicer. Or not. Who the eff knows?
    You gotta remember that there were loans exchanged for lines of credit, lines of credit paid back with stock, stock exchanged for bonds, and then the bonds blew up and the stocks were saved. Big win. Now, force the government to pay off the loans via TARP and CDS, give them the loans backed by the over-appraised and deteriorated assets. Whether or not there was ever a true sale, the Feds got stuck with the loans, but the mortgages are not securing the loans. That’s why they create all these bogus documents for standing.

    And I’m getting the feeling that if the Government is behind this, we’re in for a helluva fight.

  25. Ian, I do not know how you did it, chasing off Ivent and Shadowcat. Thank You, in part at least. What happened to Enraged?

  26. “Has anyone here made any headway regarding loan numbers changing multiple times for the same loans and locating any of those numbers in multiple trusts”

    Not Exactly—-I do note that in AHM 2004-4 trust the loan number is carried along on the internal BNY [trustee] Global trust books—whilst the servicer account number assigned at the time the servicer AHMSI took over the servicing were both reported to at least one credit bureau ——–the global trust loan number was reported as open but troubled —and carried at face—–over a year after the account by AHMSI was reported as closed with adverse results

    BNY Global trust upon inquiry intially indicated that BoA was servicer –rather than AHMSI which was chasing the debt —-

    this stuff is pretty close—but i have not received verification that BoA has the loan by another number on its trust books also yet

    certainly what has transpired gives me pause as to how many claimants there are—the BNY treatment suggests either AHMSI is erroneously chasing a debt –and the debt has not in fact been released by the trustee——or BNY was misrepresenting the status and value of the loan to its investors—it altered its reports after I raised the matter

  27. usedkarguy- thanks for all your input. Same to John Gault & dcbreidenbach. There hasn’t been so much meaningful input here since ANONYMOUS and I were trying to get everyone here to think outside the box. I found out where IVENT and shadowcat live, made a few calls, and, well, I don’t think we’ll be hearing from them anymore. More conducive to intelligent discussion.
    Has anyone here made any headway regarding loan numbers changing multiple times for the same loans and locating any of those numbers in multiple trusts?
    Has anyone noted any actions against servicers declaring themselves as mortgagee on homeowner insurance policies? I went over this ad nauseum with a person in my State Banking Regulator’s Office, to no avail. If brains were shoes she’d be barefoot up to her knees.

  28. @JG re atty liability

    you will recall i noted something to this effect a couple days ago—it allows a lot of room to play

  29. TYPO

    So if A makes a bet with B that C will or will not pay his debt to C [sic] “D”—–and Treasury in its infinite wisdom determines that taxpayer money [actually printed] should be paid to A because B cant meet that bet —-that bailout has no effect on the transaction between C and D.

  30. @JG et al
    put some numbers up and see if the theory makes sense. If I recall correctly–and my memory is fading ill admit so check me—the entire TARP was some ONE trillion or less dollars. Whereas the mortggage loans outstanding are at least 6 trillions?

    There was simply not enough money in TARP to payoff the mortgages.

    The argument is more reasonable in the context of FEd Reserve buying of MBS —long term paper under TWIST and predecessor regimes. The nasty thing would be that fed stepped in and bought a lot of MBS from faling institutions under TARP at full price–put em in maiden lane–later sold them —-then is buying them back under TWIST again at face? We really dont know what prices fed is paying.

    I dont think treasury or fed was buying anything from AIG—AIG made insurance policies AKA CDS that were simply bets that values would not fall —-and govt simply poured money into the insurers to enable the insurers to pay the CDS “claims”—which was a backdoor way of bailing out the bettors–allof them across the face of the earth—minting billionaires. Treasury simply bought stock of a couple hundred billion $——-

    It was majority shareholder until quite recently as a result.

    One could assert that the bets thus paid inured to the benefit of investors but im not sure thats correct—they were not pure hedges–they were simply bets. even if the bets were actual investor hedges, there were no subrogation provisions as would be typical in true insurances that we humans use—-these were bets. So if A makes a bet with B that C will or will not pay his debt to C—–and Treasury in its infinite wisdom determines that taxpayer money [actually printed] should be paid to A because B cant meet that bet —-that bailout has no effect on the transaction between C and D.

    I certainly question the propriety of this sweetheart arrangement between cousins in Treasury and Wall Street/london—but it did not NECESSARILY relate to a hedge by D that C would pay. In fact as best I can tell the bet would be paid even if A was betting with B that D would not pay….. This is certainly bad public policy–but in “Treasury-think”—-it was stolen fair and square —ie it was may have been morally wrong but it was endorsed by congress and two admininstrations so it was not illegal—and if you did not like it—–well you could have voted for…..????

    The bottom line is that after the dust settled there were lots more financial industry billionaires and a lot of people globally under water.
    It will go down in history ….unless the billionaires write the books??

    in any event its political–and a trial judge isnt going to find much support for it—but for all the noise that i hear about it almost every day ——i have yet to see a single case reflect a successful argument using this–and you who advocate it do not provide a service to newbies with this red herring

  31. Murphy v Aurora
    To prevail on a claim of fraud, which the court claims is the bar, against the law firm, the homeowners would have to support that the acts complained of by the law firm rise to fraud. Apparently, they didn’t and maybe they could have. *And IS fraud the bar for attorneys? Got me, unless I re-read about 50 cases and then some. But here’s something that struck me: the court says yada yada if the law firm is acting within the scope of its employment. Not acting within the scope of employment if one “misbehaves”. I know the court says a lawyer has to know if he’s misbehaving, so might have to argue and support that he did.
    Fraud ON THE COURT by a law firm is another matter to courts, I believe,
    The acts alleged here were acts against the homeowner.
    It also struck me as odd that the court was so ‘protective’ of
    jurisdiciion when it dismissed the law firm (diversity) when they sure as heck let banksters invoke jurisdiction all day long with claims sorely lacking support when made. Diff, but the same, really: seems like a big ol’ double standard.

  32. okay, i’ll check it out. I never could find that cab co. case in WI.

  33. usedkarguy,
    ” I agree the debt should be reduced, but not for the reasons you cite. I think it should be reduced because it factually was reduced by
    default insurance to people who owned the notes.” jg to NG 11 09 5:51

    Isn’t that what I sort of said, altho I left TARP out of it? I believe that the banksters didn’t convey the loans to the trust and so what the trusts got was ess security interests, if that. That means the banksters owned the loans (not considering ms’s derec arguments) and so any form of default insurance would be a third party payment on the notes, and notably, payment with no right of subrogation. If TARP funds were the source of funds for the insurance, I got it: the gov can take that up with the insurers, but my loan is paid off.
    But I can’t go into a court and say wait a minute, tarp paid off my loan, because I’d just get tossed. I can’t go into a court and say wait a minute default insurance paid off my loan because I’d just get tossed.
    I need discovery, first and foremost, and a big enough stick to get the truth when i ask the bankster if he or anyone known to the bankster received anything of value in regard to my loan.
    If the banks actually retained the loans, as I believe, I do think one
    has to consider to whom exactly.tarp funds were given or loaned. If tarp funds were a gift, say, given to banks who actually owned the loans and the bank used the tarp funds to pay off ART 9 secured parties (investors) and I have to admit that would be news to me, it would be an act which resulted in debt forgiveness for the banks. It didn’t pay off my loan, though. If the banks got debt forgiveness, does that pay off my note? Not that I know of. But if Tarp were given or loaned, either one, to a party who had to make an insurance payment to the bank that held my loan, then my loan is paid off to the extent of the third-party ins payment, regardless of whether or not that insurer repays Tarp.
    Tarp is a big deal, I’ll grant, esp if it resulted in these loans actually being paid off. So, yes, there’s that. But, also, if all the trusts ever really got is security interests, then issuing bonds, certs, whatever the hey they are is another equally large deal. Trying to collect on a debt that’s paid is a fraud for sure (a pattern probably has a snazier name, something like RICO); securities fraud is probably go to jail yesterday. Or should be. Using a trust which has at best a security interest to cover one’s fraudulent acts AND to avail oneself of an alleged credit bid by that trust to continue the charade is maddening. The only possible credit bid the trust might have (unless the investors really were paid by TARP and totally ignoring the securities fraud), is one in regard to and effective against the obligation of the bank the investors hold as Art 9 secured parties. I think. This is UCC stuff i haven’t figure out yet. All I think I know so far is that the indentured party, not the homeowner, is the primary obligor to the secured party.
    Say B of A owns a ton of loans and is indentured to investors to the tune of 50M for a particular “trust”. Trust is in parens because I don’t know if it’s actually a trust, or just a business relationship, again disregarding the securities fraud.
    My note is part of that indenture and it has a balance on it of 487k. Can the secured party go after me, the maker on the instrument securing B of A’s obligation, first of all, and can the secured party use its “credit” (50m) with B of A to bid on my home? I think under the UCC I am a secondarily obligated party to the investors. (if this were a ‘normal’ deal).
    Or can B of A now give my note to the investors by way of Art 3 endorsement and (alleged) poss in satisfaction of 487k owed as part of the 50m? If they do the latter, it’s the investors who are going to take the hit when the sale of the home falls way short of 487k. If B of A did its own credit bid, it would out all the fraud, plus B of A would take the hit it more than has coming.
    Just say, humor me, that B of A owns these loans and they weren’t paid off by Tarp.* B of A only ended up giving the “trusts” secured interests, not ownership. Then they committed securities fraud by
    issuing MBS’s on security interests and not true sales. What if anything does that mean to our loans? Isn’t it that they should be taken by the fed gov or at least the states on one legal principle or another because they were instruments of criminality?

    *If tarp funds went to insurers of any kind, who then used them to pay default claims of parties who actually owned the loans, like B of A in this scenario, then you’re right, usedkarguy and our loans were paid off. Are judges complicit even because they don’t see the real
    moral hazard, or are they just ignorant of the facts? I’d like to believe they’re mostly the latter. Either way, we have to collectively get louder.

  34. Murphy v. Aurora Loan Svcs, Minnesota. On ForeclosureFraud today

  35. JG, check this link re: suing attorneys. Minnestoa

  36. ms said:
    The 1099 is owed to the bond holders is owed by the member bank as the true borrower and not allowed as a charge to the consumer.

    are you trying to say the bank is due the 1099 because it somehow
    got debt forgiveness for its indenture or obligation to the “bond holders”??? Aren’t there two obligations here – the borrower’s to Party A (bank) and the Bank’s to Party B (“bond holders”)?
    And that to the extent Party A got debt forgiveness for its obligaiton to Party B, there is no debt forgiveness to the borrower because Party A’s forgiveness of its debt to B operates (prob as a matter of law) as satisfaction of the borrower’s obligation to Party A? If that’s true, I don’t think Party A is due a 1099, because he has been forgiven but he’s also lost his claim against the borrower – it’s a wash, isn’t it?

    You seem to be saying the bond holders are owed a 1099 from the bank???????? That’s how it reads. I don’t claim to understand why
    the bank’s obligation would be or is being forgiven. Is it that it isn’t actually forgiven – they’re just not paying it?!

  37. and this “title” and “security” issue are the most basic of laws. Any mortgage recorded in the name of an originator or servicer is subject to attack.

  38. I’m going to lay it out there for ya. The claims are being made on ANY REAL PROPERTY ASSET THAT IS OR WAS PART OF ANY SECURITY OR CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP PAID OFF BY TARP. All the Lehman stuff, AIG, everybody. This will include, I believe, anything taken over within the GMAC/ResCap Bankruptcyas the “assets” (debt) are sold off and the res is confiscated.
    The situation is that they (the FEDS) have NO TITLE. THE GOVERNMENT PAID OFF– bondholders and banks were made whole; now they have to take the assets to maintain the charade. It’s the concept of restitution and equity (propaganda, to be sure, in this situation) being used against borrowers of all kinds, prime and subprime, on the part of the ruling class being backed by the judiciary (or vice versa). Keep throwing the state Supreme court rulings (Ohio, recently) as to standing to foreclose. Get the court to enforce the most basic of legal concepts. Even the most basic foundations are ignored by the judges. But derecognition of the obligation is, I believe, a key to disproving any claim based on a monetary loss that would tied to the borrowers nonpayment. Or is it?
    And it’s FASB 140-3.

    not legal advice, just so you know.

  39. Donna, you said:
    “If Title companies issued policies guaranteeing that the trust had clear
    title to the mortgages…..”
    I don’t know what you mean by this. When did TC’s issue these policies? Do you mean sometime after a cut-off date, and the policy was issued to the trust? If so, and I ever heard about it, I forgot. I’d really like to be clear on what you’re saying.

  40. @guest – I just caught up with an older post. There’s no doubt some people like to blither.
    “Blithering describes babbling or talking without making sense;
    blither: random, babbling and incoherent talk.”
    A lot of blithering was laid on us in comments . You then said it’s (what one could ascertain of that) has already been handled, I think.
    Blithering is irksome enough, but not so much as denigrating others from a lofty perch which in fact sits or may sit on sand.
    First of all if assets were abandoned and therefore ripe for an agency of the US govt to grab (and I wouldn’t know), I think what’s being blithered is that’s because of someone else’s failure to do so. Don’t know, but that’s important to know. If someone else could have grabbed the abandoned asset, this blithering assumes one couldn’t yet make a case one should be the party to grab what has been abandoned. Granted, that’s not an argument being made. But even assuming arguendo the TD is the rightful party to benefit from any abandonment, I fail to see the nexus with foreclosure, unless it were done by the TD, the party who grabbed the abandoned asset. The party who abandoned the asset no longer has a connection to the abandoned asset. Did I miss something?

  41. @guest – Sometimes I am just too thick, I guess. I really haven’t factored in the securities fraud at all. I guess I have just been looking at this as ‘were sales made or not, why and why not, and then who can enforce’, which isn’t a worthless exercise, but it left out the fact that securities couldn’t issue in the first place if anything less than sale were accomplished. I was just looking at it as if the notes were just now being transferred to trusts by way of blank ends and trying to determine if law, not contract, prohibitted that. I had landed at it didn’t, but caused a tax issue for the trusts or changed their structure. Today, I don’t know the answer. Okay, there was likely securities fraud, but still, what is to prohibit these particular players from now transferring these loans to a “trust” as a matter of law (not contract)? It won’t change securities fraud, of course. I think some people who have commented here suggest there is nothing to transfer (and for anyone who noticed and cares, I was a tad ungracious about them yesterday):
    I found a strange doc in my files last night (!) (got there in Sept) which succinctly says (not my interpretation – it was written succinctly) that because of that gaap sfsa 140 deal, apparently because there was no transfer, there had to be “derecognition of assets and liabilities” for someone, I don’t know whom – sponsor? issuer? which leads to the notes being 86’d. That’s a pretty big deal and don’t understand it. Beyond my ken, for sure.
    You asked who they don’t want to identify and why (rhetorical?) Anyone’s speculation is about as good as the next guy’s. If what is being posited in the para above is true, it answers both questions.
    Is it just when an attorney like Weidner is involved it can even get to the question they don’t want to answer because they’ve had to admit they don’t own the note? And then they refuse to answer because the truth will kill them? But in any case where they are positing a position which they know is wrong, the one that will kill them if the truth is known, either way, isn’t that fraud on the court? By either way I mean there was this derecognition thing – or – any alleged transfer is a post-cutoff date and post-default transfer and what that could mean.
    I’d like to defend the position I took yesterday that a PIG has no
    claim, briefly, or at least not on the basis it claims, i.e., right to
    enforce (just) a bearer note. And imo, Rule 17 does demand that they join the rpii. It seems a stronger reason to request a more definitive statement – claiming as holder or hidc because really, one needs to know, and one needs discovery and that may provide a path. One needs to know, also, the amt of the note/debt when the claimant allegedly acquired its interest by way of the best evidence.

    Did anyone watch Weidner’s hearing and save it?

  42. the other day I said I doubted that mere security interests could form the basis for MBS’s. That was because it seemed logical. Well, it’s a fact and doing so is securities fraud – duh – (so is issuing securities when there was no nuthin accomplished to the trusts – well, this one seems more than obvious). And that’s what they are hiding. That’s what’s at stake for them. Now this will come as no surprise to you cats, if you’re still around, who can rattle off SFAS140 type stuff. We would have all understood some things a tad sooner if you guys were able to explain well, a damn thing, or cared to for that matter. It doesn’t seem nearly as complicated as some of the tortured comments here historically would make us believe.
    The only reason this info gets us a little closer to heaven at all, because where’s our proof?, is we may have a little better understanding of what we’re looking for. Plus it’s about the UCC.
    It has an interesting discussion of whaddup (as to the banks) when trusts didn’t end up with the loans.

  43. JG, RE: A distinction I just made about Art 3 and Rule 17 disappeared.
    The UCC says a PIG may enforce a bearer note.* That means you can hound me if you’re that guy. okay. BUT what you can’t do is invoke the jurisdiction of a court to help you come after me. That’s where Rule 17 comes in. If you want a COURT to adjudicate the matter, you must join the rpii. If you are only hounding me out in the world, you are not subject to rule 17.—— I agree 🙂 —— Who is it they do not want to Join? Why?

  44. All business operating in the state must be licensed and registered in the county offices it operates its business from. Check for dba and llc registered partnerships. You can also check to see who signed the mortgage on the business property, property tax, land records etc.

  45. I’m not really here! jsut had to close this window. No, I don’t believe these notes are self-authenticating. There is prob some argument they are, tho. I’m looking for support for some things I said today. “I might be crazy”. that’s not all bad, but a big bum steer is.

  46. In some towns it is hard to find an attorney that is not linked to a title company that acts as agent for the “lender” —-in consumating the note-making transaction. If you either act proactively to bring actions to void the intial lending transaction–raise the TILA and RESPA , state consumers act violations–probably FDCPA.

    This is routine. many people that have securitized mortgage loans that are performing. They have not realized that they may not be receiving credit by the holder for payments made—suffer diversions by servicers. Unable to obtain clear insurable title for the benefit of his buyer—impairment of value of home because of rogue mortgage conditions. Does the servicer truly have authority to release your mortgage upon sale or payoff-refi?

    10-15% may have run upon this —but another large slice has refied into this trap/

    The seized houses in the northern states are intentionaly frozen–destroyed by the dozens in a small community–what is happening in larger areas.

    new homes have a 1st time value advantage—-but they are then devalued by the financing predation which is ongoing—ARMs at 2.5% in the face of expected roaring inflation and interest rates ala 1978 and 2003-4

    the very same brokers that cast high end new homes into predatory falling appraisal values now buy houses with stripped interiors at cents on the dollar—-scam after scam

    who is there locally that has the info

  47. DC_ Title companies?

  48. PIG- hereafter ‘guy in possession’, abbreviated backwards as “PIG”. (I think this should be their new moniker.)

  49. @JG and DOC

    Think who the primary “customers” of the recorders are and you will have your answer—-same reason NOBODY ever joins the guys that closed the deals for the crooked originators/brokers–it was and remains a money train

    same reason you cant get an atty in a small county seat to defend a fc

  50. jg—i dont want to search my handbook at the moment–what is PIG?

  51. @DONNA
    I just had a bolt of clarity at 12:37am here in South Africa.

    Yes donna –i think the UCC allows presumption of authenticity but if you show something is wong–then burden falls to them to prove the signatues——JG do you agree?

  52. well, darn it, jim. A distinction I just made about Art 3 and Rule 17 disappeared.
    The UCC says a PIG may enforce a bearer note.* That means you can hound me if you’re that guy. okay. BUT what you can’t do is invoke the jurisdiction of a court to help you come after me. That’s where Rule 17 comes in. If you want a COURT to adjudicate the matter, you must join the rpii. If you are only hounding me out in the world, you are not subject to rule 17.
    lay opinion.
    *btw, we’re not done with that one

  53. JohnG – I am going to meet with our county recorder this week and “test the waters” so to speak. I’ll let everyone know what I learn. It seems to me, we may have better results with title companies and county recorders. Time will tell. One thing for sure, with creative minds as I read on this blog, someone will figure this out. The banksters can’t hold on much longer!

  54. hey, djc – people in 20 states filed petitions to secede and it made the news. That gives me hope for the Dr. JC Project (or would you prefer
    DJ Chappel Project?) I kind of like the latter.

  55. i’d like to add this briefly to ‘aggrievement’ and hope it’s more informative than distracting. If art 3 finds a PIG entitled to enforce a note (NOT these, other notes), the PIG can go after the note maker.
    BUT if the PIG wants a court to adjudicate the matter, the PIG has to join the rpii. And that’s where rule 17 comes in. When the Pig is after the maker on his own, he isn’t subject to rule 17.
    Lay opinons – ask a lawyer

  56. @ dcb – I know I can find “the first action on a note secured by a dot must be an action against the collateral” and that outta cut it.
    But non j states don’t even allow for a second act for enf of the note. Only jud f states do – the deficiency judgment.

  57. @dcb I am not able to “throw a case out there”, for the very
    very common misperceptions about THESE notes. It may be first
    impression, but just now, I stand on what I said. It in in fact about
    the only remedy available on these loans. Now, there would be case
    law which would in fact support that only remedy, and I may even have some in a roundabout way mol, while not addressing specifically , probably, the impossibility of enforcement of these notes independent of the dot. I hate crawling around case law because I have so stinking much and one case often stands for more than one proposition, so after about two years, I double-saved them, adding to the hunt.

    Btw, for any one interested, the reason a bankster can’t get a deficiency j with non-j f/c is because tht is something they gave up for the “convenience” of non-j. The homeowner, who wasn’t consulted on this matter of non-j, gave up the right of redemption (trade I guess for no deficiency j). But actually, now that I think about it, there must be some differences in j f/c states and non-j if I’m right that the h.o. in
    j f/c states retains a right of redemption. that would be at odds with the bona fide purchaser doctrine, at least in the r of r period.
    the usual lay opinions

  58. @guest – yes, I think so. Now if we can just find solid basis to
    essentially invalidate the assignments. I think it’s there, not
    even counting the illegitimate way they’re done by assignee employees.

  59. JG

    Unsecured note held by thief—-yes JG–I think thats exactly right—the UCC directs the court to enforce but the ct of equity cant enforce a mortgage for a thief–so yes–i guess the thief gets the judgment on the note–then files it as a general lien on all property of the obligor and then enforces the lien????

    but yes seems like it should be a defense against a DOT claim—or a joint application to enforce note AND mortgage—very good –iv found it puzzling reconciling these concepts——cause for one i dont like the circular avoidance route iv mapped out—-please throw a case out there????

  60. @dcb – you are so right. these people have shown themselves to not be entitled to / worthy of one single presumption. Many people have pointed to findings of bad acts by these people. Imo, they’re all judicially noticeable and should be used to undermine those bs presumptions. Plus prior bad acts can be used to establish a pattern when it comes to damages. imo.

  61. ps – I just got this. yahoo, I think. I’ve always posited that one in possession of a prom note but not its owner is only entitled to enforce an unsecured note, hereafter ‘guy in possession’, abbreviated backwards as “PIG”. (I think this should be their new moniker.)
    Don’t think this today. Not even its owner can. Because here’s the problem with that (notwithstanding, or remember I claim, that an assgt of the coll instrument to a PIG of a note bifurcates the note and dot. That or the assignment has no legal effect because the assignee has no interest in the obligation secured. Courts have referred to an assignment of the dot only as a nullity – remember, the note has not been transferred to the PIG, reliance is on possession).
    There is NO such thing as enforcement of a note ONLY which is secured by a collateral instrument on one’s home. There is a prescribed remedy for breach of these notes and they are limited to recovery of the collateral. Without a proper assgt to the owner, no enforcement of the note is possible even by the owner of that note.* That noteowner may NOT seek a money judgment on the note. He is limited as a matter of law to recovering by way of the collateral, the real estate. In non-j f/c states, the bankster can’t even get a deficiency judgment, which I think is allowed in judicial foreclosure states.

    If a noteowner can’t even enforce just the note, which I’m herein claiming is the case, one in mere possession of that note sure as hey can’t. That party does NOT in fact have a right to enforce the note under art 3 or anything else he comes up with. If this were just “any” note, he could. But these aren’t just “any” notes. These are notes secured by real property and subject to statutorlly prescribed remedy for breach, and that MUST be an action against the collateral. ** Okay, so that takes care of his right to enforce (just) the note. He DOESN’T in fact have one and that’s the yahoo.
    So now it gets to the matter of the assignment of the dot to the PIG who does not own the note. What might this change, knowing he does not have a right to enforce the note after all? Well, for one thing because he’s just a PIG who doesn’t factually have a right to enforce these particular notes, he may not invoke the court’s jurisdiction on the basis that he does. He may ONLY invoke the jurisdiction of the court as a secured note holder in these cases.
    The question then becomes: is he a secured note holder?

    So, on to the assignment. This is hard to formulate! PIG’s right to enforce the security instrument is dependent on his right to enforce the note (unless maybe you’re in AZ and we need to work on that sucker), which he doesn’t have independent of the right to enforce the collateral instrument. Conversely, his right to enforce the note is dependent on his right to enforce the collateral instrument because of the only remedy available to him (action against the collateral).

    Well, that’s as far as I can get this minute. It all depends on the assignment now. So that’s the attack.
    If anyone sees any flaws here, I’d sure like to hear about it before I work on the assignment deal.
    lay opinions. ask a lawyer.

  62. @all
    Note holders and elephants never forget

    “A rifle doesn’t scare me. But we expected the Argentines to act professionally…”

    Posted: 11 Nov 2012 07:55 AM PST

    In my last post, I said that the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had interpreted the pari passu clause in Argentina’s bonds as a promise to forego a century’s worth of restructuring practices. The district judge still needs to clarify the injunction enforcing that promise. While we wait for that very large shoe to drop, I want to talk about the other major enforcement ruckus involving Argentina and … NML Capital. This one already has people reaching for their weapons.

    The Libertad, an Argentine naval vessel, remains in port in Ghana after a court there ordered its seizure and potential sale to satisfy a judgment held by NML Capital

  63. Exactly JG—-but why do i have to pay 10k to prove its a fake—why does not the presenter have to prove its the original–and im relying on the rules in UCC substantive rules relating to double claims rather than an evidentiary rule—but authentication is owed in my opinion given the industry bad practices and negligence–do falsification–why does presenter get benefit of any presumpions??

  64. @JG
    RE R17—–I was thinking along same lines—which is why i thought the fla case would be interesting. as i think about it–the only way i could be facing a holder who is not “owner” is if there was a POA [weidner says the holder will not reveal-RPII]—–OR the holder does not have authority aka a thief in possession of the note endorsed

    I think the latter a very real possiblity—but the facts will be of interest

    If the thief squeezes by on the strength of UCC possession rules, then the question is whether the real owner may then also pursue the claim later upon proof of ownership–eg affidavits etc

    I believe UCC covers this as you say—if you have reason to believe that party A is the owner –you are supposed to join him–but speculation as to theifdom is not allowed by UCC absent reason to be wary

    standing says i should not be subject to double claims at its foundation—-DUE PROCESS–fundamental fairness—so it should not reward a theif——this i think is the issue

  65. dcb – you’re really the big proponent of the original note (for all of us).
    I think some of the answers you’re looking for are to be found in FRCP 1002 and relevant case law. 1002 is the best evidence rule.
    If one is to demand the original note, seems to me better have an
    expert on originals on hand since these replications are darned good.

    FRCP 1002 Requirement of the Original

    “An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.”

    “to prove its content”. Well, one’s original signature is content. So is an endorsement. I’ll venture one has to support the signature and endorsements are “content” or be ready, just in case.

    “Committee Notes on Rules – 2011 Amendment

    The language of Rule 1002 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.”

    You can bet your bottom dollar the banksters are going to come up
    with case law or what not which says a copy or certified copy of like that cuts it. You must have the bigger stick. Imo. This rule may only find that the original must be produced. There are other arguments for why it should be produced, and those are the ones you have been making – to put an end to the liability on the note. While of course we’re in the biggest evidentiary pi$$ing match ever known to mankind, notes have been around since mud, so there has got to be a tome of case law on point.
    lay opinions.

  66. @dcb – I thought that whole deal was (is) resolved by FRCP 17,
    which mandates that all actions be prosectued by the real party in interest. Even if possession of a bearer note leads a court to a conclusion that the possessor may enforce, it still must join the rpii.
    Failure to join the real party in interest is, I think, an affirmative defense. At any rate, I don’t see it used much although I think it should be. It sort of came and went.
    The rpii is the party who has the beneficial interest in the note, the guy who’s getting the dough by its enforcement and so is the guy who’s issue is being litigated. There are arguments about who benefits to some degree. Some courts have ruled, errantly imo, that a mere pecuniary interest cuts it as the rpii. But, again, that doesn’t seem to be the argument here, either. Looks like bankster is just
    relying on possession.
    This points to why I repeatedly say one in possession who is not the note’s owner has no right to an assgt of the collateral instrument.
    Even if a coll instrument followed a note, which I swear it doesn’t,
    it doesn’t follow mere possession or give the possessor a right
    to an assgt. An assgt to that possessor would actually bifurcate the note and dot, an argument (finally) made in a case this summer which somehow got sidetracked after the bk court ordered escrowed payments during lit, which of course I find exceeds the court’s
    authority and discretion. Can you imagine a court imposing this
    sentence in any other contractual dispute? These courts imposing
    payments don’t even know there’s a contract between the two
    parties in front of it to dispute. And in other cases, like
    actual contract disputes, where the existence of the contract is not in issue, just its terms, I have never seen nor do I think I would find
    payments imposed on one party. Well, maybe the courts have
    imposed bonds. I couldn’t actually say. But even so, 99 out of 100,
    I’d venture that would be in regard to a contract’s terms, not its existence. If the claimant before the court is a pretender, he has no contract with the borrower for the court to impose escrowed payments just in case he does. Didn’t say that very well, but you know what I mean. The court has prejudiced the homeowner to the point where a homeowner may not be able to defend, so a homeowner would never get to a point where he could be compensated for the damage caused by the imposition, which is what I think happened in that case I mentioned. Haven’t looked at it since the imposition, but the ho.’s attorney quit. $$$ comes to mind. Stinky deal, if so. The attorney has a right and an interest in being paid, but homeowner’s defense fund is going to an escrow account…… This order was made, I think sua
    sponte, by the same judge I’ve heard say “you’re not getting a free house!”
    Back to the case at bar. If the coll instrument has been assigned to the party with possession but not ownership, I think a Rule 17 argument is in order and that the note and dot have been bifurcated. Rule 17 doesn’t seem to be being argued here. Don’t know. But it’s really a threshold issue. A party unaggrieved – that IS the bar – may not enter the court, may not invoke its jurisdiction and seek resolution of someone’s else’s problem.
    A right to enforcement, here allegedly under Art 3, does not make
    that party aggrieved. Banksters will say yeah it does if their right to enforce can’t be adjudicated. Well, yes, it can. They just need to
    join the rpii.
    Couldn’t miss the fact that the bankster threatened the court with
    an appeal. They love to do that.
    If anyone watches that hearing tomorrow, if there’s a way to save it and link it, I would be most appreciative if someone would.
    lay opinions as always.

  67. Johngault,

    Here are a few MERS cases. Homeowners won.

  68. @ALL
    This Florida case matt Weidner to argue tomorrow should be illustrative re note holder issue generally–appears that the servicer is asserting that it is the holder–and oddly i guess the atty here is accepting the note as an original???–i hope hes right–
    ok so if no free house which is hard to argue—at least relief on the note should be assured—-but if the note is not authenticated–how do you defend when some other note claimant pops up in a couple years –or months?—it does not necessarily follow that seizure of the house ends the matter—hardly—-is it necessary that a person must file bankruptcy if he defaults on a mortgage?

    if there is uncertainty about a note—if its a copy and another claimant comes forward with a better concocted story—with a trail of custody–or if your copy of note given you is not admissable in eveidence to rebut the newcomer’s copy—you can be SOL–next stop bk court

    does anybody feel really confident that a note handed to you by a atty for a servicer w/o authentication of any sort will be admitted as superior evidence in a court–where the other party has someone willing to testify to get your retirement assets???

    of course they want everythig to be fuzzy the 1st time they come—they get the house without giving up the note claim—its the 2nd claim that they will roll out witnesses on….. heads up dont fall into the trap—listen to weidner here

    prelude in trial ct——??? it would be nice to know if the note has been produced yet

    But what this gentleman is now
    13 saying is, is that we need someone from the
    14 investor, the, quote, owner here to
    15 testify. And if your position, Judge, is
    16 that we need the owner here to testify or I
    17 have to put in the servicing agreement to
    18 show you who I serviced for, even though I
    19 was the holder on the day of the filing of
    20 the lawsuit, we can’t do it and you can
    21 dismiss it right now because that would be
    22 an appellate issue.

    MR. GACHE: That is not correct. The
    18 case law that has come out since that
    19 forum, which was antiquated years ago, has
    20 been superceded by case law from every
    21 district that says all that matters is that
    22 you held the note, you had possession.
    23 Ownership doesn’t matter.
    24 So if ownership doesn’t matter, then
    25 it doesn’t matter that you are the servicer for an owner and then therefore you have to
    2 put in a servicing agreement into evidence.
    3 That is not a requirement

  69. @DONNA re “going after ”

    If you want to redirect fire—ad the damn title company that closed the deals—–they knew what was happening re predatory loans—make some local heat

    people wonder why local lawyers wont touch fc cases–cause they are tied into title cos

  70. oops – those are only MERS’ wins. I know they have a list somewhere of losses. I’ll see if I can find it. Their win cases are a pain because imo one has to read the case to see if bf lies were told which influenced a court.

  71. MERS website, of all places, has a list of homeowner wins. It also keeps a list of pro-MERS cases. Why, here’s their latest:

  72. Donna – thanks for the reminder on Pino. I’ve got something on it from a few mos ago, but these days I fail to stay on top of cases. Maybe i’ll put them on my calendar. What a concept!

  73. dcb – I don’t know what you mean by that unerringly comment. Of course they don’t. Many bankster attorneys are using phony names because their real names are all the same: “Liar for Hire.”
    People keep saying attorneys don’t get nailed for anything. I’m just saying I’ve seen cases where they do. I don’t read as many cases as I used to, so maybe in newer cases it’s been different. And also, back then, I was actively looking for them.

  74. @MS
    Please explain the NOL issue and charges on phantom income

    An NOL is a tax loss that the owner of an instrument cant take today—acctg loss carryover—–so if they have piled up losses in a C corp —they must take it in a future year–it would be the reflection of debt forgiveness you are correct—–only thing id note is a pass through entity a real REMIC does not have NOLs–it passes them through effectively as reductions in income–or may get stuck with them—-they may be of no value to owners who paid next to nothing for the MBS

    its complex case by case

  75. ukg I found a couple cases referencing badger cab, but not the case.
    I’d like to read it but don’t want to pay pacer (if it’s even there). Got a link? thanks

  76. @JG—-yes only recorded liens are recognized as i recall—but not sure—maybe an unrecorded lien might be slipped in if not waived

  77. @JG—the washington state case was elaborate on equivalence of DOT and mortgage as equitable enforcement devices –and standing and as you know ART 3 301 enforcement authority is necessary –or at LEASE Art 9 assignment schedule

  78. DOC its the note—the slippery greasy note—–if they come up with it they get back tp go and you bought time but thats it—–file the QT ASAP—-try to get the house transferred to a bona fide purchaser and proceeds in a trust for unwed mothers or some such–you are not done

    read up on JGs comments re UCC

    get professional help–you have legal equivalent of gangrene

  79. djc – Here is what the Court said in Koontz:

    “MERS, in its Answer to the plaintiff’s Complaint, admit that (so and so – sic) is not an employee of MERS…….The debtor claimed that the document was fabricated and MERS has offered no other explanation, nor has it submitted properly authenticated documentation of an assignment. It appears to this Court that a FRAUDULENTLY recorded Assignment of Mortgage might still be found today in the St. Joseph’s County Recorder’s Office, despite MERS’ knowledge of the false signature. Indeed, MERS has completely sidestepped the fact that this Assignment was signed by someone representing herself to be a Vice President of MERS, and it has DECLINED to explain why this FALSE document was attached….. ”
    Like I’ve said, they’ll lose one or two before they’ll talk about the
    very tweaked manner in which MERS operates: no real MERS officer ever executes anything and worse, was never intended to. MERS is a utility only.

    Btw, no one ever talks about MERS acting as nominal ben for the
    “successors and or assigns”. I don’t believe that holds water legally.
    How do you bind Party Unknown to this ‘agreement, first of all?
    The only way it might is if that phrase is found to “run with the dot”,
    mol like an easement does with land, almost a caveat or reservation. But here’s the problem with even that: since the dot isn’t assigned until the note’s in default, there’s no successor or assign(ee) for that to apply to. The dot is the doc talking about ITS successor and or assign, not the note. It’s the dot successor and or assign, NOT the note’s. Think i said this right. Unless the dot were assigned (but not recorded) it doesn’t have a successor or assign, which means MERS could only be the nominal beneficiary for the original bankster. Stinks for them, esp if that bankster is out of business:
    The banksters want MERS to be the ben or agent or whatever for the successors and or assigns of the NOTE. There might be a new noteowner, but that’s not what ‘successor and or assign’ is relevant to here. That reservation of MERS as dot nom ben or whatnot would have to be in the note, not the dot. There are no assgts of the dot done, so it’s the note which would have to say that any MERS member who takes this note does so subject to the status of MERS in the dot, i.e., MERS remains the (nom) beneficiary in the dot for any mers-member transferee of the NOTE. Phew. it took me a long time to figure this one out. Not an hour, or a week, or even a year. If people disagree, I’d like to hear it.

  80. Gault, the case is Badger Cab.

  81. Used Car Brother – Thanks a heap . God bless you

    Your Note
    Demand = Present value
    Accrual = Future value

    Demand + (Accrual – Bond) = _________

    What, what does is equal. What does is equal Debrah , anonymous , purveyors of corn kernals and mischief makers .

    I hate mushrooms and a leading recognized chief is as making all his dishes with mushrooms. So he is a fraud . Wake up and scratch off the winning numbers here .

    THIS IS ALL I HAVE DONE – MY ENTIRE CAREER SINCE GRADUATING COLLEGE IN (well – a long time back) My mentors name is the UCLA Graduate School. My partner was a Bear Sterns Mello Roose innovator of SP securties andprivate lable securitization. I was an analyst in NY and this is a small field that exploded. I was there in 96 and said NO to Mers Corp . ..not for what it was but for what corrupt men are using it for (embrace Mers) . I was there for the First Alliance and Lehman lawsuit – the first europen securties offering . Read your note – why ? YOU OWE THE MONEY -PLEASE! But the deed- Read the deed and BE free of the lien –the Iien is the focus as it was sold – get it . the demand was sold. Pres value vs future value.

    The matter for substance prevails.

    I confronted CitiBank at the risk of leaving the industry which I did ..(2001) .I said we are using the blank endorsements and assignments as a posion pill for a massive default . I wont go to jail.

    I still get calls to sign the assignment where I did not use Mers Corp and challenges emerge against the blank instruments Mers is showing up on. The last call , I asked the attorneys …”How much is showing owed in the matter” – They laughed (affidavit I will sign) Nothing .

    Two 10 count pitchers of lemonade equals two pitchers of sales . The two pitchers equals 30 sales if the left hand pours the next batch of lemonade into the right hand . Its phantom income that is taxable to the payee and YOUR GIVEN THE 1099 . Ahhhhhhhhh Will you web-a-mites find love somewhere else?

    The 1099 debt forgivness – Why . So Lumpy Rutherford can take the valuable NOL carry forward. Don’t know what I mean. Then stay the hell off the web sites sharing your opinions.

    DC B – my professional respect out to you ….your dialed in. Please explain the NOL issue and charges on phantom income I have had attorneys for both sides tell me I am through if I don’t stop . They insitgate fraud claims and incite chaos here and other places. Why Why in America Why ? At least NG continues to ignore me ….

    …You can lead a horse to water ….but you cannot make him drink

    www foreclosurealternative. wordpres com

  82. also, dcb, I have a case, well, I might still have it, which holds that
    if A sells B a note but does not assign the collateral instrument, A holds the coll instrument in trust for B. Okay, only one case, but it’s logic is right on. I have another killer case which goes into great detail, but I can’t find it. People seem to toss cases adjudicated in other
    venues, like was it Johnson in NY?, even though they could borrow the reasoning.
    No one pays any mind to Koontz, wherein, as I’ve hollered five times,
    the court when squarely confronted about who executed the assgt, tossed it and called it bad names, long and short. The judge even gave the banksters and MERS the opportunity to explain, which was declined. Clearly they would rather lose one here and there than to
    discuss this bull. If assgt aren’t necessary, why are they doing them?
    I’ll tell you one reason. Well, I already told YOU what I think. They are using the dot assgts to actually try to transfer notes and calling this assgt an Art 9 “Sale and Assignment agreement”. Which it might be if it were legit and if the identification of the collateral instrument were sufficient identification of the note (because the note is not described in those bs assignments), if MERS could do such a thing, if the note weren’t supposed to be in a trust already, etc.
    That’s why the assignment purports to be made for consideration. If the notes were already transferred, and the coll instrument were just being conveyed, there would be no need for consideration. And that’s the ‘tell’. What’s particularly irksome is that is shows the consideration as being paid to MERS. That means MERS is either alleging it owns the note or is alleging it’s authorized by the note transferor to accept payment for the note on its behalf. Yeah, right. My grandkids will probably have their phd’s by the time this is proven, but if it’s not true, my bs detector has completely collapsed. They need to establish a value for the transfer of the note (10 dollars and other blah blah), esp if what the investors previously held were only security interests, i.e. how much of that indenture is being 86’d by the transfer of this note? And how nice for them. Now the investors will certainly take the hit on the post-foreclosure sale. As mere security holders, they wouldn’t.
    Plus they get to use the handy credit bid in the trust’s name instead of their own which would expose the whole stinking mess. Do I have an overly vivid imagination? Maybe, but I don’t think so, not from stuff I read.
    Add to my list of what’s determined when my grandkids are adults the fact that security interests probably can’t form the basis for alleged
    MBS’s and what all that means. Then throw in using trust funds to
    fund loans, aka NG’s theory of the crime, with which I don’t disagree, (I woudn’t know to disagree) just maybe with what it means.

    Hey, djc, I’m going to send you Koontz because i think it’s relevant to
    this issue with the recordation of bogus instruments. I’m also going to send you a case wherein the bankster claims the assgt of the note in the assgt of the dot is merely “surplusage”. No, it isn’t. It’s either
    a totally false document with mens rea or it’s what I said above. Both are garbage. The only way that doc is not total garbage, and this is as to the literal assgt of the note by MERS, is if there’s some agreement we don’t know about which authorizes MERS to assign not only the dot but the note, as well, and to accept payment for the transfer of the note on behalf of the transferor. And that’s overlooking the fact
    that MERS isn’t executing the assignment in the first place. They’re still being robo-signed by servicer employees posing as MERS’ officers.

  83. dcb – I think the reason a C 11 debtor in possession and his bk trustee
    may avoid unrecorded interests is tied up with the necessity of them
    being recorded. I just haven’t had the time to look into it more. I got my first clue about C-11 avoidance from In re Zitta in AZ, which if i can remember, i’ll send you.

  84. JohnG – I like the idea of getting people to sign a petition to have our county recorder refuse to accept foreclosure documents unless standing, proof of duly perfected title and other prerequisites are proven and submitted, as well. I think I will work on that and see what happens.
    I suppose one can’t sue in any court without proving damages. If someone loses their property in foreclosure and prior to or during a UD, maybe they can file a lawsuit in small claims against the county recorder for accepting fraudulent documents? As I said, the first few lawsuits may not work, but eventually one may. The pleadings, evidence and motions may then be used in Superior Court where larger settlements may be awarded. It seems logical to me, that admissions acquired, could then be used as evidence in a UD action. As I said, I am not an attorney. I don’t know if any of this makes sense or will work. It’s a thought.

  85. @dcb – yeah, I think the assgts being done are 1) bogus and 2) must be done by real parties and ultimately recorded to enforce. I am looking into the cases the banksters cite in support of the mtg following the note and it’s a lot of stinking work. You just cant’ take a bankster’s word that a case says X, because often if you actually read the case, it doesn’t say X. I concede Carpenter says a “mtg”, which is a lien, not a title-transfer like a dot, follows a note. You think a coll instrument should follow a note, right? Right after notes secured by real property and their transfers are allowed to be and are required to be recorded, I might agree.

  86. DCB – I am not sure about black letter law. All I know is my x-wife lost her home in foreclosure and was told Fannie Mae bought it from OneWest Bank. I helped her fight OneWest Bank for one and half years before they foreclosed. Fannie Mae then filed an UD action against her. I filed 200 pages of pleadings and motions including a MSJ. After losing the UD, I filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the MSJ. Once the judge read my “The Note and Mortgage (DOT) are Inseparable” the UD was reversed and the foreclosure was voided. Mers assigned the DOT ONLY to OneWest Bank and not the Note. I won under Carpenter v. Longan 83 US 271, 274 (1872). This happened in April of this year. Fannie Mae did not appeal. The judge said my x-wife had a debt free property. I am now preparing a QT so she can have it free and clear, if possible.

  87. djc – hmmm…I’ll have to give some thought to the small claims action.
    What would the claim be again? I don’t want to let you off the hook so easily! I like either the qui tam suit against the offenders where it’s available (depends on state statute re: recording, i think) or the one to force recorders to stop filing fraudulent instruments. You really could be the guy to lead the charge. There was a qui tam filed in NV. I know who filed it (the law firm) but trying to remember the defendant. It was probably MERS. I believe it failed for one reason because NV says “may” and there must not have been any support for a factual must (to enforce). But I don’t think it was about enforcement. I think it was limited to must record because must, if that makes sense. If I can find it for an outline or for you to read for any reason, i’ll send it I do have it …somewhere.
    Does anyone know of any petitions to country recorders to stop
    recording those bogus instruments? Please stay on it! We can brainstorm on getting signatures. We can brainstorm on publicity.

  88. @jg

    one reason attys get latitude aside from the obvious is especially they screw up—oits easy to understand that the more you play the more mistakes you make–god knows how hard it is to dot every eye—its systematic stuff that is bad and rarely is tat established–possibly the high volume places like florida—even schack doesnt hand out penalties

    the atty fallback–is “the damn clients lie judge–we all know the clients are liars–big and small”

  89. doc—its black letter law that the note is the important thing—the mortgage follows trhe note and can be enforced by the holder via specific performance if the assignment of mortgage is completely ignored—one wise jurist described the assignment of mortgage as a mere distraction–also see ohio schwartzwald

    i guess you guys love to talk about defective assignments but you have never proven one

  90. @JG

    You are right–sure the attys for fc plaintiffs tow the line unerringly—my mistake

  91. it might be helpful if you were able to review the trust records –or the moodys records used to rate??? not sure how meaningful it will be given that the moodys gave AAA even where no ART 9 schedule was filed though—or that the 8Ks ledger columns may not even add up—-maybe its such an unsophistcated fraud —just investor money stolen –now homes—rule of Wall street–steal everything involved in the transactions

  92. usedkarguy – you said in WI, yada yada. Do you have a link to such a case holding this? And I take it this would be WI SC?
    Do you have any more info on this illusive – to me- TD order to
    grab such and such assets relevant to TARP? If the loans belong to the trusts, and not the banksters, what do they have to do with TARP?
    And you understand that if the TD wants homes foreclosed, which i have a hard time with, the TD stands to or is definitely going to take a loss on the face amt of the asset? F/C clearly isn’t fetching what’s owed on the note, the asset, and non-j prohibits a deficiency judgement (but I concede the TD could be just calculating the amt they could get based on the actual value of the real estate, not the note). Well, I guess if the banksters own the loans and the TD doesn’t want to you-know-what with defaults, they might be telling banksters to liquidate and fork over the proceeds. Is this also about ending guarantees by the banksters? It still isn’t legislation that a homeowner defense attorney should have to worry about offending and it doesn’t give a thief or a liar any more rights, although it may be improperly influencing judges.
    If the TD wants to flex its muscle about outstanding TARP funds,there’s gotta be a better way. How about going after the off-shore stashes
    with a vengence?
    Actually, while I stand by it not being legislation and therefore standing your ground, demanding liquidation should result in the banskters’ (if they own the loans) balance sheets being a’ tad’ more realistic. That could lead to their demise. Hmmmmm….
    Or yet another possibility: if the banksters own the notes and the
    investors holding themselves out as trusts only hold security interests,
    liquidation of the secured assets might force the banksters to payoff the whole amt that was used as collateral to the investors. Good news for investors but not if their real tax status is recognized. There’s more to it, or could be. I’m writing this for my own reminder mostly: if the net worth of an indentured party drops by a bunch, that can be, if not is, deemed default by the secured party, making the obligation become due and payable at the secured party’s demand. What would the TD interest be in this? I don’t know, esp since the IRS has been imo pretending the ‘trusts’ have tax-preferred status. Maybe the hiatus is over?
    I guess when you look at the possibilities, or at least these, the more likely scenario is the TD wants liquidation and the proceeds from. This could also result in more taxes owed by homeowners if debt
    forgiveness once again becomes taxed, which (alleged) amt isn’t known until f/c.
    But How does foreclosure ben the TD if the banksters don’t own the loans?? Just the debt forgiveness tax? Nah. I hope this question doesn’t go unanswered. Anyone have an answer?

  93. Wow. It’s too long. If anyone wants this list of cases entitled; “The Note and Mortgage are Inseparable”, just email me and I’ll email it to you.

  94. JohnG – Thank you. You have given me some ideas.
    May a public petition to our local county recorder to take notice of other county recorders on how they are handling fraudulent documents being filed by banksters and their minions. If it comes to a lawsuit, perhaps small claims could be where we could start one, one person at a time? It costs under $50 and takes <30 days to be heard. With each lawsuit, we learn what sticks and what doesn't. Once we have a win, we take each cause of action or each admissible piece of evidence and file a suit in Superior court. One way or another, if homeowners can't find justice, we just keep trying until we do. If the county recorder stops recording foreclosure docs, the banksters will have to negotiate. Okay, it may be simplistic, but it's just an idea….
    Next post, I am listing the cases I used to win my x-wife's UD action and void her foreclosure.

  95. usedkarguy – there are two things which form the basis of a bankster’s claim. One is alleged poss of a bearer note. The other is the trust-servicer’s ledger, neither of which support the amount of the default.
    I try to find avenues for getting discovery, because as to this mess, there’s just no such thing as an informed decision without it. We are losing because we haven’t been able to get discovery.
    Just for a court to assume without evidence that Schmuckly 109 is the servicer (on whose numbers are relied), for instance, for a particular trust is just that – an assumption. Well, the servicer would probably just submit some aff or declaration, and that would probably be that, but that doesn’t change that it’s an assumption by the court to start with.

    These assumptions and presumptions are rampant. But I left that alone and just tried an avenue which if properly and calmly presented imo lets a court know it is missing facts without which no decision is possible: the court does not know and cannot know without more info in what amt the note is in default, regardless of possession. In my last, okay long, comment, I’ve moved from ‘standing’ (which can be included or asserted as an alternative or at least preserved) to
    “Let’s talk about these numbers.”
    I would think when one asks for a more definitive statement re: holder v holder in due course, as well as for the basis of these numbers, one needn’t make an admission to do so. In order to respond, I need to know:
    “Are you claiming as a holder or a holder in due course and where
    did you get your starting number for what I’m supposed to owe you?”

    The ‘numbers’ aren’t being asserted as an ‘aff defense’ – one is asking for clarification: what is the basis for the starting point of the borrower’s (alleged) obligation to the trust? It’s not in the note – the trust isn’t the named payee. The servicer’s numbers are based on what amt owed? Where’d that come from? So, we give, what was the balance on the note when the trust bought it? Now throw in the “best evidence” rule
    with case law.
    Lay opinions.

  96. @djc – some county recorder’s posit they have a cause of action
    for failing to pay fees for instruments which must be recorded
    and weren’t. Montgomery County, PA court held that pursuant to PA law, the assgts had to be recorded. That isn’t true in all states. It should be, but statutes on point and now using the words “may be recorded” were likely amended to read that way thanks to bankster lobbying ‘while we were sleeping’. I still maintain they had to be done even if not recorded and they have to be recorded to enforce. If you believe this, then it doesn’t matter what a state’s law says about recording (may or must) at least on past foreclosures, because to be enforced, they had to be recorded – not because of a state law “must”, but to provide Notice of rights and interests to the borrower before acting on those rights and interests. So for any loan that’s already been foreclosed (think in MERS’ name), the assgt had to be recorded prior to acting.

    Those state statutes using “may” cause damage to the polity and they should be undone retroactively.
    In states which find in favor of “must’ v “may”, citizens could file actions which have at least state causes of action as their basis. I think they’re called “qui tam” and those would be against the bankster for not recording. I don’t know if citizens can bring an action against a county official for not doing its duty. And i don’t know for sure what the duty is. I know what we think it is and I, like you, don’t think bogus docs should be recorded, come hell or high water. For me, that includes any document allegedly signed by a MERS’ officer, because by now, it’s common knowledge it’s actually signed by a member employee, and as to assgt of dot’s, there is 1) no evidence of MERS’ authority to make an assgt of the economic, beneficial interest just because it’s a nominal, (not an economic), beneficiary and 2) the assgt of the dot is being signed by the servicer’s employee. MERS certainly has no authority to assign a note, either. It’s a false document, for sure. That recitation is just an outrage. And actually, since this stuff is now common knowledge, the recorder should if not must refuse to record. So could we sue the recorder to stop recording of known bogus instruments? (and don’t forget the qui tam action) It’s an idea which might be worth a try.
    Where do I sign? One could find A-list attorneys and then open an escrow/trust account with, say, a credit union (some hoops, prob not too bad) and get donations to fund the actions. Oh, to be younger. YOU, djc, could get the first ball rolling…….really, it could be you. After all, it was YOUR idea!
    I do think it might make a difference if enough people write or sign letters to the recorders which demand they stop recording known bogus documents. Paid advertizing, too.
    There are two issues here – must v may record and recording
    bogus instruments.

  97. this isn’t some kind of bad dream. It’s the real deal.

  98. Gault: attorneys are held immune from anything they say in the proceedings at hand, and fraud, forgery, or other crimes can only be asserted after the proceedings are over, in a Wisconsin case.
    the reason the PSA and purchase/assumption agreements require proper transfer is because of the NY Trust Law or Delaware Trust law. The transfer secures the bankruptcy-remoteness of the actual trust assets from the sponsor.
    And I am going to say again that there will be no satisfactory (based in law) rulings until you get to appellate level. And even then, you’re fighting a fed order to confiscate any assets related to TARP. Maher is right.

  99. @ Dr JC
    i think when our state officials are getting paid to do a job that directly concerns the public interest and interests of society as a whole and they fail to perform due diligence, when they know of the problems and lack of authenticity of what is being presented to the public at large and still fail to report accordingly to the authority, with the authority to investigate and prosecute then their silence and/or inaction is complicit. as a doctor you can relate to this a nurse i can relate to this duty. where are the gate keepers.

  100. JG, You are on to something there.

  101. dcb – don’t know why you think attorneys are immune. that’s not what i’ve seen. In re Lee, for example, an attorney, a principal of McCarthy and Holthus, a name some no doubt know here, think it was, was sanctioned 25k for not telling the court his client didn’t own the note. In re Nozek (MA), the attorneys were all sanctioned big bucks along with the banksters. Okay, the *!&$ appeals court reduced the amts in that one, but didn’t 86 them altogether. Attorneys also get sanctioned for discovery violations, like in a 2011 WD WA decision regarding Play Vision and Dollar Tree………….
    The new deal about FNMA 86’ing its network attorneys indicates to me there’s a heightened awareness of attorney liability which can be tagged to a client, also (which as the MERS HAS TO GO proponent I hasten to add is the reason MERS actually avoided agency).

  102. @NG, anyone – earlier I posited that the S & A agreements only accomplished security interests for the trusts (disregarding whose money was used to fund the loan – something that could change everything, I know). Some days I can look at the UCC and firmly get it. Other days, the same material hits me as greek, and the latter is the case more often than not. But just say what was created was security interests for the trusts and the banksters became indentured parties. That makes the bankster the primary obligor for the secured interest. Under 9-203(g), the security interest in the note gives a security interest in the coll instrument, as well. The UCC has some finite answers on performance by / obligation of the indentured party and any rights against the secondarily obligated party (if that’s expressed correctly), the homeowner in this case. What does the UCC say are the rights of the indentured party against the secondary obligor?
    That’s part of what i can’t get.
    What else I dont’ know and can’t get a handle on is whether or not the bankster may transfer ownership of the notes by art 3 endorsement and delivery to satisfy its own primary obligation for its indenture (to anyone, never minding here that we’re dealing with these particular trusts – get answer, then apply trust ‘stuff’). Even if that could be done, seems to me there would have to be another document which idenfiies the balance* owing on the note or there is no indication of what amt of the indenture is being satisfied by the transfer of the note (the collateral) to the secured party. For one thing, the amt owing on the collateralized note would be different than when it was pledged. An endorsement doesn’t demonstrate the balance owing on a note. And is the indenture only satisfied to the extent of the secured party’s recovery on the collateral? That one does the homeowner no good if so, I think.

    If the PSA’s adequately identified the notes at issue but only created security interest for lack of delivery of the notes, what else does that mean? I don’t know but I doubt that a ‘mere’ security interest could form the basis for MBS’s, so there’s that rather biggie (no certificates could issue). Isn’t that why these had to be true sales?

    The PSA’s were intended to be (or at least posited that was the intent) bulk transfers of notes and their collateral (and isn’t that, as the American Securitization Forum’s 2010 white paper says, a transaction under art 9?), but the psa’s called for endorsements and assignments for each note and collateral instrument, also, with complete chains. Had a handle on why but lost it. yawn.

    *And then there’s the issue of the amts owing on the notes when they became security interests (or even sales for that matter) in the first place. The article 9 PSA is executed, among other things, to establish the amt owing on the notes, which would not be indicated by endorsement. It’s unavoidable that those amts change by the time notes go thru 3 transfers, unless that was accomplished on ONE day and before the homeowner had made even one payment. A PSA which alleges the face amounts of notes are the amts owing doesn’t seem, if not can’t be, factual. If a note is declared to have a face amt of 500k and that’s the amt showing in a psa and then the servicer’s ledger starts at 500k, the homeowner is getting ripped for any principal reduction, regardless of how slight, made before the loan made it in whatever form (secured interest, sale) to the trust, and all numbers submitted in support of default / foreclosure would be false.

    If these notes were not subject to a Sale and Assignment agreement or some ‘writing’, no one would know what he was buying. An endorsement wouldn’t tell the assignee anything. Where is the amt owing at the time of each alleged Art 3 transfer along the way to be found? There has to be a discoverable writing which supports the note value (and actually his enforcement rights, but that’s another story) each transferee was getting for his money.

    Like I said, I haven’t been able to get a handle on all the ramifications if the ‘trusts’ only ended up with security interests.
    I’m throwing this stuff out here in case you, NG, or anyone else can and will. Just the improbability of the PSA reflecting the true balance of the note at the time of the alleged transfer along with the servicer’s numbers starting at that alleged balance gives rise to reasonable questions, even for these courts, about the truth of those numbers.
    Where the amt being alleged (the 500k, which I assert just cannot be factual as to a third note-transferee and maybe not even a second transferee) can be found is in the servicer’s numbers which must be provided somehow to the borrower. I think making this issue (improbability of the 500k starting point being accurate) clear to a judge might give way to discovery, which is what we’re after. How did a note with a face amt of 500k still have an amt owing of 500k by the time it went thru multiple transfers before getting to the trust? Even one payment would have changed that number. How can the servicer ledger be accurate? Where is the writing which evidences the amt of what’s owing on the note when the trust got it? The answer is it’s at least allegedly in the untendered PSA the banksters don’t want to fork over (even tho that figure imo can’t actually be accurate if it’s the original face amount of the note). Anyone know a reason this is not a valid question? No article 3 endorsement is going to resolve this question, nor is a servicer’s ledger.
    There’s a principle of law known as “highest and best” evidence, something like that, and FRCP 1002, think it is, imo says one can demand and get it.
    Way down on the evidentiary list would be the servicer’s ledger. Above that is the PSA. Above that is actual evidence of the
    note balance when it was allegedly transferred to the trust. A represented or even agreed note balance doesn’t make it factual,
    especially an amt which is unwarranted. Because it doesn’t and because of the likelihood a note which has been transferred 2 or 3 times has a reduced amt owing (because at least one payment has been made or who knows why), one should be able to make a reasonable argument for discovery, at least to get the writing which allegedly established the amt owing on the note when transferred aka the PSA.
    Banksters don’t get to just make up default amts. They must be
    accurate. If accuracy is to be one’s basis for discovery, then one would have to support the fact that the default figures have to be accurate, which seems ridiculous, but I would do it, anyway.
    The point is to get discovery based on the improbability of the accuracy of the default numbers combined with the highest and best evidence rule. Even if a court tosses the improbabliity, and i don’t know how it could if it’s argued well, that still leaves the highest and best evidence of the default figures. And don’t forget about the request for a more definitive statement: is the claimant claiming as a holder or a hidc. Or save that one for after you get the highest and best evidence of the default numbers. That might be strategy.
    These are positively lay opinions as always. Ask a lawyer.

  103. @DOC
    I am an atty—not a litigator but finance oriented. similar difference to a Psychiatrist vs brain surgeon—–

    I received a FC complaint in july 2009 largely supported by a June 2009 assignment of mortgage. assigning the mortgage that i gave to a lender 5 years earlier to a big bank as “trustee” for a godawful long complicated trust name–intimidating to me despite my decades finance experience.

    after unraveling the securitization which took a month–the lender bankrupt now after fraud pleadings for officers, I was chagrined—securitization was totally bogus—required schedules not filed etc

    I thought –theis whole thing looks like a con-game—i do not know who or what these people are trying to take my home—–which was ok–I just wanted the damn NOTE released too, since the house worth way less 1/3—than the note thanks to the overall impact of chicanery on values

    So then —-I thought–well if someone is trying to con me into surrendering my house in exchange for nothing–other than some attys who are protected like gods from their wrongdoing—ILL CHECK THE Assignment signers–real people.

    So i did a background check on each of the MERS officers and the notary—OMG was my reaction——-very 1st google hit the VP MERS turns out to be a convicted forger Korell Harp?????

    The MERS Asst Sec turns out to be a convicted drug smuggler Tywanna Thomas——so I search locate the notary’s family and call Mom——Notary an 18 yr old that quit work for DOCX LPS a couple months before

    She explained DOCX and then to my surprise Korell Harp called me to explain.

    well the rest is history–except at that time october 2009—nobod–FBI –press cared–not until just before election 10/10—then NYT puvblished after other follow up—-also the TV story

    In june 2010——the LPS-AHMSI filers of the original failed notary piece of work—refiled another

    by this time–the doc prep companies are training employees –“dont talk to people w/o subpoenas” ——

    so problem—how can you tell a doc with bad notary from one with a good one—-problem is that the attys using this crap are immune–they must take the hit if its defective——i could try to disprove the authenticity of #2 assignment–but whats the point–then #3?

    there is no punishment for failed attempts to defraud–none–why should they stop –no downside—why worry about being a bad doctor if there is no right to sue you?

    that is where the legal profession is—free of liability for any wrongdoing—safely insulated—wont even admit who they represent.

  104. I am not a paralegal, attorney or one with a legal mind, I am just a doctor that helps sick people get well, naturally.
    I do have an opinion concerning what I have read from Neil’s site, Tim McCandless and others. Since it appears court documents concerning foreclosure must eventually be filed/recorded with a local county recorder, why can’t we use the same lawsuits county recorders are filing against the pretend lenders and encourage our own county recorders to either do the same OR agree NOT to accept, file or record any documents of foreclosure concerning our own property?
    If they refuse, why couldn’t we write a constructive notice and demand giving them X amount of days to sign an agreement NOT to allow a pretend lender or anyone else, to steal our property? If they refuse again, why couldn’t we sue the county recorder for allowing fraudulent documents to be recorded in violation of the law? If the county recorder refuses to accept pretend lender documents, it shouldn’t make any difference what the corrupt judges are doing as the net result should be moot. Yes? It’s just an idea.
    Dr. James Chappell

  105. DW said;
    “how many times can we get smacked in the face and denied our legal rights”

    I asked myself that very question many times as i encountered one crime after another—and govt inaction or outright cover ups


  106. so how many times can we get smacked in the face and denied our legal rights, yes its unbelievable in our time that there is control over the appellate courts, UKG i am right on procedure, right on law, the judge is a tresspasser of the law, thats what this is, yet, the road blocks and the double standard, a law for hsbc a law for the poor guy. ITS NOT HOLDING UP LAW IS NOT HOLDING UP IN OUR COURTS government is looking the wrong way while this is baltant. so what can we do we. THERE ARE PLENTY OF US WHO HAVE WALKED THE PLANK WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT WE ARE BEING DENIED OUR RIGHTS (and my atty g offers $850 bucks compensation for this ! SO ANYONE WHAT CAN WE DO CAN WE COME TOGETHER, NEIL, ANY ONE. i work full time and i do not know how, other than trying my hardest in court trying to force the court to do their job, at some point just one good judge will surface.

  107. I know you’re trying as hard as you can. I don’t want to sound defeatist. I’m saying the procedural stuff will kill you. That’s where the attorney comes in. We’re in the 7th circuit. No better there.

  108. This is a little old (9/26/12) but the wind has definitely shifted. Banks don’t want to go before a jury. They lose more and more on appeal. We need to keep fighting. And sorry it is the 1st district instead of the 9th one but the states involved are non judicial. People who get somewhere are those who go to court and fight to the end.

    Homeowners – 1, Bank of America, Wells Fargo -0

    by Brian Mahany

    Despite the turning tide, big banks continue to win many court battles. Individual homeowners just can’t afford to take on the banking giants and their Park Avenue lawyers. Now and then, however, homeowners win. And some times they win big. Every victory empowers more and more homeowners to come forward. Last week’s victory in the federal 1st Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to cost Bank of America millions.

    Recently there have been a spate of lawsuits against big banks regarding forced place insurance. Just last week we wrote about the fate of one of our clients who is facing the loss of his home over a forced place insurance snafu.

    All mortgage lenders require borrowers to maintain insurance on their homes. If the house is destroyed by fire or tornado, lenders want to be sure they will get paid. If one allows their insurance to lapse, lenders have the right to “force place” insurance on the home. In concept that seems fair, however some lenders have been charging exorbitant rates for such insurance, take kickbacks from the insurance company and even place insurance on homes that are already insured.

    Two homeowners in Massachusetts sued Bank of America claiming the bank was illegally forcing homeowners to maintain excessive amounts of flood insurance and also collecting kickbacks from the insurance companies. The trial court dismissed their claims.

    On appeal, a three judge panel reversed the trial judge and said the homeowners presented viable claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals controls federal courts in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico. Although not binding in other states, rulings from federal appeals courts carry great weight everywhere.

    For its part, Bank of America continues to deny any wrongdoing but last week’s loss will probably bring all parties to the settlement table. In our experience, big banks don’t want to face juries these days.

  109. okay, usedkarguy – we’re all ears – what’s gonna save our homes?

  110. ok UKG , i understand how difficult this is and when i post i do from a sense of desperation to help a bit, its stuff that helps…doesnt win cases it helps, well it helped me, each case is different , you are lucky man, you arnt dealing with the 9th circuit. some people cant afford council, i spent a fortune and my case got slaughtered. i came here years ago because i felt that i was not alone…well guess what.

  111. About 11.1 million households, or 23.1 percent of all mortgaged homes, were underwater in the October-December quarter, according to report released Tuesday by housing data firm CoreLogic. That’s up from 22.5 percent, or 10.8 million households, in the July-September quarter

    so 40 million mortgages @ average 150k=6 trillion? are my numbers close? —–pouring out 1.5 trillion defici per year—-all mortgages repaid in 4 years——? –already printing that money to pay for foodstamps –ss checks—haliburton—–lot of printing —-not a pretty sight—-

    no wonder they send 40 armored SWAT to crush tiniest resistance—nip it in the bud–or you have greece or spain—-maybe need review how iceland did it—but i dont think youd get shumers vote

  112. @dcb at 9:12 – good question

    “The fact is that in most loans the amount received from Federal bailouts and the hedge contracts that were used, as well as the outright multiple sales of the same loans, have been paid in full several times over whether they are in foreclosure or not ”

    my question is what proof is there of this as regards the neighbor who has not defaulted–?

    Every loan paid out by insurance etc—? is that not 15 trillion or so—?

  114. A question: If your house has been seized–an agreement signed resolving a dispute–but no 1099A or otherwise filed with IRS by the purported note holder—-have you in fact and law been relieved of the debt?

    Or did you just cut a deal with the wrong party?

  115. AUTHOR SAID “By converting the defective mortgage, note and assignments to a tax, the borrower’s liability would be reduced and payable in installments”

    I hope that the benefit of this forgiveness would be received over the life of loan–not up front with no spread—–is there authority for this author—–its a nice idea—but how does one get multiple claimants to “give up”????

  116. you people don’t listen: reading this blog and buying a copy of “How to Defend Yourself in Court” and “Foreclosure for Dummies” will not save your home.

  117. @ Dr JC
    let me tell you…they EXPECT yOu to give up this is where you guys can get the edge…DONT

  118. Donna – sorry to hear all that. Sounds like an awful ordeal and then some. Just like “you want a free house” is the first line of defense
    (plus it’s offensive to suggest due process is only sought to get a free house) in one area, “you just don’t like the outcome” is the first line of defense in another area.

  119. From the comments so far, it shows why we need Neil and attorneys like him to teach, guide or represent us. From my limited experience before the court, it seems they (the court) can try to do whatever they want, however, we do have remedies; from a motion for reconsideration, appealing to transferring to federal court. I think the key is to never give up. I have always taken the position that, “It’s a dog eat dog world and I am a pit bull”, attitude. Yes, I have been thrown in jail a few times for contempt, but it pales in comparison with what some of our founding patriots had to go through.
    PS – I meant profession in my last post herein.

  120. “And what if the court won’t rule, won’t answer most of your motions, picks and chooses which Motions to even enter into the case most of which were never entered, tells you to amend your complaint
    to include a bank who clearly has NO standing and then refuses to accept your amend, closes your case 4 times with no response and that’s it. Over. We are all left hanging with no resolution.”

    Donna, I’m confused by some of this, for sure. If you filed a motion right, it’s on the docket, so it’s entered in your case. Did you send a copy to the other guys? Did you file a proper cert of mailing to the other side with the court? Did you set the mtn for hearing and notify the other side? I’m sorry to say, it sounds like there’s some hefty
    procedural deficiencies going on there. DW is absolutely right. You certainly need info if you don’t have a lawyer. If one doesn’t know the rules of procedure, at least some basic ones, one prob doesn’t have a prayer. A court may grant a pro se some leeway, but one still has to follow procedure. DW mentioned a paralegal. I don’t know what paralegals may do or what they know or don’t. You might try to
    find one and ask if he or she is able to and will just identify any procedural deficiencies in your case. Put your case on cd rom and make sure you include the docket itself and all attachments to pleadings.
    If a mtn is otherwise appropriately filed (including cert of service) but not set for hearing (oral argument), pretty sure judge rules on the mtn and the responsive pleading. Also think no answer from the judge is a rejection of that mtn. Ask the paralegal who is qualified or an attorney. If that’s what happened once or twice, and I couldn’t know, it’s possible you could have filed a timely rule 52 mtn for clarification.
    It’s possible one may ask a court to allow them to cure any procedural deficiencies (at the time). Don’t take my lay impressions to mean anything. Get procedural answers with an eye on deficiencies from someone qualified to give them.

  121. @DONNA ,

    forget about stopping the tax increases ,, that’s what the election was about … it wasn’t about getting your free Obamaphone …

    Allowing the Bush tax rates to expire is the tax you cite with 53 days to re-instate…. Obama has been on TV stating “NO COMPROMISE” “I will hear them out but I wont accept anything that isn’t a “balanced approach”” … “balanced approach” is another way for him to say he won’t accept anything without TAX INCREASES …

    Obamacare is a $1,000,000,000,000.00 ($1 trillion) tax increase …

    Killing the coal industry through new regulations is a $750,000,000,000.00 tax increase , look for it on you electric bill SOON. Obama has a 50 man team at the EPA writing the new regs right now …

    There are MANY other examples …

    What does it mean? It means that the replacement for Little Timmy Geitner and Uncle Ben will HAVE TO continue printing $$$$$ and it will lead to inflation/hyperinflation…

    The foreclosure mess will be “fixed” via legislation to sweep it all under the rug… they’ll “fix” the paperwork mess … you will pay your delinquent account off in full to fix the banks books … it’ll be easy … when a cup of coffee is $1,000,000.00 ,,, you can just give the bank 4 “forever” postage stamps you saved as full payment.

    I’d be buying 50lb. sacks of beans and rice and storing them away .. it may be 18 months , may be 18 weeks … but you’ll want it then… you’ll be able to trade a sack for your doctor neighbors Porsche… you won’t be able to buy gas but 10 years down the road you’ll look like a genius.

  122. @ Donna
    “case closed” not so fast, you must know the rules and back it up with case law or your council must, if theres an ujujust result and due process has been denied dig your heels in, spurs n all, crtique the decision of the judge dont be coy, they are human and make ummm, ummm …manifest error of law, i think thats how you tell them they are wrong, rule 60b learn it, but first make sure you are not time barred, crucial, timelines. buy the rule book thompson west, FRCP and court rules, look up local rules, look at the series of NOLO on how to represent yourself in court, Cornell Law is a good resource, hire a paralegal to type up your complaints /motions ect, and get the transcripts immediately of all your oral arguments and then set yourself up for the biggest battle of your life. and thats all i have to say about that as a pro se litigant. everyone has the right to represent themselves and find help, its out there and you just do the best you can with what you got. Whilst attorneys and courts hate pro se if you at least try to make it professional they should respect that ( but please please do not bank on it) finally if you get the wrong lawyer you may be looking a res judicata and denied with prejudice…but you can then file a brand new suit and hopefully eventually some oficers of the court will go to jail, and rightly so. JUSTICE- THE MOST GOOD FOR THE MOST PEOPLE. AMEN.

  123. if i remember correctly, a granted mtn for summary judgment, but not a mtn to dismiss, is considered adjudication on the merits. So, if
    you don’t want to have the argument with your judge about amendment at will before an answer is filed, i guess you could file a new complaint if the bankster were granted a mtn to dismiss (without prejudice, which you should do your best to get on a mtd). If there is no adjudication on the merits, no res judicata attaches.
    More lay opinions

  124. Well, as i often say, a court can call an amended complaint dilatory all day long, but to no avail. As a matter of black letter law, one may amend a complaint at will up until the bankster files an answer. Not a mtn to dismiss, not a mtn for SJ, an ANSWER. I think it’s in FRCP 15. After an answer, it does take leave of court or stipulation (like banksters gonna stip). Hey, that made me think of something. Banksters often ask for stip for add’l time to respond to a complaint (which to a bankster will be a mtn to dismiss or sj 99.999999% of the time), Tell em , yeah, sure, in exchange for written stip to allow you to amend complaint after their answer, should you choose to amend after their answer. Otherwise they’ll have to mtn for extended time to respond. They might get it, but at least they had to spend the dough and time mtning for it and deal with any objection you make to them getting more time to respond. On the other hand, if you’re paying an attorney 300 bucks an hour, you may just want to stip to them
    getting more time. I see the ‘more time’ by stip more than anything, and maybe it’s because there’s a perception the court would grant it, anyway, and you’d have to pay an attorney to object to their mtn for nothing.
    Leave of court is not to be withheld unreasonably – it’s to be “granted liberally.” On that one, I forget: It’s BL law and / or case law says so. I think law. People just roll over imo. Before appealing, i think one can try a mtn for reconsideration (59 or 60) of a rejected mtn to amend after an answer has been filed.. Court says “amendment won’t save this mess” – maybe, but maybe not.
    I think if one makes a mtn to amend after an answer has been filed,
    one has to attach the proposed amended complaint, altho I’m not so sure courts enforce that, and maybe because they want to deny the mtn to amend without seeing if the complaint can actually be re-stated to allege justicible issues.
    Lay opinions. ask a lawyer.

    One other thing, if you are the plaintiff (and you don’t fight and say the bankster trying to f/c is really the plaintiff), look very carefully and give names to any affirmative defenses they might make in their first responsive pleading. If they try to make any different ones in an answer or thru out litigation after they filed a MTD or for SJ (and you dodged it), you can file a mtn to strike them because all aff defenses (even a banksters) have to be asserted in the “first responsive pleading” or they are abandoned as a matter of law.
    These are definitely lay opinions. Pretty rusty.

  125. People hearing without listening,
    People talking without speaking
    People writing songs that voices never share, and no one dare disturb the Sound of Silence …

  126. master sanitizer, you’ve been right all along; and the tax issue/funding/writeoff are relevant issues to the determination of title and right thereto. Judges won’t here it, though. The issue is standing, and the relief comes only at the appellate level, as history shows us. The Treasury is indeed taking the property. Everyone involved in exposing the fraud is being slandered and persecuted. An amended pleading becomes “dilatory” when the enterprise is exposed for all to see. Not even Judge Glenn can stop them.

  127. “They (homeowner defense attorneys) cannot interfere with the Secretary s order to repossess homes”. There’s no such thing as an order that has to be complied with to repossess homes. I’m not aware of this “order”, but even if there were one, such an order is not legislation.

  128. It’s starting to become painful again to blog here. Too many big theories and very little understanding of human nature. Nobody seems to see what is happening and where the answer lies. Wins in foreclosure are not nationwide or even statewide. They are local and they spread outwards.

    A homeowner in a tight knit community, small town USA wins. His neighbors see it. They were concerned that he would lose but they supported him because he’s been part of the community for so long that they don’t want him to leave because of a bank. When he wins, they win. The neighbors then start thinking about it and start fighting too. Some lose, some win. Those that lose won’t be left without help. OWS will be called to stop the eviction. Neighbors will stand by to shame the Sheriff and remind him that they elected him and they could take him out the same way they brought him where he is. Everybody rallies.

    The judge sees that he is up against a whole community. He knows he must do whatever he can to help. Otherwise, he won’t be judge for very long. He orders mediation, conciliation, negotiation, everything in the book before he can allow the family evicted. Those that win go to the news with their stories. There are not many things happening in small town USA: those that required OWS help are on the news regardless. It spreads even more. Pretty soon, nearby towns deal with the same problem. They have an example of how it was handled. They do the same. And before you know it, you live in the state with the least foreclosures, judges making sure every avenue has been explored before anyone loses his house, no interference from the feds and no one caring about Wall Street and the banks: people come first because people gave you your job.

    In NH, we got it right because our way has been working better than in the big cities. We have the numbers to show for it. There are more modifications, rewrites of mortgages and positives results than anywhere else. We think small but we accomplish big. And we all own a gun we never use outside of hunting season. And because the community was there for the first foreclosures, people have learned and taught each others. Not many cases in federal court yet but it is starting because, in small communities, we learned to first defend ourselves. Now, we are starting to attack the banks. And when we do, we have the whole town behind us.


    1. Defendants assertion are presuming the court agrees Movant’s counter claims and defenses are based on equitable claims for encumbrances held as a successor s in interest against the estate of the debtor
    2. The debtor is in Chapter 11 proceedings is seeking an adversary claim for an action to be heard in US Bankruptcy court on or about (date) by Central Court District
    3. Debtor brings clams and challenges the very legal standing of a plaintiff to institute a foreclosure action, succeeds where the court must see the new method of selling loans to a investors have caused the process to rely on the non judicial scheme to act as a private parties right to adjudicate a contest matter. A foreclosing party cannot institute a foreclosure action when it has no legal interest in the mortgage and note at the time of the filing of the foreclosure action
    4. The holder and loans wholesale commercial financing are one in the same Bank of America. Bank of America never assigned the loan as lender and commercial lender concurrently funding the Nerhus Mortgage.
    5. The UCC, as it relates to lending, is a way for each state to have a consistent method of recording the security of a loan. When banks make secured loans, or loans with collateral (e.g., home mortgages), they file a UCC form with the state where the loan agreement is executed. This filing essentially makes the loan security, or collateral, a matter of public record. Without this filing, a lender could run into difficulties laying claim the collateral in case of default.
    6. The obligation in question is a default of a commercial loan that was used for securities financing. The debtor’s loans were affirmed abandoned by issuance of the 1099A charged to the obligors account. The 1099 is owed to the bond holders is owed by the member bank as the true borrower and not allowed as a charge to the consumer.

    The debt forgiveness is inaccurate.

  130. The tax break is for the amount to carry the bond to the period it was called due to the LENDER default. The default is by a sub agency of the US Dept of Treasury . The member bank took the money times ten …now you are taxed the amount of the loan as income . This is so the Bank can balance out the amount they can take as a tax credit called NOL carry forward .


  131. Neil,
    My only comment is you continue to be brilliant in your “thinking outside of the box” approach to the law, specifically foreclosure.
    Attorneys like you give your professional a position image. You not only speak from your head, you speak from your heart.


    No, The foreclosures are implemented by the Dept of Treasury. Attorneys are officers of the court . They cannot interfere with the Secretary s order to repossess homes. Lawyers taking cases for the plaintiff are taking money from clients they cannot represent. Lawyers representing foreclosure victims are officers of the court and barred fro these foreclosure defenses – they are subject to sanctions malpractice and being disbarred – I say Caution homeowners Caution Write your Bar or call ASAP for more info…Caution .
    (I wont be silenced as a fraud any longer NG – Get the truth out NOW )

  132. “That would leave each borrower with a tax instead of a mortgage. It would also give back the money to the Federal government and investors.”

    There is something I don’t understand with the logic. Granted, homeowners should not end up with the house if they didn’t pay for it but, in a way, they already did. When all that taxpayers’ money was given to the bank, it was homeowners’ money. It was money that was not allocated to infrastructures, education, research, healthcare. It is as though homeowners who had paid their taxes with the hope of seeing them invested into the country and saw it diverted to the banks must now pay taxes again to fix what the banks did. I can’t really formulate it but it feels to me as though homeowners/tax payers still pay twice and the banks still pay nothing. It smells funny. Actually, it stinks.

  133. “As it stands now, as long as homeowners focus their strategy or DENY and DISCOVER and demand to see the actual transfers of money to prove ownership of the loan and the existence of an unpaid loan receivable, the decisions are already turning toward the borrowers, albeit slowly. One way or the other, this issue with taxation of the “forgiveness” of debt when in fact it was actually paid is going to surface.

    Think about it. Comments welcome.”

    Neil…please clarify or expand …these points are important…

  134. NG – I agree the debt should be reduced, but not for the reasons you cite. I think it should be reduced because it factually was reduced by
    default insurance to people who owned the notes, which is a 180 from our allegations that parties with no interest benefitted.
    You say “the banks “borrowed” ownership from the investors and made a ton of money trading on it.” I don’t know that that’s true. What the banksters may have done factually is take someone else’s money without authority and use it to make loans (and made a ton of money). Crazy set of facts after that if the banksters took the investors money and made loans. Crazy. We just disagree on who was the lender
    when the money was taken – maybe read stolen – from the investors.
    I don’t know the answers, and probably not even all the questions, like if “steal” is the approp word if they took money tendered for purpose A and used it for B, but that’s where I’m looking. I may cross your path.

    The IRS knows art 3 transfers are being attempted and maybe if not probably effected post cut-off date, which messes up the tax status of the trusts, if not their very structures. The party actually being protected from taxable events is the bankster because the notes were to be sold pre-cut-off date, not create security interests (which is what it appears one gets with a bulk sale and assignment agreement but no delivery of the notes).
    Since it was the the banksters’ acts or omissions which has caused and is still causing the tax liability (by not effecting sales and now transferring the notes post cut-off date), the investors have a right of recovery for that tax liability. So because the IRS is shielding the allegedly tbtf banksters, it threw the homeowner a bone by way of no 1099 (or whatever that form is) on alleged debt forgiveness. .

    If the IRS is going to end the pass on debt forgiveness to homeowners, it damn well better stop pretending the trusts are entities with
    preferred tax status because they’re not. The trusts are now routinely accepting ownership via art 3 endorsements to notes, assets, in which they formerly held only a security interest, if that, and which probably didn’t qualify ‘trusts’ for any preferred tax status in the first place.

    And if your first part of the equation is right, they don’t qualify, either.

  135. Javagold,

    I came on this blog 2 years ago to ask a few questions. After two months, the experience was so unpleasant that I stopped posting. I kept reading it but I didn’t say anything. I read that Neil Garfield had gone on TV and I was really happy for him and for everyone who needs help. It went downhill right after that. I guess people noticed and complained.

  136. where did everyone go ???????

  137. Neil,
    My only comment is you continue to be brilliant in your “thinking outside of the box” approach to the law, specifically foreclosure.
    Attorneys like you give your professional a position image. You not only speak from your head, you speak from your heart.
    Thank you Neil for all you are doing to help those that so desperately need it. May you continue to be blessed as you are a blessing.
    Dr. James Chappell

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: