32% of all Adults in U.S. Are Comfortable with Strategic Defaults.


What’s the Next Step? Consult with Neil Garfield

For assistance with presenting a case for wrongful foreclosure, please call 520-405-1688, customer service, who will put you in touch with an attorney in the states of Florida, California, Ohio, and Nevada. (NOTE: Chapter 11 may be easier than you think).

Editor’s Comment: It’s not really hard to figure out. Businesses do it all the time. They open a factory through a new subsidiary and then, when it turns out to be a boondoggle, they close it down and walk away. The lender gets stuck with the loss, if there is one.

As late as one year ago, there was a strong “moral imperative” that private citizens did not have the same ethical right and obligation to step away from a bad investment. But the numbers are climbing as the hopelessness of their situation sinks in. The probability of millions of homes ever reaching the same value as what was used in their loan deals is near zero for the next decade or or more.

Businesses have the obligation to protect the equity of their shareholders by stepping down when necessary. It is apparent that a rising number of people are realizing that their obligation to protect their retirement and the future of their children is at least as strong an imperative as the businessman’s right to walk from a bad investment.

Add to that that the appraisal value was rigged, fraudulent and meant to deceive the real parties in interest, from the investors on down to the homeowner, and you have no reason to stay with that bad investment. And make no mistake about it, it WAS sold as an investment on the premise the housing prices don’t go down and will forever increase.

So now bankers are planting articles all over the place telling homeowners that they could be making a fatal error to employ a strategic default (not paying and walking away from the house, throwing the keys on the counter). Don’t be fooled. AND don’t throw good money after bad by depleting your saving, retirement or credit card accounts to stay in a home that will never be worth the amount demanded in principal by whoever is claiming to be the creditor. remember that the amount is probably less anyway because they are not giving credit for insurance, credit default swaps and federal bailouts.


211 Responses

  1. December 12, 2012

    Income Tax Department
    ATTN: Whistleblower Division

    The City of __________needs revenue. The wells that it is accustomed to dipping have declined to offer more. I have some rational suggestions for “broadening the tax base” by administrative extension to reach those who are subject to local income and sales taxes—but presently avoid or evade those taxes.

    There are three classes of persons that take advantage of local competitors by evading taxes.
    1) Mortgage loan servicers
    2) So-called seized property “preservers”
    3) Debt collectors that seize and dispose of homes

    In this category the most predatory entities are so called “private label” operations not associated with traditional financial institutions, and thus tend to be fly-by-night operations prone to bankruptcy filings on a 3-5 year cycle. They have headquarters usually located in tax-exempt states Florida or Texas, so they pay no state or local income taxes if they escape taxation if they can escape tax by source of payment jurisdictions—such as Findlay and rural School Districts. Ostensibly they collect payments from homeowners, skim a sizable portion of those payments, and remit the remainder to investors, who are often offshore hedge funds—also insulated from Federal Taxation.

    Traditional banking operations pay taxes. The predators operate on the fringes and demand equal or greater services by local communities—due to the predatory nature of their operations, further described below. These entities make filings in local courts, obtain title to real estate (REO), employ agents who are usually foreign to the local jurisdiction—and generally have nexus with local communities. They should file income tax returns and apportion their income like any other multi-jurisdiction entity. They should bear the cost associated with the receipt of local revenue earned with the full support of local governmental institutions. Quid Pro Quo. The flip side is the anti-competitive effect on honest tax-paying financial institutions, as well as the added unpaid burdens on citizens who must otherwise bear the burden of the shortfall in costs of services rendered to these free-riders. Such entities include private companies and small public companies, among others discoverable by review of Clerk of Court records and County Auditor and Recorder’s records. They hide in plain sight.

    There is usually a group of “out of town” operators who work in close association with servicers and collectors. These are self-styled “preservers including small public companies and sub-contractors. Often the fly-by-night servicer debt-collectors engage the services of these foreign “arrangers” who subcontract sometimes nefarious activities by out of town subcontractors. The class of preservers may also include less controversial preservation contractors of local origin performing legitimate but taxable services on behalf of traditional financial institutions. The fly-by nights however create the greatest burden on the local government resources at all levels.

    A typical sequence may involve the seizure of a home upon a foreclosure complaint which is either completely unsupported or supported by DocX-sourced forged documents. The fly-by-night operators are particularly prone to these predatory collection techniques. See for example the November 20, 2012 Indictment and Plea Agreement on state and Federal Conspiracy charges of Loraine O. Brown, formerly CEO of DocX and VP of Lender Processing Services Inc. a public company. A November 20, 2012 Press Release http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/November/12-crm-1400.html stated in part:

    “WASHINGTON – A former executive of Lender Processing Services Inc. (LPS) – a publicly traded company based in Jacksonville, Fla. – pleaded guilty today, admitting her participation in a six-year scheme to prepare and file more than 1 million fraudulently signed and notarized mortgage-related documents with property recorders’ offices throughout the United States…. Many of these documents – particularly mortgage assignments, lost note affidavits and lost assignment affidavits – were later relied upon IN COURT PROCEEDINGS, including property foreclosures and federal bankruptcy actions. Brown admitted she understood that property recorders, COURTS, title insurers and homeowners relied upon the documents as genuine….”
    The use of forged documents is indicative that the homes are in fact seized by a person in possession of account information—but lacking ownership of the actual loan documents. This aberrant activity triggers unusual activity by the preservers acting on behalf of the pretender-claimants.
    Due to the flimsy character of the claim upon which the collector seizes property after having intentionally or unintentionally committed fraud upon local courts, the collectors seek to maximize cash-inflows as quickly as possible—before their schemes are discovered. This may involve conspiring with an out of town preserver to seize possession of a vacated home—then actively cause or passively permit the freezing of the homes piping—followed by extensive water damage. The houses often are covered by the foreclosed homeowners’ casualty insurance policies which survive 90 days after vacate date. The servicer–collector grabs the insurance proceeds which may easily exceed the fair market value of the home. The homeowner was required to carry insurance to cover the loan amount—while the house value may be far less.

    The out of town preservers that facilitate the destruction benefit by having 1st opportunity to salvage the destroyed homes’ fixtures, pipes and wiring. In some instances—depending upon the age of the home—the salvage may reach to door frames, windows and other building components. Obviously, the preservers profit from both payments received by performance of legitimate preservation services by legitimate financial institutions while the shadiest operators receive lesser payments made up for by rich salvage profits. In any event the services are performed locally and are subject to both local income tax and sales tax under certain circumstances.

    As touched upon above, the class of fly-by-night servicers doubles as debt collectors. There is a twist that has come to light in the past year. The servicers-turned debt collectors tend to focus on properties and promissory notes held by sham entities long-ago economically abandoned by legitimate financial institutions.

    In the heyday of the predatory mortgage originations, the private label operators such as American Home Mortgage group, Option One and many others now bankrupt created predatory loans which were supposedly sold once, twice or more often to federal tax-favored investor-funded “trusts”. The trusts, aka REMICs in IRS parlance, typically collapsed when the inflated and predatory nature of the loans was discovered by investors—often public employee pension funds. Subsequently, it has been discovered that the exempt status of the purported “predatory” REMICs never met minimum requirement for exempt status. A failed REMIC is properly treated as a taxable corporation under the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations under IRC Section 7701. So it is also fully taxable under State and local codes which piggyback the IRC. See Once a Failed Remic, Never a Remic, Brooklyn Law School Legal Studies, Research Papers, Accepted Paper Series, Research Paper No. 317 December 2012; http://ssrn.com/abstract=2185420

    The abandonment by legitimate institutions of swaths of homes and promissory notes involved in these predatory failed trusts has presented great opportunity to the predatory collectors. This drives the above-described rush to “seize and freeze” and otherwise dispose of homes ASAP to unsuspecting local real estate investors. Under companion cases issued by the Ohio Supreme Court in the last two months, the use of unsupported Complaints and forged documents to seize homes was condemned. The full ramifications are not yet known, however, the judgments seem to support the recovery of the homes by the defrauded owners. See Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5017. Decided October 31, 2012. http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD/docs/pdf/0/2012/2012-Ohio-5017.pdf ;and the follow up case Washington Mutual Bank, FA. V. Wallace Slip Opinion 2012-Ohio- 5495, decided December 5, 2012. http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD/docs/pdf/0/2012/2012-Ohio-5495.pdf The two highly unusual UNANIMOUS decisions by the Ohio Supreme Court relied heavily upon the academic input of Ohio State University Law School scholars including Professor Emeritus Douglas J. Whaley, an expert on the Uniform Commercial Code, upon which the case turned in part. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/bios.php?ID=66

    One might speculate that this expectation has been known by the predators since at latest November 2009, when the DocX scam came to light—and fueled their casualty insurance schemes. In addition to the seizure of homes abandoned by collapsed fraudulently executed purported failed REMICS, the most predatory debt collectors have apparently also acquired access to collection accounts from legitimate banks and legitimate REMIC trusts, and upon those forged documents acquired title, albeit voidable, to many other homes. Sadly, because these debts were not abandoned by failed REMICs, the unrepresented banks are initiating procedures to pursue homeowners who in essence paid the wrong party by permitting seizure of their homes by collectors lacking authority from banks. See for example a discussion of pursuit of deficiencies—a known consequence of default—now expanding to include pursuit of claims collected by servicer-collectors without approval by the owner bank. See for example; “LOANS STILL DUE DESPITE FORECLOSURE” The Columbus Dispatch Sunday February 19, 2012.
    Those unscrupulous servicer-debt collectors that engage in the foregoing conduct—effectively condemned by the Ohio Supreme Court and the United State Department of Justice in re Indictment of Brown, above have substantial federal, state, and local income tax liability. More than 95% of foreclosures are not contested—ergo few costs are incurred to seize those homes. The full amount of the proceeds of insurance and/or any proceeds of sale of the seized properties to now effectively defrauded local investors—virtually all is taxable income. The collectors, directly or though “sham” trusts, may continue to own as “REO” [real estate owned] properties throughout the City of Findlay, County, State and Nation. These vacant properties are subject to attachment by tax liens which may be enforced upon issuance of Jeopardy Assessments.

    The Ohio Supreme Court has placed Ohio in the vanguard of efforts to correct and redress the abuses. It remains for local communities to levy tax on the culprits and take back those title-damaged properties for sale by clean tax-title. There is no other solution to the cloud that now hangs over these ravaged homes.

  2. @ALL

    Lynn Szymoniak has called it a “Day of Reckoning”


    Below is her list of trusts that were named plaintiffs via fake DOCX documents–these are void voidable—–check your plaintiff and if its one of these ask your attorney if you can file a motion to vacate al judgments arising out of the forgeries


    By Lynn Szymoniak, Esq., December 12, 2012

    On November 20, 2012, Lorraine O’Reilly Brown, the former president of mortgage-document mill, DocX, LLC, a subsidiary of Lender Processing Services, pleaded guilty in federal court in Jacksonville, Florida to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud. DocX produced over one million mortgage assignments. These assignments were used in foreclosures across the country. Brown admitted that she knew that these assignments were being prepared to use in foreclosures.

    In tens of thousands of cases, these fraudulent documents were used by mortgage-backed trusts to show that the trust acquired a mortgage. The information on these assignments was false – the trusts did not acquire the mortgages on the date set forth on these DocX Assignments. Signatures were forged, notarizations were wrongly added to create an appearance of authenticity. Job titles were falsely claimed.

    Which trusts used these phony DocX-prepared mortgage assignments? The trusts that used these Mortgage Assignments to foreclose include those listed below, with the name of the trustee following the name of the trust.

    Investors were promised that these trusts would obtain valid mortgage assignments by the closing dates of the trusts – but the DocX Assignments were prepared years later, often showing the trusts acquiring non-performing loans. Now that Brown has confessed, the trusts and trustees need to explain their need for and use of these phony documents.

    This is a partial list. Many more trusts will be identified that used fraudulent DocX documents. DocX was closed – but the many other document mills that also falsified documents for mortgage-backed trusts and lenders have not yet been held accountable.

    ABFC 2004-OPT4 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    ABFC 2005-OPT1 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    ABFC 2005-HE1 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    ABFC 2006-HE1 (U.S. Bank)
    ABFC 2006-OPT1 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    ABFC 2006-OPT2 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    ABFC 2006-OPT3 (Wells Fargo Bank)

    Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2004-OP1 (HSBC Bank)
    Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2006-NC1 (HSBC Bank)
    Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2006-OP1 (HSBC Bank)
    Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2006-OP2 (HSBC Bank)
    Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2007-HE5 (HSBC Bank)

    AHM Assets Trust, 2005-1 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Assets Trust, 2005-2 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Assets Trust, 2006-1 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Assets Trust, 2006-2 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Assets Trust, 2006-3 (Citibank Bank)
    AHM Assets Trust, 2006-4 (Citibank Bank)
    AHM Assets Trust, 2006-5 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Assets Trust, 2006-6 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Assets Trust, 2007-1 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Assets Trust, 2007-2 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Assets Trust, 2007-3 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Assets Trust, 2007-4 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Assets Trust, 2007-5 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Assets Trust, 2007-6 (Deutsche Bank)

    AHM Investment Trust, 2004-2 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    AHM Investment Trust, 2004-3 (Citibank)
    AHM Investment Trust, 2004-4 (Bank of NY)
    AHM Investment Trust, 2005-1 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Investment Trust, 2005-2 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Investment Trust, 2005-3 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Investment Trust, 2005-4 (U.S. Bank)
    AHM Investment Trust, 2006-1 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Investment Trust, 2006-2 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Investment Trust, 2006-3 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Investment Trust, 2007-1 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Investment Trust, 2007-2 (Deutsche Bank)
    AHM Investment Trust, 2007-SD1 (Deutsche Bank)

    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2003-5 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2003-8 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2003-AR1 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2004-R3 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2004-R7 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2004-R9 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-R1 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-R2 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-R3 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-R4 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-R5 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-R6 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-R7 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-R8 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-R9 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-R10 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-R11 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust ARSI 2006-M3 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-R1 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-R2 (Deutsche Bank)
    Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-R7 (Deutsche Bank)

    Argent Securities, Inc. 2003-W3 (Deutsche Bank)
    Argent Securities, Inc. 2003-W6 (Deutsche Bank)
    Argent Securities, Inc. 2004-W10 (Deutsche Bank)
    Argent Securities, Inc. 2004-W11 (Deutsche Bank)
    Argent Securities, Inc. 2005-W1 (Deutsche Bank)
    Argent Securities, Inc. 2005-W2 (Deutsche Bank)
    Argent Securities, Inc. 2005-W3 (Deutsche Bank)
    Argent Securities, Inc. 2005-W4 (Deutsche Bank)
    Argent Securities, Inc. 2005-W5 (Deutsche Bank)
    Argent Securities, Inc. 2006-M1 (Deutsche Bank)
    Argent Securities, Inc. 2006-M2 (Deutsche Bank)
    Argent Securities, Inc. 2006-W1 (Deutsche Bank)
    Argent Securities, Inc. 2006-W2 (Deutsche Bank)
    Argent Securities, Inc. 2006-W3 (Deutsche Bank)
    Argent Securities, Inc. 2006-W4 (Deutsche Bank)
    Argent Securities, Inc. 2006-W5 (Deutsche Bank)

    AB Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2003-HE6 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    AB Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2004-HE3 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    AB Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2005-HE5 (U.S. Bank)
    AB Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series OOMC 2005-HE6 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    AB Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series OOMC 2006-HE3 (U.S. Bank)
    AB Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series OOMC 2006-HE5 (U.S. Bank)

    Banc of America Funding Corp. Mort. PT Certs., 2008-1 (U.S. Bank)

    Bear Stearns AB Securities I Trust 2006-AC3 (U.S. Bank)

    Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005-OPT2 (Deutsche Bank)
    Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-OPT1 (Wells Fargo Bank)

    Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2004-OPT1 (Wells Fargo)
    Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005-OPT3 (Deutsche Bank)
    Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005-OPT4 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-AMC1 (Deutsche Bank)
    Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-HE2 (U.S. Bank)
    Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2007-SHL1 (HSBC Bank)

    Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mort. Loan Trust, 2006-AR6 (HSBC Bank)
    Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mort. Loan Trust, 2007-1(HSBC Bank)

    Deutsche Alt-B Securities Mort. Loan Trust, 2006-AB2 (HSBC Bank)
    Deutsche Alt-B Securities Mort. Loan Trust, 2006-AB3 (HSBC Bank)
    Deutsche Alt-B Securities Mort. Loan Trust, 2006-AB4 (HSBC Bank)
    Deutsche Alt-B Securities Mort. Loan Trust, 2007-AB1 (HSBC Bank)

    GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-6 (U.S. Bank)
    GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-9 (U.S. Bank)
    GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-10 (Deutsche Bank)
    GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-11 (Deutsche Bank)

    GSAMP 2004-OPT (Deutsche Bank)

    GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR1 (U.S. Bank)
    GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-OA1 (Deutsche Bank)

    Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-7 (Deutsche Bank)
    Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-14 (Deutsche Bank)
    Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2 (Deutsche Bank)
    Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-5 (Deutsche Bank)

    HSI Asset Securitization Corp., 2005-OPT1 (Deutsche Bank)
    HSI Asset Securitization Corp., 2006-OPT1 (Deutsche Bank)
    HSI Asset Securitization Corp., 2006-OPT2 (Deutsche Bank)
    HSI Asset Securitization Corp., 2006-OPT3 (Deutsche Bank)
    HSI Asset Securitization Corp., 2006-OPT4 (Deutsche Bank)
    HSI Asset Securitization Corp., 2007-HE1 (Deutsche Bank)
    HSI Asset Securitization Corp., 2007-OPT1 (Deutsche Bank)
    HSI Asset Loan Obligation Trust, 2007-AR1 (Deutsche Bank)

    IXIS Real Estate Capital Trust 2006-HE1 (Deutsche Bank)

    JP Morgan Acquisition Corp. 2005-OPT1 (U.S. Bank)
    JP Morgan Acquisition Corp. 2005-OPT2 (U.S. Bank)

    Luminent Mortgage Trust 2006-7 (HSBC Bank)

    MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2006-OA1 (U.S. Bank)
    MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2007-1 (U.S. Bank)

    MASTR Alternative Loan Trust 2006-2 (Bank of New York)

    MASTR Asset-Backed Securities Trust 2003-OPT2 (Wells Fargo)
    MASTR Asset-Backed Securities Trust 2004-OPT2 (Wells Fargo)
    MASTR Asset-Backed Securities Trust 2005-OPT1 (Wells Fargo)

    Merrill Lynch Mort. Investors Trust, 2004-OPT1 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Merrill Lynch Mort. Investors Trust, 2006-OPT1 (U.S. Bank)

    Morgan Stanley ABC Capital I, Inc. Trust 2004-OP1 (Deutsche Bank)
    Morgan Stanley ABC Capital I, Inc. Trust 2005-HE1 (Deutsche Bank)
    Morgan Stanley ABC Capital I, Inc. Trust 2005-HE2 (Deutsche Bank)
    Morgan Stanley ABC Capital I, Inc. Trust 2007-NC3 (Deutsche Bank)

    Nomura Home Equity Loan 2005-HE1 (HSBC Bank)

    Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-2 (Deutsche Bank)

    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2003-1 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2003-2 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2003-3 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2003-4 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2004-1 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2004-2 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2004-3 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2005-1 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2005-2 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2005-3 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2005-4 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2006-1 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2006-2 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2006-3 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2007-1 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2007-2 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2007-3 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2007-4 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2007-5 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2007-6 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2007-CP1 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2007-FXD1 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2007-FXD2 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, 2007-HL1 (HSBC Bank)

    Quest Trust 2006-X1 (Deutsche Bank)

    Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2005-2 (Deutsche Bank Americas)

    Securitized AB Receivables, LLC 2004-OP1 (Wells Fargo)
    Securitized AB Receivables, LLC 2004-OP2 (Wells Fargo)
    Securitized AB Receivables, LLC 2005-OP2 (Wells Fargo)
    Securitized AB Receivables, LLC 2006-OP1 (Wells Fargo)

    Securitized Asset Investment Loan Trust 2004-4

    SG Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-OPT1 (HSBC Bank)
    SG Mortgage Securities Trust 2005-OPT2 (HSBC Bank)
    SG Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-OPT2 (HSBC Bank)

    Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2005-OPT1 (Deutsche Bank)
    Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2005-OPT2 (Deutsche Bank)
    Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2005-OPT3 (Deutsche Bank)
    Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2005-OPT4 (Deutsche Bank)
    Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2006-OPT1 (Deutsche Bank)
    Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2006-OPT2 (Deutsche Bank)
    Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2006-OPT3 (Deutsche Bank)
    Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2006-OPT4 (Deutsche Bank)
    Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2006-OPT5 (Deutsche Bank)
    Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2007-OPT1 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2007-OPT2 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2007-OPT3 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2007-OPT4 (Wells Fargo Bank)
    Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2007-OPT5 (Wells Fargo Bank)

    Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust 2003-BC9 (Bank of America)
    Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust 2004-11 (Bank of America)
    Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust 2005-3 (U.S. Bank)

    Structured Asset Mort. Investments II, Inc. 2006-AR5 (JP Morgan Chase)

    Structured Asset Securities Corp. 2003-BC10 (U.S. Bank)
    Structured Asset Securities Corp. 2003-BC11 (U.S. Bank)
    Structured Asset Securities Corp. 2004-3 (U.S. Bank)
    Structured Asset Securities Corp. 2005-OPT1 (U.S. Bank)
    Structured Asset Securities Corp. 2005-SC1 (U.S. Bank)
    Structured Asset Securities Corp. 2006-BC2 (U.S. Bank)
    Structured Asset Securities Corp. 2006-BC6 (U.S. Bank)
    Structured Asset Securities Corp. 2006-OPT1 (Wells Fargo Bank)

  3. @ALL


    today there are servicers which seize real estate using any device which they can, even releases buried in sealed confidential settlements–grab insurance and run—-then the bank trustee comes along and says —that servicer did not have my approval on that settlement and i am not bound pay me on that note that I own–not servicer. You cut a deal with a servicer for anything and the trustee refuses to honor it–POAs nowhere to be found.

    With that in background—collector Attorney refuses to disclose basic proof of representation of trustee—but purports to reprsent by entry of appearance on answer………

    any thoughts about the ethical conduct of the attorney? ? is this a denial of procedural/substantive due process not be allowed to verify the bona fides of a purported represntative????? isnt it a right to face your accuser—esentially—substantive but for civil context???

    attorneys are no more able to bind a far away person than any one else…

    are there cites anywhere?

  4. JG….Don’t go all Warren Buffet on us.

  5. @JG
    Neither you nor I are unethical enough to purchase and prosecute a loan foreclosure upon forged documents–nor put up collateral to obtain the surety bond to relieve a homeowner from the debt in conformity with UCC.

    In Ohio under Schwartwald and Wallace a seizure is now be void–after the fact –if the owner of the loan does not prove his right to enforce as owner, or agent with POA–the foreclosure filing and all judgment orders flowing therefrom are void. A motion to vacate must be filed or laches will be a bar.

    Today–a vacant REO may be reclaimed under such a motion even upon a settlement agreement, by rescission–or by damages if forgeries are used to intentionally decieve and misinform the homeowner–fraud in fact.

    It appears to me possible to purchase quit claims from evicted homeowners and acquire the title under fire–with the primary consideration to the homeowner who has “moved on” being an automatic vacate of judgement deficiency–soon to be pursued under FANNIE-FREDDIE–and surely if the big dogs do it—the bottom-feeders will not be far behind. —in fact they are leaders

  6. http://www.dsnews.com/articles/hud-provides-details-for-next-distressed-asset-sale-2012-12-06

    Well, let’s all empty our piggy banks and run on over there to see how many loans we can get for pennies on the dollar to foreclose. Or I know – how bout we bid on each other’s?

  7. I see the excerpts from MW’s case. But I’m wondering if FL has an anti-deficiency statute. If it does, a bankster may NOT sue on the basis of the note without its collateral instrument. The AZ SC, for instance, ruled in l988 in Baker v Gardner that a lender may not waive the collateral and sue on the note, as doing so would fly in the face of AZ’s anti-deficiency statutes. MW’s bankster alleged it was entitled to enforce and invoke the court’s jurisdiction based solely on its possession of a bearer note and fought the admission of the assignment, as I recall – another lousy story. The point is: if a state has an anit-deficiency statute, a bankster may not sue on the note or try to invoke juris on that basis (because a money judgment on the note is not an available remedy). *
    I have to confess I have not done more than a cursory glance at Hogan (it’s on the list – you know, the list we all have), but if AZ stays with its absurd prop that a claimant need have no interest in the note to f/c, AZ has 86’d any remedy available to a noteowner because that noteowner is prohibited from an action on the note by its anti-deficiency statute. It would also likely be prohibited by a one-action rule, also, if AZ has one. As to AZ, anyone trying to enforce only the coll instrument has no right to a credit bid, right? having no credit to bid. So, imo, if a foreclosure were done on the basis of the dot only in AZ using a credit bid, there was NO bid, so no sale.
    *I can’t say why this moment this is also tied up with whether or not a state is non-recourse, but I think it is. My memory comes and goes.

    By the way, where is it written that the collateral instrument follows possession of a note? This was the unsupported claim made repeatedly by the bankster in MW’s case. Even in Carpenter, which involved a lien, the claimant was the owner of the note at issue, not one allegedly in possession of a bearer note. And, also btw, I suspect the S of F wasn’t around at the time Carpenter was decided.

  8. Can’t wait till until WE THE PEOPLE…..all of the U.S. PATRIOTS, vote ourselves in. There will be a giant bonfire on the capital steps of all of their bogus laws. Freedom will ring.

  9. We can’t give up. That’s what they want. The local media just reported, (corrupt) Illinois politicians struck down conceal & carry again. No surprise that’s what these tyrants would do.

  10. Apparently there is a new amendment to the discovery rule in Illinois starting Jan1……No discovery may be requested except by court order. Just as well because the banksters attorneys do not comply with the rule & send you nothing you request. I imagine these attorneys tell their secretaries to put those requests right into the paper shredder.

  11. @STRIPES

    You said hold THEIR feet to the fire—-however, at this point I fell like im being burned at the stake—–my feet have already been cooked and soon the rest of me is going to go up like a marshmallow that got too close to the campfire

    the people who are doing this to me are busy packing for their three week sojourns to islands in the caribbean—where they can stick thei money in unnumbered savings accounts

  12. Time to hold their feet to the fire DC… They thought no one cared what the rule of law said & we were too stupid to know what it meant so we would just believe everything we were told. Well, they were wrong….some of us know what they are trying to steal is a lot more than our pensions, small businesses, livelihoods, wealth & property. What these control freaks are really after is our freedom & independence.

  13. @STRIPES
    you said; [its early i see youare using citations—good job]

    “3-205 Special Indorsement; blank indorsement; anomalous indorsement. (c.) The holder may convert a blank indorsement that consists only of a signature into a special indorsement by writing, above the signature of the indorser, words identifying the person to whom the instrument is payable.”

    Well from the servicers perspective that is just too restrictive and ergo that rule is replaced in industry practice by the following:





  14. It’s garbage in….garbage out.

  15. The GSE’s should have never been allowed to invest in this scam in the first place. This represents an illegal & unconstitutional conflict of interest. Anyway, Indorsement or Instruction does not guarantee Security Entitlements……3-205 Special Indorsement; blank indorsement; anomalous indorsement. (c.) The holder may convert a blank indorsement that consists only of a signature into a special indorsement by writing, above the signature of the indorser, words identifying the person to whom the instrument is payable.

  16. @ALL

    “IT AINT OVER UNTIL THE FAT LADY EATS YOU” See Matt Weidner post excerpt below


    Q And you’re in possession of the note?
    5 A The original, if it’s been returned from the
    6 Court, there was a request to have the originals
    7 returned from the Court.
    8 Q Why would you not return that document?
    9 A That’s not customary practice to — to show
    10 that mortgage was done; there’s also an outstanding
    11 balance that was waived on behalf of the borrower; and
    12 Fannie Mae has not waived their rights to seek a
    13 deficiency.
    14 Q But what does Everhome Mortgage, in that
    15 letter, state?
    16 A Everhome Mortgage states that it will not seek
    17 a deficiency.
    18 Q So Fannie Mae is going to hold onto the note.
    19 A Fannie Mae is the owner of the note.
    20 Q So there has been no waiver of deficiency.
    21 A On behalf of Everhome, there was a waiver of
    22 deficiency as part of the short sale agreement.
    23 Q So the true owner of the note, the holder of
    24 the note, may come back against Ms. Gordon.
    25 A I have no idea what their intentions are.

    They take possession of the note once the approval has
    2 been completed. Whether or not they seek a deficiency
    3 or not is up to Fannie Mae as the owner and holder of
    4 note at that point.

    THE COURT: Mr. Mogg, here’s what’s extremely
    15 troubling to the Court. I think you probably
    16 already know where I’m going. Every one of these
    17 cases, almost every one of them, a good portion of
    18 them, all come in here; somebody’s the servicer for
    19 maybe the owner. And that is one of the major
    20 issues in almost every one of these cases on these
    21 motions to dismiss.
    22 And the testimony I just heard, that the true
    23 owner now won’t release, even though the case has
    24 released the note, even though the case is
    25 dismissed and the original borrower may still seek

    deficiency issues, is — that’s probably the most
    2 troubling aspect of this particular case.

    And I’m
    3 sure it has repre — repercussions as to all the
    4 other litigation.
    5 If the servicers won’t come in here and say
    6 that they are the ones that are — have the legal
    7 authority to resolve issues in this — these cases,
    8 then the defendants hom — the borrowers should be
    9 able to negotiate in good faith with whoever is the
    10 plaintiff in this case.
    11 Otherwise, it totally brings a total fallacy
    12 on this whole — all this litigation, all my
    13 twenty-five hundred cases, basically.
    14 It’s really, really troubling.

    THE COURT: Well, how sad is it, though?
    12 It’s — it’s just disgusting, actually, that
    13 Ms. Gordon, the defendant in this case, can’t rely
    14 on this — this case to have that issue resolved.

  17. I was told it is Article 7, the contracts they are fraudclosing on. At least in the Land of Lincoln. However, they can’t prove these contracts exist if you hold their feet to the fire. Illinois Law says Article 8 governs foreclosures and if there is a conflict between Articles 8, 4 and 9, Articles 4 and 9 shall govern the foreclosure action. Well there clearly is a conflict as Article 8 cannot be enforced without proof of Control, by Delivery & Possession, by the Appropriate Person, by the Issuer, of an Investment Company Security, not by over issue to a Protected Purchaser, of a Securities Account. Indorsement or Instruction does not guarantee the Signature Indorsement.
    Article 8 states clearly that the Purchaser must have Proof of Authority with any other requisite necessary to obtain registration per 8-4; et seq. To obtain requisite of Security Entitlements; all said requirements must be met.

  18. Wednesday, October 31, 2012
    Ohio Supreme Court Reverses Schwartzwald
    While the issue was not expressly addressed, I believe the language of the opinion allows motions to vacate void judgments based upon the lack of standing.

    The case was floowed recently in Wallace another supreme court addressing the specific issue. It is VOID—-allowing recovery of damages, without a requirement of continued litigation. however as a practical matter if a home comes into possession of a bona fide purchaser–it cant be unwound—only damages

    without another proof that the debt was owned it would appear damages are owed–if a motion to vacate judgment is filed and rescission sought–or damages if rescission is not possible

    this pair of cases are huge game-changers–

    however the houses are very frequently destroyed

  19. A Must Read … Good Answers and Case Law.

  20. A. Transfer of Note
    1. The Legal Methods Available – Article 3 and Common Law
    Most judges seem to assume that mortgage notes are
    negotiable instruments, and, therefore, Article 3 of the Uniform
    Commercial Code determines the right of a secondary market
    purchaser to enforce a mortgage note.14 The touchstone of proper
    acquisition of the right to enforce a negotiable instrument is physical
    delivery of the original note, endorsed by the prior payee either in
    blank or to the new owner.15 In exceptional cases, a lender who has
    13 A bit fewer than half the states require mortgage lenders to file a court action
    to foreclose and sell the mortgaged property, while the remaining states permit
    foreclosure by notice and sale, i.e., non-judicial foreclosure. Id. at 30-33.
    14 See, e.g., Eaton v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, No. SUCV201101382, 2011 WL
    6379284 (Mass. Super. Ct. June 17, 2011); see also, e.g., Dale Whitman, How
    Negotiablity Has Fouled up the Secondary Mortgage Market, and What to Do
    About It, 37 PEPP. L. REV. 737 (2010) (surveying cases that either address
    negotiability or assume mortgage notes are negotiable).
    15 See Gee v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 72 So. 3d 211, 213-14 (Fl. Dist. Ct. App the original note and can show that it purchased the payee’s rights
    from the prior holder, but is nonetheless missing proper
    endorsements, can also enforce a note.16 Even more exceptionally,
    the note buyer can enforce the note if the note itself is missing or lost,
    but it can be proven to have been in the prior owner’s possession at
    the time of the loss or theft.17 These rules have led to some fairly
    straightforward results denying the validity of a foreclosure when the
    plaintiff or selling party does not have possession of the note,18 or if
    the plaintiff has the note, but the note is payable or endorsed to
    someone else and there is no other evidence that the party in
    possession purchased the note from the original payee.19
    If mortgage notes are not Article 3 negotiable instruments,
    then presumably the common law of contracts governs their
    assignment. In addition, some provisions of U.C.C. Article 9
    arguably permit proof of a mortgage note transfer without
    endorsement and delivery, by proving the existence of a separate
    written agreement to sell the note.20 The foreclosing party’s attempt
    to prove note transfer via this alternative was unsuccessful in the
    Massachusetts cases, discussed below,21 and, for the most part, the
    industry and the courts have looked to the traditional method of
    endorsement and delivery as the preferred way for a party to prove it
    is entitled to enforce the mortgage note

  21. The chain of title of a promissory note is very important to every homeowner in America. The inability to show a complete chain of title and ownership of a promissory note from Lender A to Lender B to Lender C etc. has become a major impediment in mortgage servicers ability to foreclose on properties in judicial foreclosure states and in relief of stays in Federal Bankruptcy Court. The issue of standing (in other words, the question of who has the legal right to sue), is the foundation of the produce-the-note strategy, which forces a lender prove that it has a legal right to sue.

    Attorneys estimate that the documents belonging to as many as 50% of the mortgages made between 2001-2008 have been lost or destroyed, leading to demands by borrowers that the foreclosing party produce the note as evidence of the debt.[5]

    Consumer advocates claim that almost all entities attempting to foreclose on homeowners are not the Real Lender, but rather a Servicer collecting monthly payments for a mortgage backed security (MBS) Trust. Therefore, courts have determined that Servicers are not the Real Party in Interest and possess no legal standing to seek relief from the courts.

    If a claimant has paid taxes on property for a period of seven successive years,
    they can acquire property under §5/13-109 if (1) the claimant has been in “actual”
    possession of the land for seven years, and (2) his claim to the property was
    made under color of title,24 (3) in good faith.25
    What is considered good faith? Most courts use a common sense construction
    of the expression “good faith.” For example, in Winters v. Haines, the Illinois
    Supreme Court stated that “a purchaser who buys and pays his money for land
    under the belief he is acquiring title, acquires title in good faith.”26 While good
    faith is required in relation to possession for seven years under color of title, it is
    not relevant under the twenty-year requirement for adverse possession.
    To comply with this provision, the possession must be hostile, actual, visible,
    open and notorious, exclusive and continuous for a period of seven years.27 The
    possession, color of title and payment of taxes must exist concurrently before thestatute of limitations begins to run. Seven full years must have intervened
    between the day when the first payment of taxes was made and the day the suit
    was commenced to recover possession of the land.28
    In Cobb v. Nagele,29 plaintiff landowners [“plaintiffs”] brought action against the
    adjacent landowner [“defendant”] to quiet title to a disputed 11 ½ foot wide strip
    of land allegedly acquired by adverse possession.30 Plaintiffs alleged that for
    over 40 years, they farmed the land in question and had continuously, hostilely,
    openly and notoriously possessed that land.31 Defendant testified that in 1987 he
    began going onto the disputed strip of land, but only to mow weeds, not to
    destroy crops.32
    The circuit court ruled that plaintiffs had acquired title to the disputed property by
    adverse possession and had met their burden of proof regarding the doctrine’s
    required elements. Defendant appealed, arguing that he had title to the property
    because he paid taxes on the property since 1982 under color of title.33
    The Appellate Court of Illinois did not agree. The fact that the plaintiffs farmed
    the land satisfied the requirements of open, notorious, and actual possession of
    the premises. Further, defendant’s testimony that he did not mow down plaintiff’s
    crops until 1987 indicates that plaintiffs were in exclusive possession of the land
    from 1943 to 1987.34 The hostility requirement was also met because plaintiffs,
    in farming the land, were acting as to indicate they were claiming title.35
    Moreover, defendant’s argument regarding his payment of property taxes was
    without merit. §5/13-109 of the Limitations Act only applies to parties who pay
    taxes under color of title for seven years and are in actual possession of the
    property. Here, defendant did not attempt actual possession until 1987, and
    therefore was not in possession for the requisite seven years. One can not
    acquire property under §13-109 unless (1) actual possession, (2) color of title
    and (3) payment of taxes have occurred concurrently for seven uninterrupted
    The adverse possession doctrine serves as a notice to property owners that ifthey allow others to occupy their land for the requisite time period in a manner
    that satisfies the statutory components, they will be deemed to have submitted to
    the occupant’s claim of right to such possession

  23. Thank You for reply MS. I’m in a lien theory state, we hold title and only granted lien as collateral. Our problem is it was never registered with SEC. It was FHA loan (because of pending sale of previous home). The SEC and FHA, Ginnie Mae all confirmed they had no knowledge of the loan, they thought maybe TBW were involved . The broker/lender is still in business, says they sold the loan … We cant get Note/allonge/assignments from lender .. 3 liens on title for the same loan. No proof of ownership from any of them except origional lender and they say they sold it but have no records to show to who.? The terms are Cash for Title. Contract says no early payoff penalty. Are you saying we cant get clear title even if we pay them (whoever they are) off in full?

  24. Maiden Lane and all of the soured mortgage repurchases by the FED are a theft ring. Where are the receipts that say they paid due consideration to the Treasury before they engaged in any other transactions….? There aren’t any receipts, that’s right. The U.S. TAXPAYERS were robbed at the ORIGINATION by the FED….A private bank. That’s why we are here. They also intentionally structured these mortgages to fail. As a result of massive fraud Wall Street created a quadrillion in debt that is unsustainable & can never be repaid. If your mortgage failed, that debt can never be cured.

  25. maher, are you talking Federal Reserve Bank of New York? If that’s what you meant, then, yes, they hold Maiden Lane assets, with BlackRock as administrator and RESCAP as servicer. But there is no lawful claim to MY title.

  26. MS….ARTICLE 9 et seq governs secured transactions…..secured transactions can only be created by Performance by the Issuer by Consideration, Delivery and Acceptance.

  27. There never was a trust to begin with. So….Res Judicata.

  28. MS, I beg to differ. Title is not lost to the party paying the credit default swap. There is no subrogation in that transaction. “Trust corpus” no longer exists after trigger event of default. Correct? We are still deeded owners as per Wisconsin law. By “Bank of New York” are you referring to Maiden Lane? That’s BlackRock and ResCap in that transaction.

  29. Defendants have no ammo other than to try and discredit my counsel.

    They will (discredit) trust me ….they will to the point he will pull out Roger …its only a matter of time ….He will pull out …


  30. Comments – (By Colonel Crispy Creme )

    Article 9 does not apply because the FED never Performed on their fraudulently induced contracts [and due to poor olfactory senses. .]

    Survey Say’s Buddha Ding – Wrong!

    Possession is perfection. Collateral must be in the hands of the member bank before its funds the transaction . Every loan closes and funds on a different date. Article 9 is for UCC filing purposes and Article 8 is invoked (in a defense) upon the depositors satisfaction for obligations due on WH Lines. (go read Art 8 first …then attack back Jack )

    For the unlawful retainer questions I am receiving by e-mail …
    Its nearly impossible to contest as it is outside the courts jurisdiction and subject to strict four corner rule …

    Arguments- right to hear challenges for purposes of rescinding the service. Lack of standing to bring foreclosure is a prohibiting element of law that is a preclusion for lawful service .

  31. Counselor VanEck, thank you for that. Your interpretation has certainly made the rounds as my attorney received it without credit to you. I am glad to know where it came from. No offense meant by the reference to Soliman. I interpreted the argument as one that Maher has made in the past.
    Deb Wynn, thank you. We are still in the fight. Defendants have no ammo other than to try and discredit my counsel.


    We just want to pay what we borrowed off –

    and not be in jeopardy of another party suing us for the same loan later.

    We want our title warrantable if we have to sell later because we get to dam old to take care of it.

    What is wrong here?

    People want to pay and enforce a contract.


    Monday December 10 2012


  33. It makes me happy to hear Deborah say she knows how to fight. That is a great feeling when you believe in yourself. I hope more Americans believe that they can educate themselves and fight this massive fraud.

  34. Please allow me to clarify the FEDERAL GOVT. is acting as a proxy for the Black Nobility. The FED and the politicians are stealing our land for the Black Nobles. The FED INVESTORS & THE BANK INVESTORS set us up & used us to steal our land. There is a meaning behind the word Black & it does not mean the color of the skin.

  35. They want to try & keep us dumb by trying to make us look dumb. That’s why I use facts to debunk their bunk. It puts them on notice they are going to have to have some facts to back up their claims.

  36. and BTW, they cant wear me out- i know how to fight.

  37. UKG- bravo. im clapping my hands i wish you the best.

  38. @MasterServicer, without the name calling, what would you suggest we do? We just want to pay what we borrowed off and not be in jepordy of another party suing us for the same loan later. We want our title warrentable if we have to sell later because we get to dam old to take care of it. What is wrong here? People want to pay and enforce a contract. And we cant …. Its no wonder this country is bankrupt. I pay the taxes myslef because BOA didnt after we paid them the money into escrow. Its our responsibility to keep them paid, its the right thing to do. Right?

  39. Bloomberg news reporting, more than half the country hasn’t even started their Xmas shopping.

  40. Article 9 does not apply because the FED never Performed on their fraudulently induced contracts.

  41. @ JVE
    I disagree—-jury trial as to facts is guaranteed if you request it with the answer——–demand for jury trial–thus if there is somehow a factual question raised as to whether the claimant is the owner of the note—-it can go to jury iin a court of common pleas–i dont know about limited jurisdiction “lnd courts” we dont have such things in Ohio

    its hard to get there but let me ose the matter—-supposes that no ART 9 schedule of loans to include yours was filed with SEC or UCC—and you have depositions from the purported owners employees –one saying yes I said that BoA owned your note–holder of your note—but i was mistaken and after you told me another party–my employer was claimant—i recanted and restated that my employer was owner-holder—sorry about that

    Now is that a fact question or not? Is it so clear you could get a directed verdict?

    FYI–this is not hypothetical except have not obtained depositions–just emails

  42. Counterclaims can’t be brought because these courts don’t have subject matter jurisdiction over these foreclosures… In America the rule of law says the mortgage & note are inseperable. These notes are not negotiable instruments or security instruments. These crooks broke the law and are stealing. So Jan, don’t tell me I don’t have a right to a jury trial if the Judge is not upholding the rule of law.

  43. Just to clarify, so that it is clear to readers here: there is no automatic right to a jury trial in property cases. Claims brought by banks in what are essentially “land courts” are typically heard before a Judge in a non-Jury setting. If you bring “counter-claims” for damages within that same suit, your cross-claims for damages are likely also going to be heard by a Judge, not a Jury. If you want to go to a Jury, then you as a new plaintiff can bring a separate action.

    If you bring the action in a State Court, then your separate action may or may not be “Removed” to the U.S. District Court, mostly done by banker lawyers to place the litigant in an unfamiliar setting, and to get away from the individual-juror selection process in the State Courts. You can then expect a “Rule 12(b)(6)” Motion to Dismiss to immediately follow, this is done every single time (not that it is a worthwhile Motion, more that you likely don’t know the complex Rules of the USDC, and the other side wants to exploit that). In theory you can bring a Motion to Remand, if you have a grasp of the grounds. In the Federal Court, you do have a right to a jury trial (if you claim it).

    What Court you want to be in is dependent entirely on the circumstances of your State. Some Judges are wise to the behavior of banks and their lawyers, and being in their Court works to your advantage; for example, the Courts in New York City. The Federal Court in Cleveland Ohio has worked well for homeowners, mostly because of the lead of Judge Boyko. In other places, it works against you, so do a little research as to the tenor of the Courts before you file.

  44. Masterservicer……..You just called yourself a moron & here’s why…….Obama told Romney in one of the debates about this FEUDALISM with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT….you are either dumb as a box of rocks or, have another agenda if you don’t get this is a FEDERAL LAND GRAB by our FOREIGN ENEMIES.

  45. My sister & her husband recently filed Bk and were told they couldn’t extinguish the second mortgage and they were told not to notify the bank trying to take their home they were filing Bk. I thought that whole thing sounded kind of shady.

  46. It does not make sense to pay property tax on property if you are the party being sued. Who in their right mind would pay tax on property someone else claims they own….? The cases need to be settled, that is why in Illinois, IMFL says the Plaintiff bringing the (arrogant) claim must be prepared to pay the property taxes and maintenance until the case being litigated is settled. However, if you are not in fc, you are responsible for the property taxes and maintenance of the property.

  47. Not even in BK. The only hope will be to strip off the second. But this will take 5 years

  48. @GUEST
    YES–complain with attached -unindorsed note reinforced by a really nice forged assignment of mortgage——-screaming gimme gimme ASAP—–nothing wrong there

  49. I beg to differ Jan, about ones right to a jury trial in foreclosure if you have been intentionally harmed by these banks and the judges are too corrupt to uphold the law. Also, it is the FDIC who are hiding behind these fraudclosures because the Federal Government apparently believes they have some SPECIAL POWERS and can insure a Quadrillion dollars in bank fraud, committed by the PRIVATELY OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE BANK with U.S. TAXPAYER MONEY & $8 TRILLION IN U.S. TAXPAYER PROPERTY…….THEREFORE, NOT ONLY ARE THEY IMPOSTERS BY MASKING THEIR TRUE IDENTITY TO STEAL OUR PROPERTY & AIDING & ABETTING CRIMES BUT…..The party invoking Federal Jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the elements, (FW/PBS, Inc., -v- Dallas 493 U.S. 215, 231 1990).

  50. To Usedkarguy and others: I correct myself. the “tutorial” I wrote was published in another website, possibly in response to something written in a newspaper. Anyway, delighted to see that it has been widely distributed. A big part of success in Court is the general consciousness-raising of the greater public. And that, admittedly, is a long haul – although I am optimistic that more people (potential jury pool) now understand that the Wall Street legacy banks were and are engaged in a gigantic fraud. It is that awareness that leads to huge jury awards.

    Remember this, when you go to court: you do not have to “prove” anything: it is not criminal court. You are in civil court. All you have to do is convince the jury. And that is one good reason to sue the lender under theories of lender liability, quite outside the foreclosure; in foreclosure litigation, typically you are not entitled to a jury.

  51. To Usedcarguy: The tutorial that was sent to you was authored by me, some time ago, and posted to LivingLies. Happy it was useful.

  52. Why do you think they started offering loan mods?

    reimbursement by a mis joinder under misleading and false material representations while ripening claims under a counter claim for restraint, See Laches and related equitable estoppel . […All are known as “equitable defenses” in that they arise from case law when courts decided earlier matter …discretion to balance the equities between the parties for relief when appropriate. as a defense – Laches is neglect or delay which caused prejudice to the other party. . . a presumption that a delay is unreasonable. Thus, a defendant can claim failure of the lender as plaintiff to bring the suit in a timely fashion.].

    Reimbursement get it ….passssss through …get it …..Loan Mods, Mod Squad, Tri Pod Green Sod … read Frank Dood as for Guest …Survey said -Woe! Come on NG !

    2008 Great shot to win
    2009 Some Shot
    2010 For get it
    2011 Wake up
    2012 ( we are winning ….and can demonstrate this statement ..) 2012 is the year you had in most cases to take this party and end it . Why ?..just do the math yourself …a few days left and don’t waste them .

    I could not help you if I wanted too …
    so this is NOT A SOLICITATION

  53. So BOAs choice was to try to screw us again by sending NOD in 2010 for non payment of our property taxes.
    Wrong Fool – De recognized assets cannot be serviced – wrong

    The very same property taxes that were escrow d and paid with our mortgage.

    ***Wrong (are you on dope! ) Please NO escrows were set up for mortgage assets SOLD. Not until triggered….then …?

    I count at least three sets of records … cough cough.. triple tracking.
    Wrong [Jac’s A$$ wrong ..]
    1) Trust Common Shares
    2) Neg Pledge Collateralize Bond
    3) Trust Preferred Certs (Waterfall)

    Survey say’s …..woe!

  54. Leave a Reply – this is a FEDERAL LAND GRAB & not many Americans really seem to give a damn about their freedom & independence.

    ***Wrong Moron Alert —Wrong ***Wrong Moron Alert —Wrong ***Wrong Moron Alert —Wrong ***Wrong Moron Alert —Wrong

    Its called marshaling in all US homes sold to foreign national central banks …as collateral for future income stream paid by bond holders….as zeros and neg pledges ! Fed is salvaging what another administration sold off …..

    Stop that collective cognitive constipation ….Wrong – Bad advice , Survey say’s to comment’s – Pass / Wrong Thong …Bring it down .

  55. Leave a Reply-

    Caution Moron Alert !
    (next up NG’s Guest !)

    Here is a question for you to ponder …. Why was BOA so desperate to fake a default and try to get the judgement and title in CWs name? Why?

    *** …its to complete the mandatory M&A needed to salvage foreclosures

    Could it be that the loan was kept in default on the books for almost three years? What happens after three years that would make BOA so desperate to commit another fraud amist all the investigations?

    ***….Dual tracking for long term debt owed to bond holders

    Plaintiff is responsible for the property taxes while the property is in fc court in my state.Guest, on December 9, 2012 at 11:34 pm said:
    Think about this …. If the loan balance was zero and the seizure was never completed and they still neeed the fc deed. …..Two… Bully, harass and intimidate you till you run you off and they claim the property under abandonment

    **** Ahhhhh Fool ….. abandonment of claims …claims not RE ….for any rights remaining in subrogation of liquidated trust assets …

    or option Three …. F/C on property taxes. -Pay your Taxes People!

    ***Negative Will Smith Negative —-Statutory trustee always pays the taxes. Your prima fascia in court discovery is that you are the reimbursement …..

    Bro, stop your advice is horrific …wrong !
    Neil, have Dan E or Tiki Tavi and who ever, Anonymous, what ever, stop guessing .

    Please !

  56. It gets messy when a party who does not own the note and mortgage, a party who does not hold mortgage lien on title but yet files LP and FC in Judicial with a copy of the note with out endorsements and claims ownership…. Its bound to come back and bite someone in the butt later. Like the Homeowner. Better the homeowner Bark before the Bankster Bites.

  57. What state do you live in?

  58. Here is a question for you to ponder …. Why was BOA so desperate to fake a default and try to get the judgement and title in CWs name? Why? Could it be that the loan was kept in default on the books for almost three years? What happens after three years that would make BOA so desperate to commit another fraud amist all the investigations?

  59. Plaintiff is responsible for the property taxes while the property is in fc court in my state.

  60. Think about this …. If the loan balance was zero and the seizure was never completed and they still neeed the fc deed. There is only three ways to get it without exposing themselves to fraud again. One… Get your signature on a new set of docs. Two… Bully, harass and intimidate you till you run you off and they claim the property under abandonment or option Three …. fc on property taxes. Pay your Taxes People!

  61. IMHO ..Bk only helps the fraudster banksters write off their liabilities and we pay for it. Bk puts no money in our pockets and does not save our property from these FED crooks so, why bother. Dual tracking is another way for the FED to Racketeer and money launder.

  62. The refi offers are there to keep the ponzi scheme going for as long as possible. However, those will implode as the economy deteriorates. The truth is a quadrillion in credit derivatives fraud is floating around in cyberspace and it is unsustainable and can never be repaid. The traitors from within allowed that to happen. Educated Americans will not fall for the bait. So far as the courts believing these contracts exist, they know damned well if the notes don’t exist, the contracts don’t exist but, this is a FEDERAL LAND GRAB & not many Americans really seem to give a damn about their freedom & independence.

  63. In my case the real PII dont want to come forward because of the liabilities associated with that admission. I have no way of proving who it is because of all the mod fraud/duel tracking fraud committed on title and in court in 2008 by CW. Left BOA with an empty bag in one hand and liabilities in the other. So BOAs choice was to try to screw us again by sending NOD in 2010 for non payment of our property taxes. The very same property taxes that were escrowed and paid with our mortgage. I count at least three sets of records … cough cough.. triple tracking.

  64. BK is the only answer. But I dont except It! I’m just waiting for the Real PII to step forward and honor the contract.

  65. They want nice new unforged notes and fresh mortgages signed by the title owner–it clears the title to the property for them to take a frsh mortgage starting with your title–not their mortgage and it gives them an enforceable note——-but the question i have is how you extinguish that old debt??? its still out there floating around–i get offers to purchase “leads” to lead me to a sucker for collection on junk debt–i used to get “american banker “

  66. The courts do not see it that way, the new lender and the new contract replaces the old mortgage and its liabilities against the new lender. Your beef is with the old lender once you sign with a new one. Why do you think every third commercial on TV is a Refinance commercial? Why do you think mailboxes are being flooded with refinance offers? Why do you think they started offering loan mods? They needed What to get their partners in crime off the hook for as many loans as possible? The Right answer is your Signature on a New Loan Agreement,

  67. Guest…..those contracts don’t exist.

  68. The truth is, too many Americans do not equate the loss of property with the loss of their personal & financial freedom and independence. The American people are victims but don’t feel these manufactured losses are a threat because they are uneducated about what freedom really means. They don’t feel a sense of hopelessness in these losses & remain almost frighteningly optimistic they can rebuild what has been stolen from them, and fail to see what they are really losing they won’t be able to get back without an Act of God. It is frightening to watch how they are hopelessly brainwashed into moving forward & forgetting the massive robbery that has occurred and things will get better. That is a BIG LIE….things won’t get better by giving up all of your wealth & property to these crooks. Yet the American people are believing this crap and are all to willing to comply, conform & cooperate with bank fraud and the judges are more than happy to oblige their idiocy.

  69. The Judges are only intrested in your most recent mortgage, Why? When you refinanced or got a modification or DIL, Did You Sign Things You Did Not Understand? 4 corners of a contract

  70. If your not being sued … you dont go to court, no lone the Supreme Court. Unless you want to sue them … But I’m just a blade of grass in a large meadow, they would have mowed me down in legal fees alone. So I just put the mortgage payment back into our retirement and pay the taxes. Waiting for the Real PII to come forward.

  71. The problem has always been if the judges ruled one way for a party who could pay and another way for a party who could not pay based on the same law being applied in both cases, they would have to apply the ruling to ALL Cases…. Example… they ruled for the banks as per norm when a homeowner who couldnt pay anyway (all other issues aside)…..But what happens to those who paid (no default) and has the ability to pay without modification? No Mod = No Liability Waivers or Admissions. No Liability Waivers + No Admissions = No proof. No Proof = No Lawsuit If you were a victim of mod fraud by CW and declined their offer ….. transferred your payments plus all their bogas fees and escrow shortages then again got snowballed by BOA fraud to cover up CW fraud on your title and in your court … Demand Enforcement of your Contract!

  72. I would have thought the remedy at least alternatively would have been a filing in judicial ethics board of state supreme ct???

  73. The judges should be doing the right thing in the civil court rooms and making right the wrongdoings of the FED right where they are committing their heinous criminal acts upon the American people. These courtrooms are being governed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so there is no excuse why when wronged homeowners are pleading for justice, they are being forced to go to appeals court when the fraud is in most cases, on the face of the documents. Especially when homeowners seeking justice cannot even find proper legal representation because these attorneys are compromised in one way or another.

  74. California Court of Appeal’s Issues Writ of Mandamus Ordering Lower Court to Disqualify Former Countrywide Home Loan Lawyer Turn Judge From Largest Predatory Lending Case According to AUAF
    California Court Appeal’s issued order to stay all proceedings in Merritt v. Mozilo, et al, 109CV159993, and for Judge James Stoelker to be disqualified from the case after presiding Judge Richard J. Loftus refused to disqualify him after Stoelker’s bias was shown by the plaintiffs in the case.
    . .Santa Clara Superior Court
    I have been attending these court hearings and as a private citizen I am appalled at the ease to which these judges are disregarding the laws of California and refusing to apply them to the Merritts as they do for lawyers’ SPENCER GRAVES
    San Jose, CA (PRWEB) December 07, 2012

    The Superior Court of Santa Clara, had until December 3, 2012, to show cause before the higher court as to why it should not order the full disqualification of one of its judges who is shown to have made biased decisions in favor of Bank of American, Countrywide Home Loans and its company officers who are each defendants in the nations largest Predatory Lending fraud case brought by individuals without the aid of any lawyers.

    On November 26, 2012, the California Court of Appeal’s issued an unprecedented order which commanded presiding judge Richard Loftus to disqualify a subordinate Judge James Stoelker from conducting any further proceedings involving Merritt v. Mozilo, et al., 109CV159993.

    Local Court Watcher, Citizens Advocate and Expert Statistician Spencer Grave, who has monitored and reported on each of these proceedings, reports that the transcripts of the hearings shows that the Merritts had presented evidence to Judge Stoelker during an August 2012 hearing accusing him of bias against them due to his rulings always made in favor of Defendants and that they did not understand such until they learned of his seven plus year employment with Countrywide Home Loans. They further explained in court and their moving papers to disqualify that it “sadden” them that he had concealed his past relationship with Countrywide because it appeared to be deceptive.

    The August 2012 court transcripts further reports that Judge Stoelker does finally admit his past employment; however, the Merritts had to come upon this information only with the aid of local lawyer Robin Yeamans, and not due to the Judge himself disclosing such. Afterwards the Judge filed a “Verified Answer” which contested and fought removal from the case.

    A review of the court records reflects that instead of presiding Judge Loftus disqualifying Stoelker, he sent the request for disqualification to Santa Cruz Superior Court Timothy Volkmann who also refused to enforce disqualification laws and denied the Merritts requests on October 2, 2012 to disqualify Stoelker.

    The court files shows that the Merritts filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, asking the Court of Appeal’s to take the extraordinary step of intervening in the operations of the lower Superior Court and either terminate Judge Stoelker from their case or conduct a hearing so that more evidence court be provided for such purpose.

    Without hearing, Justice Premo, issued the explicit order for Stoelker to be disqualified or to come before the Appellate Court to explain why it should not issue such a mandatory order.

    Statistically, a writ of mandamus has traditionally only been issued once out of more than 1,000 request filed and so is the most rare order that is ever issued by the Court of Appeal’s.

    Salma and David Merritt lawsuit alleges that they were targeted 2006 by Countrywide Home Loans defendants into purchasing loans for their $749,000 which were totally unlike what they were promised; left with mostly blank loan documents which did not disclose payment amounts or structure; conspired with Appraiser to falsify the value of their property by at least $80,000 above fair market value and committed other practices upon them which was part of overall practice that was inflicted upon millions of Americans.

    This is the second Appellate Decision which has issued in this case. On December 6, 2011, Mr Merritt gave oral argument before the Court of Appeal’s and on December 19, 2011, the Superior Court dismissal of Wells Fargo was reversed and reinstated to the case. Wells Fargo has since entered in to a very generous settlement with the Merritts to escape further liability.

    The Merritts will now be assigned another Judge; however, according to declarations of Mr Merritt which are on file in this case, he is alleging that there seems to be a systemic practice by Judges to team up with one another and fail to equally apply the law due to his efforts to expose their errors in rulings and proceedings.

  75. We are not entirely helpless in putting specific cases of egregious abuse before all the authorities if not to help your case–then to give them cumulatively the benefit of notice of impact of their policies at the street level. Personally, much of what I have encountered re devious practices–arguably deceptive practices–at such levels of detail in implementation defies what a regulator in DC would ever imagine. Aside from an ivory tower distance from the street, the nature of those positions insulates them from shared information. Oddly, most agencies are barred by law and nature from sharing case-specific information, although most share with the alleged transgressors. The accused have a right to know who accuses them of what–just as a citizen has a fundamental duty to disclose information in respect of criminal activity–irrespective of confidentiality agreements. If this were not true–then the constitution would no longer apply.

    The point is to very specifically describe your facts—that which you know by observation–not what you read or saw on an internet posting.

    SEC Headquarters
    100 F Street, NE
    Washington, DC 20549
    (202) 942-8088
    contact form: https://tts.sec.gov/oiea/QuestionsAndComments.html

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    P.O. Box 4503
    Iowa City, Iowa 52244
    Fax (855) 237-2392
    whistleblower@consumerfinance.gov or (855) 695-7974.

    New York State Department of Financial Services
    One Commerce Plaza
    Albany, NY 12257
    Attn: Superintendent Benjamin M. Lawsky

    FDIC Consumer Response Center
    1100 Walnut Street, Box #11
    Kansas City, MO 64106
    1-877-ASK-FDIC (1-877-275-3342)
    703-812-1020 (Fax number)

    Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine
    30 E. Broad St., 14th Floor
    Columbus, OH 43215
    c/o Tracy M. Morrison
    Assistant Attorney General
    Consumer Protection Section
    (614) 466-3999

    Federal Reserve Board
    General Comments for the Chairman and the Board of Governors
    20th Street and Constitution Avenue N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20551
    Phone: 202-974-7008

  76. That is a great idea guest. I wish I had that knowledge before they filed their fraudlosures on me. However, as a victim of their massive fraud, I am now the wronged party, & I am seeking compensatory damages and other equitable relief.

  77. I believe the reason why there have been no criminal prosecutions of these crooks is because… the banks were working for the politicians & committing 3 felonies = life in prison. That part is really wrong but what makes me really furious is the trillions they have received since Obama was elected …the TBTF LEGISLATION IN DODD-FRANK, quintillions in our wealth they have stolen and hidden, the FED has been allowed to hijack our Treasury and our country via these traitor politicians, no justice for WE THE PEOPLE in regard to fraudclosures or that fraudulent manufactured stock market crash in 2008..

  78. Sorry BOA…. No Hardship means No Loan Mod. We wont bother applying so stop trying to force it down out throats! No Short Sale! No DIL! No Sale! I dont do business with companies who tried to steal from me Period!!! No Third Chance! No! No! No! I am able and willing to comply with the contract and pay it off!! Show me You can Perform your end of the Contract and I will gladly pay you off!

  79. Demand Performance of the contract and they will Fail!! If you cant perform …. you cant inforce. Yep! If they dont have standing to inforce… then they can not comply with the contract. Demand performance of the contract ….. I did! And they have not filed to forclose after I stopped payments over 2 years ago. They know we have the money,… we been down that road. And they know I’m just daring them to file another set of fraud docs on title or in court! Million Bucks for My State in penilties if they do. Hmmmm 100 g’s or a millions g’s? Risky Risky ….

  80. Many of us here have understood well the underpinnings of this crime for several years now. But when a nurse, or a carpenter, or a teacher can see through the fog and make out the huge crime syndicate, and our department of justice and the state AGs can’t, it’s a lonely road to say the least.

    I’ve done everything I know to alert the law from local to fed…..they aren’t at all interested. Why? Because they’re all a part of the securitization machine, alongside the judiciary. It all boils down to this….they fear mightily the ramifications of losing the banking system, or rather, the banking syndicate. They know all too well that there wouldn’t be gasoline on Monday if these asshole institutions went down on a Friday, and the criminals at the helms of these institutions know it as well. I say bring it on.

    So, just like ignoring climate change’s coming tempest all for the sake of a dollar, and big ag and pharma’s carnage leading us all to an early grave with their worthless products, so too will the fleecing continue as long as TPTB are making boatlods of money, and the runways are constantly foamed, and there’s more graft to be shared between Wall Street and the Beltway.

    The attitude towards us mortgagors as being played like cheap fiddles by the masters of the universe on Wall Street shows condescension that is way beyond needless. It serves no purpose, much like the meme that Wall Street still attempts to grandstand today about how we all bought too much house, or used them as ATMs. Rather than tossing cheap shots at struggling mortgagors, how’s about exposing this charade to those who can truly make a difference? The fighting mortgagor’s hands are full dealing with low-life criminals in $2000 suits with handfuls of free money and licenses to counterfeit.

  81. For starters…..Question #1….What have you done with all of the U.S. TAXPAYER money …?! #2….Who do you owe all of this money to and why…? #3…There is an estimated total $8 trillion in U.S.real estate and you have received at least $50 trillion dollars in U.S. Taxpayer money. Why is that? #4…Why is the National Debt $16 trillion dollars when the US TAXPAYERS pay for everything upfront at the Origination..? #5….Why hasn’t the FED been shut down yet for defaulting on their debts they owe the U.S. TREASURY …?

  82. C-Span could get a legitimate ratings boom from such a grilling.

  83. Since the politicians in Congress & the Senate won’t do the peoples work, WE THE PEOPLE should request they depose all of the CEOs of the bankcorp so the CITIZENRY can ask them a few choice questions about their credit practices. That is our right as Natural Born, law abiding, tax paying U.S. Citizens.

  84. I am curious…. if the judges ….who are…..the 11th Amendment, are asked by the makers of all of the notes….who are WE THE PEOPLE….The 9th Amendment…. to uphold the rule of law and prove to WE THE PEOPLE that in fact, the FED paid the Treasury back for their original loan they borrowed in our names and are not in Dishonor and in Possession of an Over Due Instrument… and the FED are not just some fictitious payees trying to gain Unjust enrichment….will the judges honor our requests….?

    Let me Guess—–they respond to your assertion/proofs of forgery—that you are paranoid, and difficult ? Im curious if they have a playbook about casting aspersions–if so it would be lovely to discover it.

  86. Hey usedkarguy…..all the good posters have left…? You haven’t seen nothing yet……..now the coverup is really over & here comes the real dirt. Better armor yourself. The jig is up.

  87. Research…? Here’s some of my research…. Show me the receipt, you lousy FEDSTERS, that proves you paid the Treasury back for the Original loan you crooks took out in my name BEFORE you engaged yourselves in any transactions in my name that ended up ruining my life by destroying my small business of 25 years.

  88. in all honesty, this Maher Soliman speaking English, I love that guy. He knows he gave me to the spear used to pierce the corporate veil. He just has trouble making money off the explanation. Expert witness he is. It’s really a shame that THIS site degenerated into a sales tool. Sorry, Neil. But we could have been here four and a half years ago. I get comments from the attorney consortium that I was “ahead of the curve”. That recognition of advanced knowledge is certainly due to the Garfield Continuum. But the trimming down of the argument, inherently, to contract fraud is, indeed, difficult.. Only with good research and evidence will a homeowner prevail.
    Unfortunately, the banks, and their foreclosure mill law firm co-conspirators caught in a “theft by conversion” racketeering enterprise, have relegated their arguments (at least in my case) to personal attacks on my attorney and myself. When the rule of law is used against the attackers, they resort to spin and ancilliary arguments devoid of real law. They intend to wear out you and your attorney.
    Bad securitization is certainly an issue related to title, but the homeowner causes of action lie in the breach of contract area.
    Someone asked why all the good posters are gone.
    This is all a collossal waste of time unless it’s information related to state law causes of action. I said a long time ago: divide into state oriented blogging and keep it related to winning cases.

  89. People can’t face the size & scope of this conspiracy. They are not willing to believe this many are in on this. They are afraid to believe everyone is out to get them. Big mistake.

  90. True, the judges are being paid well & filling up their pension funds by fraudclosing. They work for the FED…like the Politicians & most of the attorneys, they are not being moral, just greedy & what are WE THE PEOPLE doing about it…? DC you are missing the mark I believe by blaming attorneys for not being bright enough. Only we have the power in this corrupt land to invoke the court to uphold the rule of law in our cases. The people are not putting up a fight & it’s due to the brainwashing and intimidation factor. The truth is, you can’t make people believe the truth about these crooks.

  91. dcb – those distinctions about fraud you make are very important imo.
    I hope you’ll keep at it and keep commenting about them as they relate to void and voidable lest we forget or not apply. I don’t think
    Weidner was trying to avoid a big contest over discovery violations, tho. He apparantly was being ignored, best I could tell. I hope somewhere he noted that he continued (with the trial) without prejudice to any motions or objections he’d made about discovery and about the other guy’s surprise witness, for instance. (it wasn’t a rebuttal witness ftr) I saw that the bankster’s attorney said motions in limine (filed by MW which I didn’t read) weren’t appropriate in non-jury trials, which was news to me and I don’t believe it, and the obj to the mtn in Lim on the date of trial might have been “late”. I don’t know when the mtn was filed. It’s my lay-person understanding that at least in fed court, all witnesses, business records, and exhibits must be listed in the trial statement and the records and exhibits to be relied on must be supplied to the opposing party at least 10 days prior to trial. I don’t recall any objections to not being supplied the alleged business records. The trial court overruled most of the objections MW did make, so it’ll be interesting to see what the appeal’s ct does.

    There are times when the law actually finds that a proponent’s exhibits are in fact evidence AGAINST their proposition(s). I think I got this from material written by a CO appeal attorney named Andrew Low who does or once did write appeal and other articles for the CBA publication. I personally believe that’s the case with every MERS assignment of the deed of trust which includes an assignment of the note: That assgt of the note (as impossible as I believe it is to come from “MERS” without evidence of MERS’ authority to assign the note) is actually evidence the note has not previously been assigned to the trust or whomever is the assignee. Imo, they are hanging themselves but getting away with it. But, still, I don’t think or at least question if the note is described in these MERS assignments (“along with the note”) with the specificity required by Art 9. And without a sec’n report, one can’t even know if the note at issue, the one just now being assigned, were ‘supposed’ to be in that particular trust, or if this is ‘brand new’ fwiw. It seemed that the bankster in MW’s case fought introduction of the assgt by MW, but not having read everything, that’s it from me on that assgt.
    lay opinions – ask a lawyer

  92. The party invoking Federal Jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the elements, (FW/PBS, Inc. -v- Dallas 493 U.S. 215, 231,1990).


    You have described things pretty much as I also have found them—for what little that is worth–its a good description—-i fear that much of it will slide by most people even though its a good job simplifying. This feature is contributory to the problems rthen and now—deliberately complicated to confuse everybody including 95% of attys who lack financial sophistcation. People remember that the vaste majority of county judges are litigators which spent much of their lives on crimnal procedure and are not financially sophisticated to the levels needed to cope with this house of mirrors—fed judges better shot–but they are focused on the billion dollar frauds on pension funds

  94. I agree with used kar guy we were duped. However, the personages hiding behind the scenes of this are not who they appear to be. There is no code of honor with these crime families…..they are nothing like the crime syndicate portrayed in hollywood. They are nothing like the Corleones … There is no regard for the family with these entities. This is about complete control of everything & everyone by theft. The mob doesn’t do that.

  95. Securities are created by the Issuer of the original bill of credit paying Due Consideration to the Treasury.

  96. This was sent to me by my attorney. We don’t know where it came from, but it’s a good synopsis of what has happened here. By the way, if your trust hit a trigger event and the credit default swaps kicked in, there is no more debt. Period.

    The Mortgage Origination and Securitization Process

    Here with is a very brief tutorial (on how you have been taken to the cleaners):

    You buy the house and you sign a “Note.” The Note says you borrowed the money from the “Lender.” But you didn’t. The “Lender” named on the “Note” is not the lender, that is a straw-man, a fee-origination broker that has no skin in the game and is just there to collect a fat fee for fronting. The real lender is unknown. So, first point, the “Note” does not even describe the transaction, and hence is not representative of the Obligation (sure, you owe money, just not to the “Lender” on that Note). The money came from a wholesaler, effectively a financial valet-park service. In turn, the funds sourced from a Wall Street bank, that in turn was not the original source; that is from the “Investors” [think: pension fund in Stavanger, Norway]. Why the subterfuge? Because then Wall Street controls the information, and information equals profit. The “investor” never knows the borrower, and the borrower never meets the investor. All they meet are the straw-men in the middle. The investors are told that they will receive (pick a number) a 3% return on their investment in CDS certificates; the investors receive a Bond, the Borrower issues a Note. Of importance is that the investors never get the Note to hold; all they get is a Certificate, a share of a pool (or Trust Indenture). For each million put up, the investors are promised an interest coupon of $30K. To generate that 30K, the hustlers (the Street) sells off $500,000 in 6% mortgage Notes (to anybody with a warm pulse). Now: what about the OTHER $500k in investor capital? Remember, only 500K was used to finance those Notes at 6%. Well, that disappears into the Bonus Pools of the Street. And there is Reason No.1 why the Street went crazy to collateralize home loans. All those mounds of cash were getting skimmed off up-front, with nobody the wiser. The margins get much better with sub-prime, or Alt-A, loans. In a sub-prime, the rate goes up, as high as a starter of 9%. At this rate, the fees to the “Lender” [the outfit on the paper] is 7-x larger than for a prime note. And the Street skims off 65% of the principal as the vig. To make it salable to the investor, it needs a AAA or AA Rating, so they get that from Fitch, Moodys, S&P. To convince the Raters, the Street buys a “credit-default swap,” an insurance policy, the premium paid for by the homeowner, from somebody like AIG. Then, to be really pernicious, the Street short-sells outside the package as they know the sub-prime is going to default soon enough. When the Indenture defaults, after 91 days the CDS pays off the principal and interest. At this point, the Notes in the pool are all paid. Except the homeowner (and the local foreclosure courts) don’t know about the payments; the payments are not credited by the Servicers to the Notes. The borrowers and the local courts think there is still an Obligation out there, although in actuality the Obligation was retired by the CDS. The CDS is without subrogation, so the insurer does not get the Note as residual. When the dust settles, what is left over is a Note, fully paid, but nobody stamps it “Paid,” still sitting with the Bankers, the “Trustee” of the “Trust.” That is just too tempting. So the “Note” goes off for foreclosure, (Yes, you need some dummied-up paperwork, so that gets contracted out to “Lender Processing Services” for robo-signing), the house is grabbed, is sold for whatever it can fetch, and that cash is “free money” to go straight into the Bonus Pool. So now you know how the Street can hand out hundreds of billions in bonuses while the country is in collapse. All you posters here have no clue. What is going on is theft on a colossal scale, because the Street controls the information. The Street keeps the two sides to the transaction apart, so only the Street knows the details of where the money (and the Notes) went. Never mind that the notes are non-negotiable instruments and that they do not describe the Obligation and that the mortgage is not connected to the Note in any event (having been spun off) and that they are transferred by indorsement “in blank” and by “allonge” not affixed to the Instrument; nobody has a clue. Including you guys. Which is why the Street steals, gets rich, and you are buried in a sea of confusion. Wise up, guys; the “borrower” was never expected to actually pay off the Note in full; that part was not even interesting. Why do you think they were handing out mortgage loans to hopelessly insolvent people? Who cared? The big bucks were in the up-front vig, and then the credit-default insurance payoffs. Who cares about some pedantic 30-year string of piddling remittances? Not the Street. There is no money velocity in a 30-year stream; the cash is all up front in the skim. You are being robbed by people who might as well be signed up with the Gambino family.

  97. After I was denied the loan mod, the servicer told me they do not want my house ..they were going to foreclose on the mortgage that I still owed. My take was they were going to try & force me into filing Bk to save their own criminal rearends. Well I wouldn’t do anything to save their criminal rearends. The only weapon these banksters really have is intimidation. If you take that away, they are left standing there with counterfeited forgeries.

  98. Sorry to hear Matt lost. He was probably being too nice to the dirty crooks. I believe that is the problem most of the time.

  99. @JG

    yes i saw it and talked briefly to weidner who lost badly because he expected an affidavit to hold up as evidence–that surprised me–

    my own read is he was trying to avoid a gruelling fight over discovery—they dont like to let you prove they allowed forgeries

    im trying to figure if docx made her forged indorsements with ahmsis authorithization–or if ahmsi did it in house–or was the 17000 notes actually stamped in 2005?

    apparently she gave an aff early –prior to jan 28, 2010—if so then all the foreclosures they did using forged note indorsements after that are void—fraud in factum—very important distinction beteween fraud in factum and fraud in inducement –void v voidable –damages treble v rescision

    anybody with any knowledge of her please let me know


  100. stripes you say
    “credit fraud chop shops” brilliant

  101. dcb – danielle sterling is a lead player in the weidner case I ref’d – fyi.
    The appeal briefs and the trial transcript are at his website from a couple-three weeks ago. Or, I have them if you’d rather. (I’ve only read the transcript, partly but only partly because I got aggrevated at the court’s obvious deference to opposing counsel.)

  102. Found under Cry Me a River:

    B of A and U.S. Bancorp can be sued as WaMu bond trustees: judge
    December 07, 2012 | Jonathan Stempel | Reuters

    This is the second such suit. Regarding the first, Goldman has appealed the 2nd Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying it could expose Wall Street to “tens of billions of dollars of potential liability” through class-action litigation.

  103. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: strategic default Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  104. stripes you inspired me to learn all about fraud in factum vs fraud in the inducement today—–so if your purpose is to distract –it is not working–its opposite effect —–push and i push back

  105. I don’t know what you are talking about DC but it sure seems like you are really trying hard to block the truth. I think you are working to mislead people…that is unpatriotic.

  106. @BSE sorry what post?
    about a note delivered to maker with forged indorsement—what is the status of a instrument like this–is it defaced non-negotiabe?

  107. stripes you need a refill–i get it after about 4 you get tired with reality and slide into wierd world

  108. dcbreidenbach

    Not sure if I understand you post . I guiess I am dense.

  109. ..Boehner & McConnell are real actors…Obama is no better..

  110. No one is going to pop out of the woodwork with any paid Originals ….those pay offs never happened. This was all about the politicians bilking all of us out of our wealth & property for the benefit of themselves & their criminal friends on Wall Street & at the FED.

  111. @JG i dont know about paragraph 2 but your 1st para gives me a thought “Yes, but dcb, if they are no longer neg instruments (assuming arguendo they ever were), the bankster, including the sec’n trustee, can’t rely on an endorsement or possession for its right to enforce. It would have to demonstrate its right some other way, way I see it, but as usual, I’m still reading stuff I did NEVER want to take on at all”.

    so if they have applied a forged indorsement to a negotiable instrument–what is the status of it—scatch out the forgery and type in something else?

    or declare it non-negotiable and require independent proof as you describe???/ this is really important–exactly where most makers are today–holding a forged indorsement non-negotiable thing—unknowingly waiting for the true owner to pop out of the woodwork–with a old assignment on an old schedule art 9

  112. truly need to look at schwartzwald–all states impact

  113. jg
    due process requires owner—-a mere holder could be a thief–a thief can enforce but you dont get a defense against the owner by paying a thief—-he cant negotiate with a forged indorsement–if hes not a thief he should be able to prove authority from the owner –hes holding as agent

  114. Both State & Federal Statutory Law….the UCC requirements meeting the criterion for qualification as “the real party in interest”…the meaning of qualification is the one who actually possesses the substantitive right being asserted and has the legal and substanative right to enforce the claim under applicable and substanitive laws by proving status of having the rights of a holder at the onset of the fc action.

  115. Yes, but dcb, if they are no longer neg instruments (assuming arguendo they ever were), the bankster, including the sec’n trustee, can’t rely on an endorsement or possession for its right to enforce. It would have to demonstrate its right some other way, way I see it, but as usual, I’m still reading stuff I did NEVER want to take on at all.
    I don’t think, just now anyway, it boils down to what was done or not (except that the trust must have garnered some form of interest, of course) – I think that as to the non-negotiability, it’s simply that certificates have issued: end of story.
    I shouldn’t have to be reading this junk. You shouldn’t have to. No one should.
    I’m going to look up some of that attorney’s pleadings and see if he’s gotten anywhere with his propositions. Well, it’s on the list.
    Since I haven’t said this for five minutes, I’ll say it now:

  116. Otherwise these aren’t negotiable instruments ….security instruments or legally enforceable contracts ….. not even under Admiralty Jurisdiction is there such a thing as an invalid contract that can be enforced for anything of value or equity.

  117. Where the heck are those ancient notes from the originator….? Those are the only checks that would give these foreclosures any legal legs. If the Originator, the Issuer of the original bill of credit paid the Treasury back…before they transacted any business…that’s what would give the court its subject matter jurisdiction.

  118. The notes that allegedly went to trusts are supposed to have been done with bankruptcy – remoteness. So, if llke in M Weidner’s ongoing case (RCS v Hassell), a bankster comes in and says I’m the holder, I don’t need to be a note owner to enforce (and has app admitted it isn’t its owner) and a Joe Blow has sued RCS and now gets a judgment, why wouldn’t or couldn’t the note be an object of attachment? Seems kind of funky…..the first thing the bankster would holler is that it has no interest in the note or the proceeds from enforcement, right? So to me, wth – they can enforce but to protect the trust they MUST disclaim any interest in the note and proceeds, OR ??? Trusts are allowing enforcement by less-than-bullet-proof entities here and there? (and that’s if that Maine att I ref’d is wrong about these notes no longer
    being neg instruments – if they ever were – after certificates have issued. Cripes. It never ends.

  119. I am not in court everyday but generally, I don’t see anyone putting up a fight. The judges don’t really seem to care what these FED attorneys enter. They seem to be surprised when people show up let alone stand up. I hope I can change that. People are way to intimidated by meaningless crap. We are really poorly educated and that really shows and that really needs to change. We all have a lot to learn.

  120. After 3 years of lies from BOA they just now sent me a copy of the note with a blank stamped indorsement on it. Now what are they trying to do ? This after all the previous times saying it was in a Freddie Mac Trust. And also the account number has been changed from the original BOA note account number. Fraud for sure , but heck if I know how much.

  121. @JG you said;
    once certificates are issued, a note, if it ever were, is no longer a negotiable instrument: it is dead-ended in the trust.”

    Yes thats supposed to be that way if it was done as specified in the securitization documents———–indorsed to the name of he trust and trust has no power to sell it–exchange it–or it breaks REIT status–sadly the operators often did not follow the formula and apparently sold and resold notes that were not scheduled as art 9 schedule line items–much less actually indorsed

    90% of the foreclosures or more were not challenged–just defaults–so out of a single trust of say 15,000 homeowner notes, less than 750 are challenged and 90 % of those get ground under without ever seeing an indorsement–just a handful ever have to be shown with indorsement—now if you were a banker and you knew that and you are amoral–what are you gonna do all 15000 negotiations manually—or about 100 as needed????? damn the torpedoes full speed ahead…..

  122. @STRIPES

    You miss the point—–thats what the judge should be looking for as an attachment to the complaint. A copy of that INDORSED note—not an ancient unindorsed note. attached.
    Let me pose a question for readers: How many of you have had the indorsed most current version of the note attached to your complaint. If not the note does nothing to prove ownership—its payable and owned by payee–in ohio its a void judgment w/o the indorsed note–unless they want to parade execs through te court–and maybe face questions about forgeries

  123. There never were any trusts….they converted the notes into stocks & the mortgages into 10 year bonds. These instruments were uncertificated. The instruments were never meant to be cashed at face value.

  124. I just read (I think – I forget a lot these days) something in the UCC about giving notice (v joining or naming) other potential claimants/ defendants. If I find it again, I’ll cite.
    In the meantime, I just read an article by a Maine att and he says once certificates are issued, a note, if it ever were, is no longer a negotiable instrument: it is dead-ended in the trust. Hmmm….

  125. An attorney told me a while back the judge only cares about the current note & mortgage….that is deceptive. Sounds like the move forward crap…its fraud..

  126. @DCB ,

    I’d send you mine but it’s pretty obvious it’s a DocX/LPS fake on behalf of AHMSI pretending to be WF which is named as plaintiff ,, a “Theresa Esposito” pretending to be a AHMSI or WF employee (unspecified ,, also no proof of agency attached with endorsement) … I don’t have a “Danielle Sterling”…

  127. Well, the truth is, the original notes are hidden and without those, any subsequent sales or transfers could not have occurred legally without those endorsed notes stamped paid and returned to us. Just like any check the same rules apply.

  128. Actually they leave trails everywhere they go —question is if the county or other govt record you need to see is online?

    you must examine the indorsement on the note–it should be in existence and a copy attached to complaint—-not a copy of a 5 year old unindorsed note

    the signer must have similar signature marks–search other jurisdictions–any legal document–they do it all–if a notary–original on file–same affidavit—but not sure if its a mill-run

    1st in mortgage section of recorders —dot—
    2nd attached to complaint in judicial states—cert copies needed asap
    3rd collateral caselaw affs—cert copies asap

  129. This criminal fraud by these banks….these felonies were so well concealed that to this day millions of Americans would never believe a bank would be predatory. In fact, I have family members who have lost their homes or are about to & defend these crooks…these people have Stockholm Syndrome & have been brainwashed into loving their torturers ..

  130. All true DC…these Banks were and are fraud factories but wore & wear many disguises. They are credit fraud chop shops posing as legitimate financial institutions.

  131. If they give you a note with a forged indorsement in exchange for yor house and they know it but you dont—how many types of fraud is that?

    fraud is also referred to as an action of deceit.

    actual fraud
    : fraud committed with the actual intent to deceive and thereby injure another called also fraud in fact compare constructive fraud in this entry

    collateral fraud
    : extrinsic fraud in this entry

    constructive fraud
    : conduct that is considered fraud under the law despite the absence of an intent to deceive because it has the same consequences as an actual fraud would have and it is against public interests (as because of the violation of a public or private trust or confidence, the breach of a fiduciary duty, or the use of undue influence) called also legal fraud compare actual fraud in this entry

    equitable fraud
    : constructive fraud in this entry used esp. in New Jersey

    extrinsic fraud
    : fraud (as that involved in making a false offer of compromise) that induces one not to present a case in court or deprives one of the opportunity to be heard
    : fraud that is not involved in the actual issues presented to a court and that prevents a full and fair hearing called also collateral fraud compare intrinsic fraud in this entry

    fraud in fact
    : actual fraud in this entry

    fraud in law
    : fraud that is presumed to have occurred in light of the circumstances irrespective of intent to deceive

    fraud in the factum
    : fraud in which the deception causes the other party to misunderstand the nature of the transaction in which he or she is engaging esp. with regard to the contents of an instrument (as a contract or promissory note) called also fraud in the execution compare fraud in the inducement in this entry

    fraud in the inducement
    : fraud in which the deception leads the other party to engage in a transaction the nature of which he or she understands compare fraud in the factum in this entry

    fraud on the court
    : fraud involving conduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial process (as by improperly influencing a judge, jury, or other court personnel)
    : extrinsic fraud in this entry

    intrinsic fraud
    : fraud (as by the use of false or forged documents, false claims, or perjured testimony) that deceives the trier of fact and results in a judgment in favor of the party perpetrating the fraud compare extrinsic fraud in this entry

  132. Pursuant to Carpenter v Longan, a Deed of Trust, without the Note, is void Abinitio.

  133. The UCC is very important …..it is the rule of law that governs these instruments. Article 8 governs investment securities…Article 9 governs transactions related to secured transactions…..Article 4 governs bank deposits and collection and banks responsible for the payment of a check/note…..Article 3 governs transactions involving negotiable instruments…The PSA governs the way trusts are to be set up…The prospectus is governed by the PSA and gives very limited powers to servicers in regard to instruments.

  134. I agree BSE…they have been doing this same scam all through history…we build it …they burn it down.

  135. DC…When did I say the U.S. GOV was a totalitarian dictatorship…? These are traitor politicians trying to install a FED dictatorship. The U.S. CONSTITUTION gave no special powers to the FEDERAL GOVT… You say I haven’t tried to help …well that’s just not true. I did not say I wasn’t interested in the triangle….I said lets try to figure it out. You are being mean for no reason.

  136. @BSE : I would suggest one other interpretation or possibility—you said “contrived a plan with the insurance company not pay on the policy” My experience is that after the distaster, however contrived, the insurance company on your policy or theirs pays like aslot machine. They hit the demand for proceeds in a few days –even in busy periods—and will sometimes offer a cut if you want to make a claim. trick is they want YOU to make the claim if there is any way in case the cause is suspect—–its illegal to make a claim for intentionally inflicted damage-vandalism exclusion—so you with clean hands or not stick your neck out and also shut yourselves up over the fraud once you say anything—and find out technically you are the guilty party. Think about SIEZE and FREEZEs–tis the season to cash in those policies–expect a rash this year–run for the money

  137. For those of you that are upside down:
    They set fire to your neighborhood, burned down your house then contrived a plan with the insurance company not pay on the policy. Next they steal your mortgage payments, never rebuild the house., kick you to the curb and steal the home. You can thank those treasonous bastards in the House and Senate for their criminal activities. They tore down this county one mortgage at a time.

  138. @JG
    re the art 9 possession = sale and transfer by list schedule only means security intersest because not suffient proof of transfer to constitte a sale.

    I think you are correct in context of most things–from software to real estate—possession is an important piece of the bundle of sticks which constitute “ownership” in my experience when taxes acrue–a closed transaction etc—if the seller hangs onto possession then hes a lessee or no transfer–sham transaction—same concepts here—in the condition in a vault without control or infringing ability to sell—–no sale —-a secured loan——-but if they did it right they would have an associated warehousing contract assumption/assignment—probably did not—-seems like no lawyers in sight on front end–they were all waiting for the s.. to leave the goose–now more lawyers dreaming up more deatails than imagination can boggle—-but where were they on compliance?? answer is this is all by design….if permitted chaos will occur

  139. @JG thanks very much i appreciate it–iv missed the ucc discussions—-as i understand, now iv received notice from opposing counsel in front of witnesses that she represented BoA today—-without recant at that meeting–im on notice of that 3rd party claim and must join them or be negligent and liable to them. Its a certainty—even if the claim is a 3rd interest or security interest. I dont know what it is–could be as trustee or on its own acct? its awful—this is what can happen in a settlement and its difficult to prevent–its to deter pressure to settle—and go to bankruptcy to pick up the mantle of servitude for 7 years

  140. California Court of Appeal’s Issues Writ of Mandamus Ordering Lower Court to Disqualify Former Countrywide Home Loan Lawyer Turn Judge From Largest Predatory Lending Case According to AUAF
    California Court Appeal’s issued order to stay all proceedings in Merritt v. Mozilo, et al, 109CV159993, and for Judge James Stoelker to be disqualified from the case after presiding Judge Richard J. Loftus refused to disqualify him after Stoelker’s bias was shown by the plaintiffs in the case.


  141. i for one like Stripes/ivent anger and fight……for sure, not enough of that going on…….YET !

  142. the UCC stinks. If there’s a short cut, I’d sure like to know of it. Remember that guy who got so angry about art 8 – he said these
    notes are reg’d by art 8? I should have sucked face – maybe he would have offered a short tutorial. App, though, there’s a school of thought out there working on this. In the meantime, dcb, I thought you might find “jus tertii” and 3-305(c) interesting. I’m sort of wanting to ‘pass’ it to you (anyone?) since I’m trying to fry other fish.
    Here’s a bit from a UCC class:

    “The Code’s general prohibition against using jus tertii is found in
    §3-305(c), which you should now read. Note two important things about it. The first is that the claims of another may always be asserted if that person joins the lawsuit. The second is that §3-305(c)’s last sentence permits one jus tertii to be asserted against a non-holder in due course: the instrument has been lost or stolen so that the current possessor is not the true owner. If this latter jus tertii could not be raised, then the obligor would be exposed to the possibility of double payment when the true owner showed up.”

    I’m just now reading an article about the creation of art 8 and amendments thereto and it occurs to me MERS thought they were going to be the DTC of collateral instruments, where they got the idea.
    I still have not found what I believed supported my prop that lack of delivery created (mere) security interests under 9, BUT I have found that pursuant to 3-203 there is NO transfer without an endorsement, making the end date critical imo. So then do I hop back to 9 to confirm the security interest created (v transfer), and on and on…..Yeah, piece of cake.

  143. @STRIPES you said ” totalitarian dictatorship” in reference to the US govt—what is wrong with you? They unraveled the whole docx mess –60% of documents filed in 2008-9——–handed void documents to you on a silver platter and you continue to sit i your chair and do nothing to help anybody —im not responding further to your bs

  144. A reverse triangular merger is just as relevant as your deviations—-so lets just not do it—you dont want to hear about IRC section 368 and i dont want to hear about foreign conspiracies–iv got real issues that do not involve such things

  145. CNN now selling short sales…telling people that if you sell your property short the (defaulted) bankster will pay the difference…! HA..HA..HA…OH YEAH RIGHT…! I would love to see those receipts..! HA HA..

  146. I believe there is a fine line between legal authority and totalitarian dictatorship. I believe not only have these politicians crossed that line, but they are in dangerous territory and are in fact, manufacturing their own demise. By burning down our house, they are burning down their own. If Obama is an idealog who believes he is creating some sort of kingdom on earth for evil people & criminals he will soon discover no one is going to want to live like peasants and slaves on his Wall Street slave plantaton…Slavery goes against the laws of human nature and never lasts.

  147. So DC I suppose you suggest we all just lay down & take it like a bunch of cowards & hand everything we worked for our entire adult lives over to these crooks..?

  148. I am treading on dangerous ground……? The truth is…the only dangerous ground we are treading on is our willingness to be stupid idiots by believing everything these politicians tell us via the news media etc…So tell me, how is believing all they have told you so far working out for you…?

  149. Where did I say I am giving legal advice…? I tell people to STUDY…& BTW…I did nail this scam right to their cross of crucifixion. The FED is in Default..and by committing that act of deception, aided & abetted by a massive cover up by the politicians are destroying OUR HOUSE…THAT WE THE PEOPLE BUILT & PAID FOR…UPFRONT AT THE ORIGINATION….

  150. Geeze DC..you are testy. Reverse triangular sounds worse than it probably is….they love to do that. What does that have to do with fc anyway..? I am no expert but I would love to help change this miserable world. Think of the possibilities…

  151. @STRIPES

    You are a menace to yourself and anybody who pays attention to you—-striding out across wafer thin ice and urging people to follow

    quit giving legal advice–you will harm people–the assertion that you think youv got it nailed is over the top–you are treading on dangerous ground

  152. I would like to see a settlement agreement for across the board resignations by all of these criminal, thug, lying….highly sarcastic punk politicians who are on a weird, sadistic, totalitarian power trip & are peddling massive debt fraud they created via Wall Street Banks. That’s right….don’t be fooled…..these politicians are the bankers, the judges, the lawyers and the cops. They hide behind many proxies.

  153. @STRIPES

    Since you are such a quick study and able to extract one codification of blaw and teach it with complete comprehension how about taking a quick look at the IRC Chapter C mergers and Acquisitions basis rules and give me a quick tutorial —start with a reverse triangular merger—something simple like that—should be no problem with some as brilliant as you—-geez i cant imagine why you are on this site when you could be out charging 1000/hour

  154. Sure STRIPES —UCC is just a piece of cake that any layperson can pick up and read through and pass the bar exam no problem—-thanks for the insight—i guess 35 years as a practicing attorney on b-law just made me stupid

    this pretty well says it all

  155. I was told by an attorney early on when half the country is in default that will mean no one is in default. I don’t want to see how ugly this is going to get. Obama & these politicians are complete traitor aholes and I have no respect for any of them. This charade should never have happened. These TBTF crooks should have been audited and there never would have been any bailouts. This is simply a full blown hostage situation by agents of the FED INVESTORS….BARNEY FRANK…CHRIS DODD…GEITHNER….BERNANKE….OBAMA..ALL INVESTORS THEMSELVES…..CON MEN..

  156. @ALL


    . In Tru-Cal, Inc. v. Conrad Kacisk Instrument Systems, Inc., 905 N.E.2d. 40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) the court held that a settlement agreement could be invalidated by fraudulent inducement, despite the inclusion of an integration clause in the agreement, where one party shows that it had the right to rely upon representation, and did rely upon the misrepresentations made by the counterparty to induce execution of the agreement. The issue was the viability of an employment agreement which was the basis of a settlement agreement. It was determined that after the settlement agreement was executed, the signature on the employment agreement was a forgery. The dispute was whether Tru-Cal could rightfully or reasonably rely on CKI’s false representation, i.e. the forged employment agreement. CKI contended that as a matter of law, Tru-Cal did not reasonably rely on the false representations because integration clause in the settlement agreement, which clearly stated Tru-Cal had no right to rely on any statement or misrepresentation concerning the nature of the claims.
    The Indiana Court of Appeals found that the fraud (forged employment agreement) either directly induced or contributed to the execution of the settlement agreement. The court also found that the false representations were made to Tru-Cal the intent that they should be acted on. Thus, the court held that Tru-Cal has presented material issues of fact as to whether it had the right to rely on the employment agreement and other related misrepresentations. The court noted that the designated evidence indicated that the president of Tru-Cal believed the employment agreement was valid when he executed the settlement agreement.
    Most importantly, the Court stated:
    “Moreover, unlike the plaintiff in Prall, we observe that Tru-Cal did not plainly have the means at hand to unearth the fraud before executing the release. Further, the boilerplate integration clause did not expressly indicate that Tru-Cal had independently investigated the validity of the signature on the employment agreement.”

  157. lets talk when there are 100% Strategic Defaults

  158. UCC is not torturous or hard to understand once you understand how it flows..

  159. Without that Original Mortgage & Note from my Original Purchase being returned to me stamped paid by the Issuing bank….the U.S. Treasury that pay off would have to have been performed before any subsequent transfers…sales…swaps occurred……they are busted..

  160. No free house or business property…? Well certainly not for these felons. I am not stupid….I asked for protection from any subsequent fraudsters coming down the road later to try & steal from me. Bottom line …..the someone is owed money theory has no legal authority and besides, this a civil conspiracy to cover up for the FEDs Default in our names and believe me I made that well known in my motion. There is no denying this is true….I have all of my public recordings….no legal assignment that shows how a second bank or ANYONE can lay any claims to my property.

  161. DC…the way they confuse this is none of the legal requirements of Article 8 can be met without Article 9 and 4 and all are Governed by Article 3 Perfection which requires Performance by the Issuer…Perfection creates the Security Instrument for the Issuing bank…Securitization can only be performed by the Issuing bank. Article 8-307 States the Purchaser must have Proof of Authority with any requisite necessary to obtain registration per 8-4 et seq, To obtain requisite of Security Entitlements under Article 8; all said requirements must be met.

    So….they are simply stealing because we don’t know the law right..?

  162. @STRIPES

    Im about 3 years down the tubes from where you are—the ownsership law when i faced your issues was barely developed but for BOYCO

    If you pay close attention you may be able to avoid the traps im tangled in——attempted resolutions–either paying loan amount–giving up house–anything is vitiated if at the end of the day they hand you a forged note–then you are just going to face another lender

    even dismissal with prejudice will only protect you from that specific plaintiff–in fact what you may have proved is that there is another owner who should be suing you–catch 22–no free house

  163. @STRIPES

    Im trying to be constructive and i believe you are too —so my limited understanding of UCC —-is that you must look carefully at the definitions–its torturous –like the revenue code—

    the definition of a security is an instrument [or electronic record now ] that is registered –as with SEC –perhaps just a state–that represents an interest in a company–stock or bonds—-

    a “security interest” is a much older concept–really a totally different animal–under UCC—-

    a security is an asset unto itself–salable———but a security interest is merely a device to assist in collection of a note

    i dont want to complicate it but a mass of ” registered “securities” [egMBS “notes” ] can be secured by the issuer of those securities aka registered notes pledging hard assets or homeowner promissory notes
    to be the security interest to assist collection if the issuer does not pay the registered securities investors

    a negotiable instrument is a very special type of contract–with its own rules ——-it is noting but a contract to pay a sum of money unconditionally at a future time—-the owner is not required to perform any other acts to receive payment—some have taken this too far–there is a duty to prove that the negotiable instrument is authentic and so are indorsements if any—–however the presumption of authenticity is strong–and must be rebutted with some EVIDENCE that the instrument is under a cloud

  164. Thanks DC…I worked dilligently on this. I filed 2 motions to dismiss on this compilation. This is the rule of law. If the judges won’t rule I requested a hearing because if the court does not have subject matter Jurisdiction over this fc action a counter complaint cannot be brought by me on the subject matter. i stated under the courts Common Law, Criminal Law Jurisdiction, We, the Defendant’s have all of the rights and intentions of an injured party.

  165. So you are saying these aren’t Securities of the States…? But the mortgage clearly States these are Security Instruments….So they lying then. You are saying these are Article 7 contracts..Under Title 26 of the U.S. CODE there must be 3 parts that must be present for a contract to be valid. For a contract to exist there must be probable evidence of an agreement; and there must be an Obligation of some task to have been Performed or an act that has been done and there must be Consideration, an exchange of substance, (HJR 192, JULY 5,1933), to wit, dollars for labor or time of your life in exchange for goods. In the U.S. Silver or Gold in exchange for labor, substance for substance; not substance for credit. Without these 3 parts, there can be no valid lawful contract.

  166. @STRIPES –Could i ask you to assemble your arguments in one piece with the full cites—and i will use it–its very good stuff if its cited–and i agree the premise—a little more effort will make it a nice respectable piece that you should be proud to add–and i will thank you profusely

    ill tell you my problem —-i entered into an arrangement for receiving delivery of the note—-after all else was done by me –vacate etc\

    then i received a document that appears to have a forged indorsement which by my reckoning is totally worthless to defend againsts the original payee or its successor in interest

    however opposing parties that literally handed me the document with alleged forged indorsement –apparently added years later—argues that i waived fraud–waived right to get the note to defend myself–iv already been given apparent notice by a 2nd claimant—-im screwed seriously screwed if iv unintentionally waived the unknown forgery

    any cites on that and ill send you candy for xmas

    if this does not offend readers sensibilities –you are not an american

  167. @STRIPES you said
    the law says some task has to have been performed for these to be “Security Instruments.”

    I dont know if its true or opinion–please give us the cite for the argument so we dont waste time chasing a red herring

  168. @STRIPES I agree indformation is generally useful–and i appreciate it when you post it–my complaint is when you simply express unsubstantiated or uncitable opinion thats off track

    i love your UCC stuff—its very helpful–please do not stop those –its the rants dear thats the issue

  169. @STRIPES —-the cite is much more useful–im confused by the 5/3 reference???

  170. The General Rule is that where authority is given to one to fill in the blanks of an instrument other than is authorized constitutes “forgery” where the other elements of forgery are present, (People -V- Kubanek, 1939).

  171. @stripes im confused by your citation–art 3-417 –or art 5-417???

  172. @STRIPES

    Please –UCC ART 8 “investment securities refers to stocks etc registered —nothing to do with mortgage notes–show me a case –please focus on Art 3 and Art 9—these control negotiable instruments that are not registered ecurities

  173. @ Deb

    I understand–im just asking any reader with AHM prepared docs to let me know–ill share mine–i have a dozen or so —of sterling–a couple others

    the real issue is whether the documents that were prepared by ahm are void as are the ones done by docx per the DOJ ple agreement. If docs used to foreclose sieze etc are void so is the judgent

    in ohio under the recent cases Schwartzwald [thanks ENRAGED] and now as of thursady a second and yesterday schwartman reconsideration denied—–old foreclosures can be vacated with damages or recovery of homes if not sold already

    the combination of void documents per DOJ and he schwartwald case opinion are the largest game-changers iv seen in 4 years–for all jurisdictions

    Both the feds and the Ohio state courts with a heavy influence under UCC from OHio State University have given everybody a leg up–the UCC analysis is not unique to OHIo–nor is the substantive Due Process argument arising out of the US Constitution—

    people use these precedents—they are XMAS gifts from govt

    spread the word

  174. The wording on my mortgage is a false statement….it says …(A) “Security Instrument” means this document together with all riders to this document. These are frauds on their face as the law says some task has to have been performed for these to be “Security Instruments.”

  175. @DC…what you consider not useful information may be useful to someone else. I consider any information potentially useful information considering how badly educated & misinformed most of us are.

  176. Now add….A person may be guilty of a “false making” of an instrument within the common law definition of “forgery” where the instrument is false in any material part, and calculated to induce another to give credit to it as genuine & authentic, not withstanding fact that person signs and executes the instrument in his own name, (People -v-Mau, 1941).

  177. Read 5/3-416….Transfer Warranties….(a.) Person who transfers an instrument for Consideration….(1-5)….

  178. Read Article 5/3-417 Presentment Warranties…..(1.) The Warrantor is or was not, at the time the warrantor transferred the draft; a person entitled to enforce the draft or authorized to obtain payment or acceptance of the draft on behalf of a person entitled to enforce the draft. (2.) The draft has not been altered.

  179. I have found Deb that these cases are all basically the same…they are just being governed by far flung theories that have no basis in law and are in fact, woefully insufficient in law. That is why I say consider the source … know your enemy is an entity that seeks to hide its lawlessness from us.

  180. The lost note theory will arise from the ashes if you don’t stand up for yourself and get the case dismissed with prejudice plus monetary restitution in the form of compensatory damages and other equitable relief. Do your homework people…these crooks branded these instruments ……UNIFORM SECURITY INSTRUMENTS without PERFORMING A SINGLE TASK……STUDY subject matter jurisdiction….5/3-102….negotiable instruments…….Article 8 governs investment securities but Article 8 cannot be enforced without proof of Control; by Delivery & Possession; by the Appropriate Person; by the Issuer; of an Investment Company Security; not by Over Issue is a Purchaser of a Securities Account Protected; Indorsement or Instruction does not Guarantee the Signature Indorsement. Some task has to have been Performed by the Originator…

  181. Gotta realize stripes that each case has gone down a legal path there are many as you say key is to stick to your guns and not get taken off down a rabbit hole by the opposition or rather a snake hole.

  182. Robo signing not my focus right now but I’ll share anything I have.

  183. There are many other aspects to this scam. Knowing your enemy is also important. If you don’t know your enemy, you will be lost in the den of vipers that awaits you in that courtroom.

  184. Stop the Corporate bullying Now


  185. @STRIPES?IVENT or whoever you are—we are engaged in serious business here—you are not helping with this chatter–why dont you buckle down and contribute something useful like the others here

  186. thanks–my interest is focused on old American Home Mortgage -appearing indorsements—by Danielle Sterling in particular

    She was an emloyee of AHM pre-bankruptcy asst sec—–she was employed there 2004-2007—-when supposedly hundreds of thousands of notes were negitiated by indorsement in blank —many with her “mark” consisting of a stamp Danielle Sterling AHM asst sec plus her handwritten intials . As is typical in robosigning, the initials vary widely–sometimes obvious left handed sometimes right handed—-however as with all indorsements the date when actually made is critical to determine if it was negotiated when required circa 2004 —or after the filing of the complaint–years later after she lost authority and was no longer employed by any party involved–ie an outright forgery for the purpose of evading the duty to post bond under UCC Art 3-309–essentially a lost note

    In AHMSI v LPS AHMSI stated in its complaint that it authorized DOCX to execute indorsements–of course that itself would be directing docx to affix signatures–if the signatures were of long past employees of a former entity payee—-thats serious —the question now is how pervasive was this practice —-are there others affected

    are there clues that can prove or tend to prove when the indorsements were made——if we can show it was done in this context it may lead to disclosing a wider pattern of industry conduct and trigger a duty on all claimants to bond the uncertain notes they present to assure victims are not subject to double collections

  187. These ancient Babylonian sumerian control freaks….the so called black nobility are the only pestilent global threat of catastrophe that exists today.

  188. DC….The new world horder is just a creepy name for this FED/BANK investor big government swindle of our knowledge, businesses, wealth, property, freedom and independence. These investors are in reality, horders who are deranged from believing their own higher order b.s..and that includes Obama and his satanic communist agenda….they are all big fat, lying, commie phonies who are full of it and are using their perps on Wall Street ….their own debt fraud to hold us hostage. They are obviously brain damaged from being exposed to way too much CO2 and got that way from hanging out in caves trying to decipher ancestorial ancient hieroglyphs while higher than kites. All of this control freak stuff is just dangerous & weird & ties into what they believe is their ancient sumerian birth right but Jesus warned this is really just a freakish ancient babylonian occult belief system that is the work of Satan & should have been abolished with the mummies. They believe by being inbred into some creepy higher order they are entitled to own & control the planet. The higher knowledge that has been stolen by them from mankind and hidden by them does not give them god like power, it just makes them into sadomasochists. This fraud against mankind began at the Origination Fraud and continues up to today.

  189. It does not take a large % for a revolution to begin. 32 % agree with Strategic Defaults is a very good start. Tell your neighbors. Tell your friends. Tell your family.

  190. DCB
    Indymac and HSBC/ deutsche
    Lps involved
    I’ll PDF them

  191. deb–i got smacked in the forhead at 55–thankfully they let me wait till i had access to health care as a “early retiree” —–hanging on barely—my only solace is to help put people like loraine brown in the eye of prosecutors—more to come—conspiracy broader

  192. deb—-who do they represent american home? indorsements? if so yes i want them –thankyou

    im afraid to open attachments so if youll let me know if these are the type im after then ill use a special filter

  193. dcb your long post on strategic default is so sad and true, at 50 im asset stripped and expensive in the work place, what i have going for me is efficiency flexibility and fitness i can compete and i can create a new way forward for myself. i encourage everyone in these economic times to think can do, pray, stay in truth, especially with yourself. that saying it is what it is can be changed but it must come individually, someone on here years ago said this, dig deep, and then dig deeper.

  194. dcb-
    i got Erica johnsen seck, roger stotts, a melody spotts (is that a made up name? ) scott walter. send email ill scan for ya, pay attention to melody spotts, theres 2 different ones in my posession

  195. dcb-
    i got Erica johnsen seck, roger stotts, a melody spotts (is that a made up name? ) scott walter. send email ill scan for ya, pay attention to melody spotts, theres 2 different ones in my posession

  196. you dont get it stripes–time to get outta the way–let progress in—-new world order until weather pestilence or global catastrophe reshuffles the deck

  197. hmmm —ill miss the epa inaugaral ball this time–was really a happy affair 4 years ago

  198. Like the politicians really give a damn about CO2. This governmental policy crap has gone way too far. These politicians are working hand in hand with the U.N. control freaks. These traitor politicians are signing U.N. treaties that are overreaching their boundaries. Today it is an innocent sounding Universal Disabilities Act. Tomorrow it will be something much more authoritative. They are really testing us. I say throw them out. They are truly sinister dictators.

  199. its a rental, call it what you want, legally they are showing us that, unless you want to endure court for years on end and fight, thats what most people think is weird, my freinds do not understand why i think its worth it, so stripes your right…too much apathy, im shocked that it got this far, im shocked as hell. whoosh….all homes bank owned in a few years, well someone bought too much house, why would they do that?,,,, exactly. And there were so many many ways to prevent this, but they did not want to, they executed the plan, the biggest crime against humanity, and it is scary once you wake up and realise, but it took me 3 years of this chi* to realise.

  200. Where is all of this strategic default crap leading when there is no one being held accountable for these felonies committed in our names with our forged signatures…..? Right into complete communism. That will be the “fix” by the traitor politicians for all of this felony fraud & believe this….this commie take over by our foreign enemies was well planned and has been in the works for decades. Don’t accept any of it people…No World Tax ….No indentured servitude to a home or business you can never sell. Tell the politicians we won’t negotiate..We want no less than complete satisfaction of mortgage & big fat checks issued to each of us for all payments they and the banks pocketed they were not owed.

  201. There is a choice and that is to document the forged signatures as comparative collages with certified originals and send em to FBI–fraud division Jacksonville Florida—-or me–im interested in initials applied to notes as indorsements—-always always look up the signers and see at least if they are DOCX —-as well look up indorsers and see what is on the internet–typically multiple marks—ie forged–you plead it as defense—you point it out to feds and state ags

    i get tired of the whining—were helpless were so helpless—-use your heads —document it carefully with certified copies–dont sit on t–share it

  202. While all of the financial fraud burns our country to the ground SCOTUS are sticking their 2 cents in State issues and are agreeing to rule on 2 social justice issues Prop 8 and DOMA.

  203. An A-what…? I think that train left the station right around the time that an Attorney told me that…. yes there is fraud in what I thought was a mortgage and…. I have no choice but to comply, conform and cooperate with that fraud.

  204. All of these cases should be reversed and big fat restitution checks issued for all of the usury the banks pocketed after they defaulted on their original loan they took in our names. George Bailey never defaulted on his customers loans from Treasury and pocketed their payments then turned around and sold investments in things he didn’t own or gamble with his clients money on Wall Street or he would have went to prison. The truth is banks don’t lend their own money….the U.S. TREASURY gives the banksters our money..and the banksters never paid back any of the money we paid them before they conducted any transactions upon those signatures …as the law requires. Therefore all of the signatures they collected are worthless autographs and they are all big b.s.er con artists at the Treasury and at the FED and they are all working for the politicians who are the investors.

  205. @ALL
    There are three hyper-critical cases in Ohio Supreme Court in the last month re judicial foreclosures

    These have great significance–embrace the Boyco rule and go a step father to clearly state the effect of the failure to document the note and mortgage at the time of filing the complaint–any such foreclosure or settlement arising out of such a filing is VOID—–no original subject matter jurisdiction–halting exposure to double liability is a fundamental right substantive due process not a waivable procedural due process issue

    This is a huge homeowner win—and DOCX-induced foreclosure IS VOID—rescrission lies–or claims for damages for taking house—-the value of it–unless they can prove ownership the 2nd time around

    go see your atty

    The recent Ohio State Supreme Court cases clarify that the judgment in a foreclosure case wherein the ownership of a note and mortgage was not found to exist at the time of filing and that which flows from it is void. See for clarification Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. v. Wallace, 194 Ohio App.3d 549, 2011-Ohio-4174 . This case treated defective ownership at time of filing with default and motion to vacate a year later—as voidable. The reason stated was that lack of subject matter jurisdiction was curable, and by various defaults the victim had waived rights to request relief under any component of Rule 60. This case was reversed by the Ohio Supreme Court in Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. v. Wallace, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5495 on December 4, 2012, in the wake of Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5017, October 31, 2012 .

  206. There is an Italian word for what these crooks are forcing upon the American people…MAMONY…That is when the chicks never leave the nest because everyone from the parents to their kids are underemployed and uneducated. It is the European way of life. Time to hold these crooks who caused this accountable.

  207. The truth is …not one American that I know, even if they weren’t in their right mind, would go to a bank and believe they would be given a loan they could not afford and … why would they want one…? Why would anyone want to be thrown out into the street and publicly disgraced ….? There is no one who is going to make me believe any American ever believed they were going to swindle a bank and gain unjust enrichment from a bank on a home, business, second home, boat, car, motorcycle or anything for that matter. We were making the money and we fully intended to pay back every dime the banks borrowed from the Treasury in our names….however, …. it was the banks and their criminal friends on Wall Street who made that impossible because the banks not only defaulted in all of our names but, they all got way to greedy selling investments in junk that never existed and therefore swindled all of us. These are the traitor politicians disguised as bankers, lawyers, cops, judges, the main stream media, corporate America, the medical establishment, the educational system…….etc….the politicians are the biggest crooks on the planet.

  208. government policy is to return populations to low consumption dense urban housing—with lower CO2 footprint. mcMansions will be torn down or converted to multi-family housing if for no other reason the cost of utilities over the next 50 years.

    all existing McMansions are underwater—and captured in this vortex–as are the obligors —they cannot escape the deficiencies judicial states

  209. Everybody knows the banksters are at fault. You are a hero today if you dont make your payments. A few years ago people looked funny at you if you didnt make your payments. Today you are a hero. Plus not making your payments is good for the economy. Instead of making payments people are consuming and buying presents for the holidays.


  210. I can only see strategic defaults by Americans who realiy get what has actually occurred. I find it really hard to believe 32% of all Adults have a clue about what has really occurred here. The American people in general will make excuses for these crooks and blame themselves in most cases for their own robbery. It is truly unbelievable and frightening how brainwashed most Americans are. The only proper correction for this massive crime spree committed against the American people by these crooks is a massive check issued to every one of us harmed by this and clear title to all property. Otherwise there will be no recovery and the banksters are going to fail miserably paying for everything. A nation of RENTERS can never be sustained and these greedy jerks should just admit their evil plans have failed.

  211. Subject Strategic Defaults
    There can be many reasons for default. The state law regarding deficiencies is of penultimate importance. If it’s a non-judicial, Deed of trust, no deficiency state, my points are irrelevant to you, unless its anti-deficiency exempt investment real-estate, or perhaps 2nd vacation homes. In the latter case beware as well.
    For residents of states which permit collection of deficiency judgments, there is a a vitual legal gamut to be run, that challenges the best foreclosure lawyers. The fundamental problem for lawyers and judges in these “judicial” foreclosure states is that law schools and ordinary practice never prepares one, nor are court procedures truly geared to preventing abuse by large well-funded legal machines which may routinely adopt systematic use of forgeries, and other deceptive tactics to achieve their objective. What is that objective? Make no mistake for well-healed people, basically any person with assets including retirement assets or jobs—the middle class. Richie rich is safe behind his own lawyers and ready to pay penance. The greatest challenge is a large debt associated with a deeply underwater McMansion.
    My 52 year-old nephew father of two daughters one in and one entering college typifies the experienced formerly upper middle class. He was in a decent position with a large company to which he had committed his adult life. At 50 he became “high cost” in comparison to new wage levels strongly influenced by inflows of 20-30 year old skilled Asian legal immigrants. He had a defined benefit plan—they get a low or no-match 401K. He became a “legacy asset”. A high cost relic of a bygone age. Of course, during slowing economic times, even if it takes the youngster twice as long to do something for lack of experience, they have the flexibility and time to learn on the job. It is inefficient short-term, but efficient long term. This is a side-effect of the economic downturn –or tripwire set for post-50 year olds in the US—and Europe.
    So think about whether you fit this class. At risk of low cost replacement—with a long dark future ahead. Now you decide economic circumstances mean you gotta dump the McMansion. At best, it is a ‘soon to be’ empty nest. Only trick is that the market is collapsed except for a few sweet spots geographically—and beware bubbles. People would rather pay big bundles for new houses—because they think they can afford to now. So did most who are currently underwater and sinking. The new houses get preferential builder-sponsored loans too—its hard to get a loan to buy “used” real-estate. Got dinged up titles—unreleased mortgages. Missing proof of ownership of note etc. Which brings me back to the legal points. Your McMansion is deeply underwater and those raises you were counting on in your most productive 50’s are evaporating and worse.
    The 1st thing that the strategic defaulter needs to fixate upon—not common on these pages or for DOT-non-judicial states—the note. Who owns the note—and more importantly WHERE is the original note. Most of all the strategic defaulter MUST recover the original note under UCC Art 3—or face further claims by a holder in due course. And this begins the nightmare.
    On day one you were “maker” of a note in favor of “payee” in Art 3 parlance. The named payee may be originator-apparent lender. The payee-apparent lender immediately, if not presold as a batch by description, transfers your note in chain of title evidenced by an assignment and sale agreement—to an apparent indenture bank trustee for benefit of a pool of investors with different rights to parts of your monthly payments. This is the securitization step. Two provable elements should evidence this transfer; there should be a filing of your loan as a line item description that you can recognize in the trust’s SEC filings. That filing should be mirrored in the UCC Art 9 financing statement with the Secretary of State of the residence of the transferor payee—apparent lender. Usually NY or Delaware. The 2nd element should have been “negotiation” of the original note to the bank trustee by affixation of an indorsement by a duly authorized officer of the named payee on the note. Each of these things must be proven to assure that ownership of the note passed without a doubt.
    The big banks made the UCC Art 9 schedules—listing your loan—in the SEC documents as electronic submissions. You can check them—the servicer can prove this line item. However the fly by nites did not make these filings religiously. Hit or miss would be charitable: it implies no intent to deceive wheras there appear to be many possible reasons why the schedules were unfiled. Notes could more easily be sold to banks and trusts if not already on a list where the deception could be easily detected. The McMansion notes were tempting targets for double sales. So if there is a line item on the list showing your payee made a transfer to the trust which will sue you—you are past one hurdle. If not you are screwed seriously screwed.
    The next thing is the note: where has it been? Probably in the originator-servicer warehouse—or destroyed. It theoretically may have been indorsed in blank—ie no named next in line payee. If it was dropped on the street in this form it could be used to attempt collection. It is essential the same as if you made out a check to someone. They indorsed it and lost it—much like losing money on the sidewalk.
    But it must have been indorsed by the payee’s officer. The signatures and “marks” consisting of stamps with titles and handwritten initials are common indorsements. So you hope the claimant can deliver to you a properly negotiated original note. Remember you MUST obtain this particular original document in order to cut off contingent liability on the note under UCC. You can’t give your house or money to a pretender and use payment as a defense against the true owner. You can’t pay a thief and yourself escape further liability if you are in a deficiency judicial state.
    So assuming all the stars align, the schedules were filed way back when, the notes properly indorsed by a payee employee and not stolen way back when, all you need to do is get the servicer to hand you that original note marked “paid in full”. The settlement by short sale or deed in lieu is critical. You MUST make “examination of the original note properly indorsed” by a QDE prior to vacate a condition to your performance. Even if you just state they must give you the note after performance—be prepared for a surprise. They may not keep that promise, in fact that might be the cue to sell the note to yet another claimant.
    The settlement is the most dangerous step—they typically will state you waive fraud. That is another trap. It includes by their reckoning, the forged indorsement, delivery of a copy of note, all manner of lies and deceptions. The sum total of which is to deprive you of your expected bargain—release on the note. The technical UCC jargon and the deceptions plus your waiver of fraud entitles the debt collector to essentially commit financial rape. The note is legally enforceable by the next true holder which will have nice paperwork. You are forced into bankruptcy if you are the average middle class-even white collar exec with a large mortgage on your McMansion. The friendly bankers youve known all your life—are disappeared behind a wall of servicers and debt collectors with a single objective: take everything you have no matter how long it takes or how much you have. Bankruptcy is their friend since 2005 –so long as you are working they will even get part of your future income—you become an indentured servant for 7 years. So think about it and get a very good lawyer and expect to spend $50,000 conservatively.
    You will find that the rules of discovery will even defeat your effort to prove you are being defrauded into double liability. 1st thing is forget the house—they need to destroy it to collect insurance proceeds. That is particulary bad f a few weeks after you settle with pretender collector A, true collector B shows up as if on cue and asks for collection on the whole note out of the rest of your assets—you cant even recover the wrongly seized house because its destroyed.??? It’s a not so wonderful world where there is no George Bailey.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: