Banks Controlled Independent Reviews

“TARP was supposed to cover losses from defaulting loans. But then it was switched to make direct capital infusions into the mega banks. Why the switch? Because everyone realized very early on that the banks had no losses from defaulting loans. It was the investors who made the loans and would take those losses. But even though the government recognized this fact, it did so in secret allowing the confusing notion of bank losses to permeate the judicial cases. All they had to do to stop foreclosures was to tell the truth and Judges would have correctly assumed that the Banks were mere intermediaries. PRACTICE HINT: Is Champerty and maintenance a cause of action for damages, a defense to a lawsuit or both?” — Neil F Garfield,


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).

If you are having trouble believing that the recession, the mortgages, the foreclosures, the auctions, and the health of the banks are all a big lie click here for Matt Taibbi’s Article in Rolling Stone

Editor’s Comment: The so-called independent reviews were neither independent nor reviewed. They were processed. Which is to say they went in one end and came out the other. The so-called reviews relied completely on the banks themselves to review their own criminality in the foreclosure process that was only one step in a multifaceted plan to take down the wealth of America and concentrate in the hands of people who could claim it as their own.

The reviews were not independent because all the information offered was the information that the banks wanted to reveal and half of that was completely fictitious. The lack of an administrative hearing process made it impossible for the independent review conclusions to be challenged. Talk about stacking the deck.

A random survey of foreclosures would show that the forecloser was a complete stranger to the transaction, never invested a penny in the origination or purchase of the loan, and never accounted properly for its actions to the actual lender/investors. How do we know this with certainty? Because real independent reviews like the ones conducted in counties all over the country came to exactly that conclusion after reviewing foreclosures that were “completed.”

There is no ambiguity except whether the credit bid and ensuing deed upon foreclosure is void or voidable. I maintain it is void and not voidable. Voidable means that the victim must do something to replace the job of the county recorder. Voidable means that the transaction stands and the deed is valid even though we know it is a wild deed with no place for it in the chain of title. Voidable means that in a later refi or sale if some title lawyer is actually doing his work the way it was done since the dawn of title records, he or she is going to discover the wild deed and declare the title to be clouded defective or fatally defective. And that would be because of all the documents submitted by a series of entities that had no function except layering over the festering corruption of title created in the first place.

Actual findings that somehow leaked through the controlled review process were suppressed. It all comes down to the same thing in administrative action, law enforcement action, executive action and legislative action: homeowners are deadbeats who don’t count or can be managed through the miracle of telling big lies through the media. The conclusion reached in virtually all cases was the same: while the forgeries, fabrications and perjury were bad things and the ensuing theft of the homes was allowed to proceed anyway, the net result is that these people borrowed the money, defaulted on the payments and lost the house they were supposed to lose anyway.

It is a compelling argument if it was true. In fact, the posturing and lying of the banks enhanced the lender/investor losses and stopped the homeowners from connecting up with real lenders to settle the loans and then go after the banks together for lying to everyone about appraisals, underwriting, and loan quality.

As I see it, the only way this is going to wind up is that those people who fight back with Deny and Discover will be rewarded for their efforts if they persist. But on the whole, most people will not fight back leaving the Banks with windfall several times over. Government won’t help them. If the Banks lose every case that is contested it will be less than the amount they would reserve for loan losses if their loans were real.

We all know that the Banks were using investor money 96% of the time, and yet we allowed them to get insurance, credit default swaps, and federal bailouts on investments they never made. We allow them to pretend that they own what the investors own, thus corrupting their balance sheets with fictitious assets. We allowed them to book fictitious sales of bogus mortgage bonds to investors using the investors own money to create the infrastructure that was never used to sell, assign or securitize the loans. The Bankers who control the banks also control all the profits from these false “proprietary trades”, book them as they wish partly to keep the value of the stock higher and higher, and then keep the rest in off balance sheet off-shore transactions spread around the world.

In an economy that is still driven 70% by consumer spending these policies are arrogant and stupid. The investors who were the real lenders should be paid. The balance on the books owed to those investors should be reduced. And the process of separating the false tier 2 premiums on proprietary trades and the REAL balance owed by borrowers should proceed. This can only happen, given current circumstances by denial of all elements of the cause of action for foreclosure, and pressing on through discovery against the Master Servicer, subservicer (who did they pay? how long did they day after the declaration of default?), the Trustee of the REMIC trust (where are the trust accounts?), the aggregators and other parties that were engaged in the PONZI scheme that was covered over by a false infrastructure of assignments and securitization which never took place.

Our economy is projected to grow at a mere 2% this year if we are lucky, because the banks are holding all the fuel for the engine. If we were to apply simple precepts of law on fraud and contracts, the amount clawed back to investors and homeowners would end the crisis for the economy and yes, possibly threaten the existence of the large banks, but greatly enhance the prospects for the 7,000 other banks in the U.S. alone. But that of course would only happen if we were doing things right.

OCC Foreclosure Reviewer: “Independent” Reviews Were Controlled by Banks, Which Suppressed Any Findings of Harm to Foreclosed Homeowners

132 Responses

  1. […] Banks Controlled Independent Reviews (Note.- Remember, you fund or work for your loaned thing as your own investor.) […]

  2. “The plain language of the statute does not require authorization from the lender before the mortgagee can assign the mortgage.” Again an incomplete analysis limited to one statute as if that statute is singularly dispositive. It would require the auth from the lender if the mortgagee is the mortgagee as agent for the lender / note owner, such as is the (alleged) case with MERS.

  3. e tolle – really, I think the best argument is about the ‘corpus’ of the Contract. That may be the wrong word, but I don’t have another. I say this even knowing MN has app rejected cases holding that a
    transfer of the coll instrument alone is a nullity. The mtg is only a sub-agreement to the real contract (the corpus or word I don’t know) established by the note. So a reminder that since neither a mtn to dismiss nor one for sj is an answer and because that’s true (so no answer to a complaint has been filed), under rule 15, amendment is at will and does not require leave of court or stip of the parties.But that may be before any ruling on the dism or sj (I don’t remember). I believe one can’t raise new issues on appeal – not so sure about a mtn under rule 60 (if one wanted to go that route instead of an appeal).
    lay opinions – ask a lawyer or 10

  4. that article did not tell me who issued the warrant nor really for what. “failure to appear” may only be chargeable to the best of my knowledge based on failing to appear pursuant to a subpoena or existing citation (like a traffic ticket), not a civil court date/ hearing. There is no cause of action – civil or criminal – for failure to show up at a hearing on a civil matter unless one is under subpoena – that I know of. Civil contempt (not the same as failure to appear per se), which if in the power of a court to find for not showing up for a hearing, is just that: civil. But I think that civil contempt may only be found for violation of a court ORDER. If a court ordered a party to show up, because a court could (IF), and only a court may issue an Order, and one didn’t, then maybe a court may issue a citation for civil contempt, which might lead to an arrest. Can a court issue an order for a civil litigant to show up or is that abuse of power? I don’t know, but I sort of doubt a court may since there is a prescribed remedy for not showing up, like default. To what extent a judge enjoying quasi-immunity or just plain immunity would escape any repercussions he has coming for issuing
    a warrant or something which sought and got a warrant when not
    warranted (pun unintentional), got me. But if it’s an abuse of power, I think he should be suspended, so egregious is the abuse of power and application of bench law.
    lay opinion – ask a lawyer or 10

  5. no, e.tolle, I hadn’t gotten to that unconstitutional statute yet. Legislators may not legitimize illegal and wrongful acts. They have essentially tried to legislate and attach res judicata to all foreclosures (NOT) and I would argue that, knowing doing so may be at my peril. They just can’t say that all f/c’s are done deals. Even where the rights of an innocent purchaser for value are protected by statute, those statutes don’t really truncate all argument by the homeowner.
    Is the other statute which disagrees with this one alive but not kicking? Boy, I’m no authority on this stuff, but isn’t it that one law may not overwrite another? Mustn’t the first one be repealed? You all certainly have an unfair uphill battle. I found the wording of the statute powerful and yet somehow very sophomoric, as if some flunky wrote it. I guess someone wanted them to cut to the chase and leave no room for interpretation against homeowners’ rights. We need A list attorneys working in concert. If I were younger and had more energy, I swear I’d get them……….
    What can be said when the judiciary is taking its cue from legislators who are firmly in the pockets? Unfortunately, just as a court may not engage in bench law, a court is prob not the correct forum to contest
    legislation (but I don’t know that for a fact).

    A -listers and grass root efforts are probably what it’s going to take to reinstate the rule of law. In the meantime, I would go at the loss of defenses on the corpus (think that’s the right word) of the contract, which is the note. This is all really disheartening, I agree.

  6. It’s not a crime to owe money, and debtors’ prisons were abolished in the United States in the 19th century. But people are routinely being thrown in jail for failing to pay debts. In Minnesota, which has some of the most creditor-friendly laws in the country, the use of arrest warrants against debtors has jumped 60 percent over the past four years, with 845 cases in 2009, a Star Tribune analysis of state court data has found.

    Not every warrant results in an arrest, but in Minnesota many debtors spend up to 48 hours in cells with criminals. Consumer attorneys say such arrests are increasing in many states, including Arkansas, Arizona and Washington, driven by a bad economy, high consumer debt and a growing industry that buys bad debts and employs every means available to collect.

  7. E.tolle – notwithstanding that the MN SC is imo mistaken about notes and mtgs being held by diff parties, one’s best defense in my lay opinion has to be that the mtg is not the entire contract and that one party’s constitutional right to defenses against the other part of the contract, the note, which is really the guts, has been unjustly denied.
    I would be interested in Butler’s arguments and also any article about the woman thrown in jail.

  8. The MN ct said these days notes and mtgs are held by diff parties. I don’t believe that’s factual, unless it also finds that MERS (or anyone) is not an agent or nominal ben or what not. A place one might find resolution is in the MDL in AZ. That was the class-action case wherein (as I recall only) it was alleged as the main course that MERS, long and short, bifurcates the note and dot. If that court found this not to be true, especially because it found an agency (gag) between MERS and its members, the notes and dots are not held by diff parties, at least in the largest litigation to address the issue. For the MN SC to state that notes and coll instruments are routinely now held by diff parties (and so this is ok esp for enforcement) is a gross (and dangerous) misstatement imo and I’d lay that on the court’s misinformation / misunderstanding.
    if a note and coll instrument are held by separate parties, they are in fact bifurcated and it’s nuts to say that doesn’t have complications. When party A sold the note but didn’t assign the coll instrument, are they bifurcated at that point? I don’t have an answer for that one head on, though I believe that the note and collateral should be transferred together. But even if not bifurcated, neither is enforceable until they are joined. Well, notwithstanding any non-recourse prohibitters, a noteholder could probably move for a money judgment on the note, but could not move against the collateral. It’s hard to stay on point because there are so many issues involved. I think the best defense is that a homeowner’s defenses against the note, the main thrust of the contract at issue, are 86’d by an attempt at enforcement on the mtg only. A mtg is only part of a contract and though I don’t know, I suspect that trying to enforce only a part of a contract, esp these, was never contemplated in the first place either by the contract or as a
    matter of law. It may be that trying to enforce one part of the contract, the note, as a money judgment is addressed in some states’ non-recourse statutes which may prohibit an action for a money-judgment
    as opposed to one against the collateral. It’s complicated to be sure, but MN’s SC has imo made a shallow decision in Jackman by not
    addressing other salient and dispositive laws and statutes and first of all by declaring that it’s routine for notes and collateral to be separated.

    As to the MN SC saying notes and collateral are routinely separated, notwithstanding the MDL decision that MERS doesn’t bifurcate the note and mtg/dot, if there is some legit cases which find they may be bifurcated by ‘intent of the parties’, they may yet not be enforced in that condition (at least not as an action against the collateral per se). I have only seen reference to parties’ possible intent to bifurcate the instruments; I haven’t seen a case which itself goes on to discuss the ramification(s) of ‘intentional’ bifurcation: what MUST be done to enforce against the collateral?

  9. JG, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say, and there’s the conundrum. As I said way back, there are simply no defenses available to debtors in MN. Attorneys are frozen in place, fearing a similar fate as Butler esq. received by discussing notes. Now granted, I’ve read all his cases and don’t believe he went about arguing them correctly, as these things have to be rock solid and done delicately with current conditions. And yes, every single citizen of this state will, in my opinion, be forced into a quiet title suit at some point due to the invisibility of the notes. Someone will someday come a’knocking holding one or more notes looking for cash. I told you that two notes were proffered to the court in my case. How many others are there?

    Did you see that about faulty notice? That just blows me away. We have laws on the books against faulty notice, and then newer laws that nix them all. To add to all the misery in this God-forsaken place, we made news last year when a couple of sheriffs pulled a mother from her daughter walking down the street and threw her in prison for a credit card debt. You can’t make this shit up. The creditors rule the legislature with a mighty fist. My adversary law firm in court is the leading lobbyist in the state. Go figure.

  10. The MN SC is off on their reasoning, imo. I understand what they think they’re saying in stating that any dispute between an alleged equit. holder and a legal holder of a mtg is between them, but they have not considered the whole picture. First of all, there’s really no such thing
    as those positions, as I said, but then again I can understand their choice of words to describe a particular situation. They are actually saying that if A transferred the note to B but not the mtg, A may yet enforce the mtg without regard to the fact that A has alienated the debt and without regard to B’s rights, B’s rights either established – as a matter of law not contract – by 1) the notes’ transfer if a mtg follows a note- or- 2) B’s equitable right, again as a matter of law, to an assgt) and that’s just not so. What the MN SC is espousing is that those circumstances merely result in a potential dispute between A and B (and to which conflict the homeowner is not a party to boot).
    But that’s not so. imo. A mtg (not a dot) either follows a note (notwithstanding the s of f) OR the note transferee has a right to an assgt of that coll instrument and neither is enforceable against the real property until they are joined – as a matter of law, not contract. The disagreement is most succinctly this: The MN SC is saying that a party who has transferred a note may still enforce its collateral instrument, whereas I find (from case law* and likely the UCC) that in such a state, when the coll instrument has not been assigned but the note has, no one may enforce the coll instrument.
    And none of this even considers, which imo it must, the noteholder’s or the homeowner’s position after foreclosure on a mtg without benefit of the note. And because MN doesn’t appear to have a one-action rule which would as a matter of law prohibit an action by the noteholder against the homeowner on the note, I don’t know how to see this other than a frightfully short-sighted, incomplete analysis by MN’s SC. To just say that an alleged legal holder of the mtg may enforce by advertisement and leave any argument between the noteholder and the alleged mtgee for another day by and between them leaves out a tome of relevant law.
    Further: any party to a contract has defenses, and in these particular contracts, the homeowner has defenses to the note which are not available against the mortgage per se, unjustly removing
    defenses to the Contract, which is a violation I would think, of due process (or something). Whether or not particular defenses against the note would later find the homeowner off the hook for the note is not the point – the point is the homeowner is not allowed to assert available defenses to the entire Contract when being hounded by one alleging to hold the mtg only.
    Mn appears to be a non-recourse state and I haven’t tried to analyze how that might impact this particular mess.
    *One of these days I’ll find the case which told me this. (older – non-MERS)
    I think some of the points I raise have merit and if so and MN attorneys have not made their own analysis and instead have rolled over because of Jackson, I think they should be co-joined at the hip in pairs and made to stay that way until they can come up with some available arguments with teeth.
    lay opinions – ask a lawyer or 10

  11. This will show the stark contrast when viewed side by side:

    “In LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. Bouloute the court concluded that MERS must have some evidence of authority to assign the mortgage in order for an assignment of a mortgage by MERS to be effective. Evidence of MERS’s authority to assign could be by way of a power of attorney or some other document executed by the original lender. See Bouloute, 2010 WL 3359552, at *1; Alderazi, 900 N.Y.S.2d at 823 (“‘To have a proper assignment of a mortgage by an authorized agent, a power of attorney is necessary to demonstrate how the agent is vested with the authority to assign the mortgage.’”) (quoting HSBC Bank USA, NA v. Yeasmin, 866 N.Y.S.2d 92 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008))

    But back in MN, where down is legally up:

    “In recent years, the federal courts have been inundated with lawsuits brought by
    homeowners challenging the foreclosures of the mortgages on their homes. Some of these
    lawsuits are meritorious, but many are not, and quite a few are frivolous. The most common type of frivolous lawsuit is premised on what judges often refer to as the “show-me-the-note” theory.

    In every mortgage transaction, the borrower signs both a note (in which she promises to
    repay the loan) and a mortgage (in which she pledges her home as security for her promise to repay the loan). Historically the lender held both the note and the mortgage.

    Since the 1990s, however, it has become common for the note and the mortgage to be held by different entities. Often, the note is held by the lender (or by someone who bought the note from the lender), while the mortgage is held by (and recorded in the name of) a nominal mortgagee such as defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”). This system allows loans secured by mortgages to be sold and resold multiple times without the necessity of recording each sale on the title of the mortgaged property.

    A plaintiff bringing a show-me-the-note claim generally argues that, because the entity
    that holds her mortgage (say, MERS) is not the same as the entity that holds her note (say, U.S. Bank), the mortgage on her home or the foreclosure of that mortgage is invalid. This argument is frivolous when made under Minnesota law. Indeed, this argument has been rejected by the Minnesota Supreme Court, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and by every federal judge sitting in Minnesota who has addressed the argument. All of these courts have held — clearly, repeatedly, and recently — that, under Minnesota law, the entity that holds the mortgage can foreclose on the mortgage even if that entity does not also hold the note.

    Unfortunately, neither the number nor clarity of these judicial decisions has stopped
    plaintiffs from continuing to bring show-me-the-note lawsuits. Many of these lawsuits are
    brought by plaintiffs who represent themselves. Some of these plaintiffs seem to be desperate homeowners who have searched the Internet for a way to save their homes from foreclosure, run across websites touting unconventional legal theories, and been persuaded of the merit of the show-me-the-note theory. Other plaintiffs seem to be homeowners who fully understand that the show-me-the-note theory is frivolous but who are simply looking for a way to tie up their mortgagees in court, postpone the inevitable foreclosures, and live rent-free in their homes for months or even years.

    How’s about a third category of desperate MN debtors, ones who have seen all across the nation where the courts specifically state that one must have the note AND a valid assignment of mortgage in order to steal property?

    That judge I quoted was from one of attorney Bill Butler’s smackdowns, while attempting to preach that the note and the mortgage must reside together. Not here, say the judges, and they’ve hit him collectively for $265K in sanctions. Other attorneys are hiding in the closets afraid to do any foreclosure work except to take fees and lead folks to slaughter. Or they’ve simply returned to your dog bit my client work.

  12. JG wrote, “the statute I was looking for is the one the court relies on in finding that a mortgagee need have no interest in the note to foreclose.”

    John, the courts don’t point towards statute, but to the MN Supreme Court’s ruling in Jackson v. MERS, from 2009. The judges in MN all read Jackson exactly the opposite of NY’s Agard case, where :

    “The judge also concluded that MERS didn’t have authority to assign the mortgage to U.S. Bank without having “specific written directions” from the party that initially assigned the loan to MERS, which was First Franklin.

    “The documentation provided to the Court in this case…is stunningly inconsistent with what the parties define as the fact of this case,” Judge Grossman wrote. The theory that MERS “can act as a ‘common agent’ for undisclosed principals is not support [sic] by the law.”

    You’ll recall where I wrote in this discussion about Jackson where the judges are ruling that MERS can act without anyIn stark contrast, the MN judges are all well schooled in shutting down plausible defenses by referring to Jackson, where they routinely say:

    Moreover, defendants argue that the Plaintiffs, as mortgagors,
    lack standing to challenge defendants’s authority to foreclose. In
    Jackson, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that “any disputes that
    arise between the mortgagee holding legal title and the assignee of
    the promissory note holding equitable title do not affect the
    status of the mortgagor for purposes of foreclosure by
    advertisement.” 770 N.W.2d at 500. The court reaffirmed the
    principle that “legal and equitable title can be separated” and if
    a dispute arises between the holder of legal and equitable title
    with respect to foreclosure, “[i]t is a matter between them alone,
    and does not concern the mortgagor,” and such a transaction does
    “not affect the interests of the mortgagor, and he could not
    object.” Id. (citing Carpenter v. Artisans’ Sav. Bank, 47 N.W.
    150, 150 (Minn. 1980)); see also Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v.
    Souza, No. A10-190, 2010 WL 3958671, at *3 n.2 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct.
    12, 2010) (any dispute between owners of legal and equitable mortgagee’s
    rights involves holders of those mortgagee’s rights,
    not the mortgagor). Here, Arch Bay, the undisputed owner of
    equitable title, does not challenge BAC’s right to foreclose.
    Therefore, for this additional reason, Plaintiff’s claims fail.

    JG wrote, “What in MN is the value of a deficient Notice? You’re not going to believe the following legislation, as this is exactly what I was referring to when I wrote about how our legislators have taken the money in exchange for altering the statutes to make defenses all but disappear from the radar. Check out this repealed and replaced statute:

    Plaintiffs also allege that the sheriff’s sale is void pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §§ 582.25(3)(i)-(j) and (11).

    These sections provide:

    Every mortgage foreclosure sale by advertisement in this
    state under power of sale contained in any mortgage duly
    executed and recorded … together with the record of
    such foreclosure sale, is … hereby legalized and made
    valid and effective
    … as against any or all of the
    following objections: … (3) that the notice of sale:
    (i) failed to state the names of one or more of the
    assignees of the mortgage and described the subscriber
    thereof as mortgagee instead of assignee, (j) failed to
    state or incorrectly stated the name of the mortgagor,
    the mortgagee, or assignee of mortgagee … [or]
    (11) that the date of the mortgage or any assignment
    thereof … is omitted or incorrectly or insufficiently
    stated in the notice of sale or in any of the foreclosure
    papers, affidavits or instruments.

    So, that begs the question….why have a statute that spells out faulty notice if in fact there is no defense against it? As I said earlier, this state has not only bent over their populace for the banks, they’ve legitimized and ordained the resulting sodomy. And forget any help from those same legislators. A congressman from MN recently said that 98% of congress folks time is spent on the phone raising contributions. From whom? Guess. Repealed for the highest bidder.

  13. This MN (and AZ) stuff is really unsettling. If a mortgagee who need have no relationship to the note (?) may foreclose, how does MN see the noteholder? MN as far as I can tell has a very limited one-action rule, app limited to agricultural land, which says to me that a noteholder can still bring an action on the note.. …? A one-action rule would prohibit this as a matter or law, so then MN is saying what? A homeowner must learn to defend against such an action? What would his actual defenses be, esp against one claiming as a hidc? There must be more to this – somewhere.

  14. ps – the statute I was looking for is the one the court relies on in finding that a mortgagee need have no interest in the note to foreclose.
    The successors and or assigns recited in a document signed only by the borrower is imo not enough to bind successors and or assigns. It’s not a deed restriction or reservation – can’t be – it’s not even signed by anyone but the borrower who can’t make that true. The borrower can’t affix the rights of the beneficiary, present or future. And even if it could be legally found to be implied consent / intent, by what party to the dot would it be? The lenders? Is anyone of the dot parties intent or consent enough to legally bind successors and or assigns?
    I think only if it can be found to be a legally cognizable reservation running with the dot, and I don”t think it is. And even if so, another document never produced tells us that could only be true for MERS’
    club-members. Where (take 16) is the evidence that the last noteholder, who would be the party authorizing another to execute an assgt of the coll instrument is a MERS member? Where is the evidence anyone is a successor and or assign of anyone (re: no. 2 in that statute?) To avail oneself of that statute as to S and or A, one must BE the successor and or assign by some standard. But I agree (who doesn’t?) that MERS is right smack behind that legislation.

    One way or another, though, courts have to call a spade a spade and adjudicate this issue instead of ignore it: is the recitation of successors and or assigns a deed reservation (or ?) sufficient to create rights (nominee, ben, nominal ben, agent – pick one) of MERS for successors and or assigns? It doesn’t say successors and or assigns for MERS’ members only, does it? So taken at face, it means any successor and or assign, even non-members – with all those potential entanglements.

  15. “The right to enforce a mortgage through foreclosure by advertisement lies with the legal, rather than equitable, holder of the mortgage.” They just made that up from the get-go, imo. It’s faulty reasoning on a faulty premise. There is really no such thing as a “holder” of a mortgage. One may hold a note and obtain a right of enforcement if it’s a negotiable instrument – that’s a legally prescribed circumstance. But no one “holds” a mortgage. No one has “title” to a mortgage. Mortgages aren’t split into equitable title and legal title. There is no ‘title’ to a mortgage to consider whether it’s equitable or legal. One is the mortgagee, or one isn’t. Rather than having any form of ‘title’, what a mortgagee has is an interest and rights. A mortgage is a contract and no one has “title” to it, any more than any other contract. The only way to have the interest and rights created in the mortgage contract is to be the mortgagee, and no one else.
    So imo the most which could be said is that a mortgage may be enforced by a random party, one with no interest or rights, since those belong to the party with the interest and rights in the debt it secures.
    They’re just making up an artifical dynamic which doesn’t exist. And in that regard, it looks like the mortgage poses more of a problem for
    MERS et al than does a dot. Only a couple mos ago did I see a MERS mtg for the first time (NJ). I was stunned by its recitations. As I recall, the borrower actually grants title to MERS, which is a different dynamic than a dot, which grants (a form of) title to real property (not title to the instrument – that’s absurd) to the DOT trustee (not the mtgee because there isn’t one and not to the ben, either) with MERS as the nominal beneficiary. A mtg, which was a lien, has been turned into an instrument conveying title to property (NJ, anyway), which truly blows my mind. Why didn’t they call MERS the mortgagee as nominee for
    XYZ? Got me. Have to think about that one. But I have no doubt the reason is squarely untoward.
    It may be that a mortgage (as opposed to a dot) follows a note, notwithstanding the statute of frauds. Old mortgages pre-MERS, as far as I know, didn’t grant any form of title to real property to the mortgagee. The mtgee’s interest consisted of a lien, which is why they require(d) judicial foreclosure. A non-j foreclosure is a quiet title action ending in favor of the beneficiary or a third party bidder at sale. That’s not available for mortgages (or wasn’t) because the mortgagee had no form of property title to start with to quiet anyone else’s in its favor (or another bidders). But MERS and its cronies appear to have changed the mortgage, inserting words of conveyance which weren’t in old mortgages, turning it into what I’d say is bull, some kind of hybrid, so MERS could be shown in public record and other unsavory reasons.
    I really believe the judiciary, if not the legislation, has got this wrong about some “title” to a mortgage. Until we get somewhere on that, it seems that at least the alleged owner of this “legal title” to a mortgage is not entitled to a credit bid. Let them put that in their pipes and choke on it.
    lay opinions – ask a lawyer or 10

  16. e.tolle, those in MN – I was looking at MN f/c statutes:

    (a) Each notice shall specify or contain:

    (1) the name of the mortgagor, the mortgagee, each assignee of the
    mortgage, if any, and the original or maximum principal amount
    secured by the mortgage;

    (2) the date of the mortgage, and when and where recorded, except
    where the mortgage is upon registered land, in which case the
    notice shall state that fact, and when and where registered;

    (3) the amount claimed to be due on the mortgage on the date
    of the notice;

    (4) a description of the mortgaged premises, conforming
    substantially to that contained in the mortgage, and the
    commonly used street address of the mortgaged premises;

    (5) the time and place of sale;

    (6) the time allowed by law for redemption by the mortgagor,
    the mortgagor’s personal representatives or assigns; and …….”

    I’m going to hazard that many f/c Notices are legally deficient
    in MN (as other states). But what’s it good for? What in MN is the value of a deficient Notice? Got me. I found another MN statute which says what is not available as a defense against a f/c sale after x amt of time (think it was) but I lost it.
    But even on a good day for the banksters, the Notice must contain
    a recitation of an assgt from “MERS” to anyone else and so on.
    In MN, has MERS generally averred to be the ben, or has MERS alleged to be an agent? It occurs to me that anytime MERS has alleged to be an agent,** the assgt must contain a recital that it is being assigned by MERS as agent for _______, which imo is sop for any agency. I don’t think agents may execute documents as if they do so in their own rights. Not doing so doesn’t give anyone fair notice of the alleged relationship, which it is anyone’s right to challenge. This is just generally so imo, never minding all the unwarranted legal assumptions MERS et al help themselves to. I’m not saying nor should one argue that an agent may not assign its principal’s interest. I’m just saying agency must be proved as well as the rights and duties of the agent, especially here with MERS because if anything (and I think not of course), MERS is a limited agent and doesn’t have carte blanche to do all things for its principal. But this part is distracting: what I am advancing is that in at least cases where MERS has claimed agency, assignments (or any act by MERS) should have been executed / done by MERS as agent for Whomever.

    ** MERS has claimed in various litigation to be either the ben or an agent, which are distinctly different. Someone could be the ben here and an agent there, but MERS’ alleged relationship with its members is uniform, so I think some resolution is in order, but I’m not sure how we’d advance that idea. I say we want to so that MERS must disclose the ‘for whom’ it acts as (alleged) agent. That’s the one thing they do NOT want known. For whom is MERS purporting to assign the coll instrument to the current alleged noteholder? Somewhere out there are cases where MERS alleged to be the agent for just about every bankster we’ve had the displeasure of meeting, and if I were litigating just now, I would find as many of those “agency” allegations with my bankster as I could to undermine MERS ben status (to get at the ‘for whom’).
    The holding in the case you cited is apparently an interpetation of some statute, but I can’t tell which statute and wasn’t able to find it on my own…..
    Lay opinions – not advice, legal or otherwise. ask a lawyer or 10

    1217 Opal Drive
    Fox Milne,
    Milton Keynes,
    MK15 0ZR.
    United Kingdom.
    Mobile: +447042035199

    We are here to introduce a loan program that will help improve your financial

    situation, economic and relieve you of all financial crises.

    Loan request: You have to be able to articulate how much your business needs, how

    the loan funds will be used, the type of loan request you need, and how much capital

    you have on hand.

    Specialized in providing loans from the range of € 5,000 and above all, as car loan,

    we offer loan in the short and long term for customers at a rate of 3% etc.

    We give out our Loan in USD($) and GBP(£) and any currency of your choice.

    * Are you financially tuned down ?
    * Do you need funds to pay off credits and debts
    * Do you need finance to set up your own business?
    * Are you in need of private or business loans for various purposes?
    * Do you need loans to carry out large projects

    We offer the following types of loans:

    *Commercial Loans.
    *Personal Loans.
    *Business Loans.
    *Investments Loans.
    *Development Loans.
    *Acquisition Loans.

    If you really acknowledge this content, you are to send the details information to

    the account overleaf.

    (1) Full Name:

    (2) Loan Amount Needed:

    (3) Duration of Repayment:

    (4) Country:

    (5) Marital Status:

    (6) Gender:

    (8) Age:

    (10) Occupation:

    (11) Mobile:


    Payment by bank to bank transfer 48 hours
    Payment by bank certified check 9 days

    – The First option which is by bank to bank transfer, loan
    funds are transferred directly into your account with the aid of our

    – As for the last option, a certified check is made out by our bank as a
    draft, which can be cashed by clients anywhere in the world, it takes
    4 working days to get to the applicant and 5 days for the check to be



    Mr. Rodney Hayne
    Enjoy Online Banking and Best Services Offer!!!

  18. JG, first off, Minnesota has simply mortgages, no DOTs. Here’s a quick rundown from a recent case that cites what I was referring to, as to legalized bifurcation:

    Plaintiffs assert all four causes of action against the Bank Defendants. At the heart of all of these claims is the allegation that the Bank Defendants do not have legal title to Plaintiffs’ original notes, and do not have a right, title, or interest in Plaintiffs’ properties. In essence, Plaintiffs argue that the Bank Defendants do not possess the original promissory notes secured by Plaintiffs’ respective mortgages and thus cannot enforce the notes through acceleration and a foreclosure sale. (See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28-36.) The Minnesota Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court, and other courts in this district have already considered and rejected this argument. See Jackson v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 770 N.W.2d 487, 500-01 (Minn. 2009) (holding that a mortgagee with legal title is not required to have any interest in the promissory note to foreclose by advertisement); Stein v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 662 F.3d 976, 980 (8th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he right to enforce a mortgage through foreclosure by advertisement lies with the legal, rather than equitable, holder of the mortgage.”); Butler v. Bank of Am., Civil No. 11-461, 2011 WL 2728321, at *6 (D. Minn. July 13, 2011); Welk v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, Civil No. 11-2676, 2012 WL 1035433, at *6 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2012); Jerde v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Civil No. 11-2666, 2012 WL 206271, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2012); Murphy v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, Civil No. 11-2750, 2012 WL 104543, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 12, 2012); Kraus v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Civil No. 11-3213, 2012 WL 1581113, at *3 (D. Minn. May 4, 2012) Vang v. PNC Mortgage, Inc., Civil No. 11-3741, 2012 WL 2005398, at *3 (D. Minn. June 5, 2012); Johnson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., Civil No. 12-445, 2012 WL 2119258, at *2-3 (D. Minn. June 11, 2012).
    As previously explained in the above cases, it does not matter whether the Bank Defendants can establish that they hold the promissory notes.

    For these reasons, Plaintiffs cannot establish that the Bank Defendants were not entitled to foreclose. Because all of Plaintiffs’ claims against the Bank Defendants are based on the same discredited legal argument, they are all properly dismissed with prejudice.

    As to statutes, the MERS statute passed in 2004, (Minn. Stat. § 507.413) grants MERS the ability to morph into whatever form it needs to…..bennie, nominee, or mortgagee. In MN and unbelievably, MERS is considered a full blown mortgagee with all the rights of a lender. It reads:

    The statute provides that:

    An assignment … is sufficient to assign a mortgage if:

    (1) a mortgage is granted to a mortgagee as
    nominee or agent for a third party identified
    in the mortgage, and the third party’s
    successors and assigns;

    (2) a subsequent assignment … is executed by
    the mortgagee or the third party, its
    successors or assigns; and

    (3) the assignment … is in recordable form.

    Now the courts have run roughshod over this statute to an amazing degree, as follows:

    The plain language of the statute does not require authorization from the lender before the mortgagee can assign the mortgage. The Plaintiffs executed a
    mortgage to MERS as nominee of the lender and the lender’s successors and assigns. Therefore, Plaintiff’s argument that MERS had no authority to assign the mortgage fails. The Plaintiffs also argue that the assignment is void because BAC, not the owner of the loan, authorized MERS to assign the mortgage to BAC. The court has already determined, however, that MERS, as a mortgagee of record, has the authority to assign its interest without express permission from
    the owner of the debt. Therefore, the fact that [the authorizing attorney] is not employed by the MERS member that owns the indebtedness is immaterial.

    The infamous Jackson ruling in 2009 from the MN Supremes, which I have to believe was orchestrated by the cartel to simply tilt the table more against debtors, is behind all of this mayhem. They never answered the original certified question that would have cleared up a lot of this mess, preferring to scramble the eggs into an inedible dish instead. Justice Alan Page was the lone dissenter, and put it very succinctly when he wrote in his dissent:

    “MERS claims to hold legal title, but only legal title, to the mortgage being foreclosed. MERS also claims that in foreclosing mortgages it acts only as nominee for its members. But MERS can act as nominee for only the particular MERS member who holds the promissory note at any particular time and, when that promissory note is assigned between members, the member for which MERS acts as nominee, and on whose behalf MERS holds legal title, necessarily changes. In other words, the entity on whose behalf MERS holds legal title to the mortgage changes every time the promissory note is assigned. Thus, even if the statutory language were not so plain, I would still conclude that transfers of the mortgage resulting from assignments of the promissory note between MERS members must be recorded before the mortgage can be foreclosed by advertisement.”

    It’s impossible for me to understand how anyone could miss the logic in that. Instead, the courts are holding, like I wrote above, that MERS is simply a pool and any member that wants can reach in and assign your mortgage to itself. It is the single most heinous deal I could imagine, especially when it’s systematically used to defraud millions out of their single most valuable asset.

  19. e.tolle – glad to hear it!

  20. e.tolle – please list MN statute nos. relied on in foreclosures. There’s no way it’s factual that someone claiming to be a mortgagee has anything to enforce independent of the debt a dot secures. imo. We have to shut this down, whatever it takes. Carpenter is a double-edged sword. It may stand for the proposition that a mtg, a two-party instrument which requires judicial foreclosure, follows a note, as you say I think, but the banksters like that because they would love to do away with assignments of dots, a three party instrument not requiring judicial foreclosure, as well as doing away with any type of Notice to the homeowner of a party’s rights and interest, and instead rely solely on poss of bearer notes. Your arguments that allowing foreclosure on the basis of the coll instrument are well-taken, if I may, but there’s more to it. Imo. These courts are also saying the party who is entitled to enforce the note may find himself with no security. Well, actually, if
    a state has a one-action rule, that (enf of note) wouldn’t be allowed because the one-action rule says there may be but one action to collect a debt secured by real property (see any state’s version of one-action rule for actual language). So I guess that means that a noteholder’s claim is 86’d by foreclosure by an alleged ‘mortgagee’: a party who may have no skin in the game may both gain and may remove a noteholder’s sole remedy. (following rule 17, however, a claimant must be the party to suffer injury, so to me, that alone presents a conflict imo resolved in favor of / by 17) But imo “mortgagee” is a misnomer in a dot in the first place. A mortgagee holds a lien on real property pursuant to a two-party instrument called a mortgage. There is no mtgee in a dot – only a beneficiary (the words imo are not interchangeable despite their common use to the contrary), and that’s another part of the argument. So who is a beneficiary? It’s the party with the beneficial interest in the debt secured by the dot and no one else, despite what banksters have crafted or how they’ve convinced otherwise.

  21. JG, I ended up getting that doc recorded, I just had to give three or four people a Clint Eastwood look to do it.

  22. Nobody quote me on this or take my word for it (like anything I posit), but I think when a court is determining a mtn to dismiss, it may only look at what’s in the 4 corners of the complaint. When a court looks at material outside the complaint (and its attachments because attachments are part of the complaint), it may not consider that material in a mtn to dismiss.
    It can consider that material in a mtn for SJ. If the bankster pleads dismissal, I don’t think it can get that relief (dismissal) when asking a court to rely on other material. So what does that mean? Maybe it means the relief (dismissal) req’d couldn’t be granted as a matter of law. Can a court itself convert a mtn to dismiss to one for SJ? I don’t remember, if I ever knew. But I think it’s important, because, if for no other reason, as I recall (only) SJ is seen as adjudication on the merits (and res judicata attaches), whereas dismissal isn’t. If we get hit with a legit dismissal (only considerations from 4 corners) without prejudice, are we free to amend? I think so. If a bankster got a dismissal with prejudice and the court considered other material in granting that relief, I’m not sure it could stand. So, yeah, I think it’s all important. Pretty sure the answers are found in FRCP 12. We care because if dismissal were improperly granted, the fight’s not over.
    lay opinions – ask a lawyer or 10

  23. e.tolle said:
    “When I went to my county recorder’s office to file a notice alerting possible buyers of my property due to false lien claims, I was told that only bankers can record property record documents.”
    Unless MN has some other tweaked law of which I am not aware, the
    recorder’s office is in a world of hurt for making that claim. Determining what may be recorded and not would be practicing law, actually, and that’s why recorders are compelled to record what is presented ‘as long as’ it meets their format (physically) for recording and refers to some real property (generally this must include the assessor’s parcel number on the top left of the document and stay within the mandated borders (1 – 3 inches from edge of paper – if you don’t stay in the margins, they may charge add’l fees for recording).
    I really hate presenting this fact (as I see it) since some recorder’s offices are taking the position they’re not recording MERS bs and of course I like that. You might look into state statutes governing recorders duties. Now, if you find I’m right, I’m not just sure what you should do about it. Maybe try again to record what you wanted recorded? I have Notices with cover sheets called NOTICE which had the parcel no., “commonly known as” the street address, and the legal description, like this:

    APN: 423-45-089-555

    Recording Requested by
    John Q. Homeowner and Jane Q. Homeowner

    After recording, send to
    1234 Main Street
    Still an American Town, CA 90210

    February 12, 2009


    NOTICE is hereby given of the claims, information,
    preservations and reservations in the attached affecting
    the real property commonly known as

    1234 Main Street
    Still an American Town, CA

    and by legal description:

    THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 13, Township 23
    North, Range 14 East, described as follows:

    Lot Four (6) as shown by Map Thereof in File 11 of
    Parcel Maps, Page 19 in the Office of the County
    Wonderland, CA

    _________________________ _______________________

    John Q. Homeowner Jane Q. Homeowner
    This is NOT legal advice – it’s lay opinion. Ask a lawyer or 10

  24. Here is how the Minnesota courts take you down, in clear violation of established (elsewhere) laws:

    “….under Minnesota’s non-judicial foreclosure statute, the holder of legal title
    to the mortgage need not have any interest in the underlying note in order to foreclose”.
    And…. “the holder of a security instrument may foreclose without possession of the promissory note”.

    That nonsense is in direct conflict with Carpenter v. Longan, which states, ”The mortgage can have no separate existence. When the note is paid the mortgage expires. It cannot survive for a moment the debt which the note represents.”

    It is also how they have effectively shut down any conversation on bifurcation….it is simply allowed in this little bankster friendly oasis. Mark my words, the state of Minnesota will be paying for this stupidity for the next century, as there’s simply nothing to stop false creditors from hounding borrowers from now till doomsday over false claims. Coupled with the 2004 bought and paid for MERS statute, there’s nothing to stop anyone from coming after a homeowner claiming to own their mortgage, the burden is indefensible and squarely on the shoulders of the borrower.

    When I went to my county recorder’s office to file a notice alerting possible buyers of my property due to false lien claims, I was told that only bankers can record property documents. Now isn’t that special! It’s a fucking club, and we’re not members!

    The MERS statute, as I’ve written about before….. judges routinely shape the statute like so, “The plain language of the statute does not require authorization from the lender before the mortgagee (MERS specifically) can assign the mortgage”. And: “The mortgage does not qualify MERS’ authority or otherwise require that MERS receive express authorization from the lender before acting”. So in MN, MERS is like a rogue drone, able to attack anyone anywhere at anytime. This is unparalleled in state law. By paying off the legislature, the criminal banking cartel has effectively created a free-for-all foreclosure scenario, whereby anyone that can call themselves a creditor (a member of the club) may decide at will to utilize the MERS system to assign themselves your mortgage and foreclose on you. THERE IS SIMPLY NO DEFENSE ALLOWED TO THE BORROWERS.

    What about fraudulent assignments? They don’t exist, at least to the point that it’s none of the borrower’s business:

    “….[Plaintiff’s] conclusory allegation that person [sic] who executed an assignment falsely held himself out as a vice president of defendant…… it also is immaterial to the validity of the assignment and goes beyond anything the Plaintiffs have standing about which to complain.”

    So, it’s simply off base to talk about fraudulent assignments. BTW, these weren’t conclusory allegations….I had concrete evidence that the person authorizing assignments was a min-wage robo-signer acting as a pseudo-VP, and that the notary’s signature was clearly a forgery as well. But case law cited by the judge sweeps all fraud under the bench, such as:

    “A notarized “acknowledgment on a deed is prima facie evidence that the grantor executed the deed for the consideration expressed in the deed.”

    End of story. Now, if that wasn’t bad enough, the judge decided, without any motions, to seal all of the evidence I proffered on the fraudulent assignments and notary fraud….it was all stricken from the record so that those following my bread crumbs would not be able to find and use this damning evidence in their own case. The defendant bank didn’t even have to ask for this grand token. It was offered up without request by the judge.

    In my mind these actions are so egregious as to be criminal on the part of the judge. But I blame most of all the legislators. JG, you and I have discussed this before, but America is totally unaware that while we’ve watched football and 3-D movies and such over the last three decades, all of the state debtor laws have been quietly repealed or rewritten, in the same way that MERS was quietly brought into the equation. I’d say that all of this is illegal, but that’s my point…’s legal because it was made legal by our legislators, state by state, by signing off on legislation drafted by and for the banking cartel for campaign donations. Simple as that. It’s a never ending cycle from the lowest levels of government to the highest. Graft rules.

    And until we fix that, there’s no hope for third world America.

  25. Peoples advocates are fighting for other Americans rights in the freeist nation on earth….? Why can’t anyone do anything for themselves in this country anymore….? That is the real question…

  26. I hate to say it your problem may be your attorney. It sounds to me like he and the judge are cronies……. They showed you how the system works against you.

  27. e.tolle – never heard of that acknowledgment thing before. To me, it’s ridiculous. Did anyone deny receiving the thing to send back or did his
    highnass just say they didn’t ack, so eat a rock? What a load! I guess MN takes the position that service by mail is a privilege and thus feels justified in attaching a risk. Just to be clear – the thing you sent is a complaint, not a motion, right? If you don’t answer, I’ll assume it was the complaint.

  28. How about the investors paying tax on their big fat dividends they get paid out every month…or more….? If we cash in our 401 k we get taxed….Why should a revenue flow not be taxed…? How about WE THE PEOPLE borrow A QUADRILLON DOLLARS from the FEDSTERS…… INTEREST FREE BACKED BY OUR STOLEN WEALTH & COLLECT INTEREST PAYMENTS FROM THE FEDSTERS EVERY MONTH TAX FREE & POCKET ALL PAYMENTS….? SOUNDS FAIR….

  29. Since Corporations are people are the large multinational corps included in the fiscal cliff tax hike…..? Because GE hasn’t paid tax in at least ten years and either has BANK OF AMERICA….or is TBTF TO BIG TO JAIL and TOO BIG TO TAX…..?


  31. You can tell a person at any level of education high or low…from low income to high income who are faithfully paying an underwater mortgage there is criminal fraud in their mortgage. They will all give you the same answer….. it would be immoral of them to stop paying these crooks… You can show them undeniable proof all of their payments are going to a well organized money laundering drug cartel and show them media reports by the mainstream media that the big banks are laundering drug money but they will tell you but I have morals…? Sorry but no, you really don’t have any morals….but yes, you are severely brainwashed.

  32. Folks can scream that all their wealth, property and legal rights are being stripped…and stolen and it won’t stop until WE THE PEOPLE stop COMPLYING….CONFORMING & COOPERATING WITH THEIR OWN ABUSERS WHO ARE OPPRESSING THEM….It is completely warped psychological warfare, just like a wife abuser does to his victim….nothing will change and it can only get worse until you stop allowing it. How many times have we heard the lie America is broke…and the words war, debt & terror in the last 11 years….? Think about that…

  33. Sorry to say it but, WE THE PEOPLE are allowing it. We are not invoking our Constitutional Rights properly and we are not putting these crooks in their place. You can attack me and talk about that is not “proper procedure” but there is no proper procedure when the claim was unconstitutional and therefore criminal at the onset. You can say you did invoke your rights ….but did you invoke them properly…? No….you did not…..Otherwise you wouldn’t be losing your cases and scratching your heads and saying, why did I lose…..? This must be a tyranny….! I can’t tell you how to fight for your rights nor should I have to. This is about educating yourselves and regaining your own Constitutional and personal freedom and independence. That is why they are trying to take our Second Amendment rights away because in a nation that is this poorly educated, all be it was intentional, when you have all the means to educate yourself at your disposal and people don’t “have time” then indeed this could get out of control quicky. I am not defending the oppressors and our Second Amendment is OUR LEGAL RIGHT…..However, we are the most miserably helpless bunch of Americans in history. Too dependent on others to save us. People call being independent going to work so they can pay these tyrants to screw them out of everything. When the Bill of Rights was put into law people weren’t depending on the Government but the founders knew what these miserable tyrants were planning to do. That’s why they wrote the Constitution simply so that every American could use it, without an attorney to defend themselves from a Government that had become completely corrupt and is oppressing the people.

  34. @hman
    I am very sorry that your case was dismissed.
    There is no justice re wrongful foreclosures for sure as we found out. Way too much corruption being allowed.
    At least you gave it your best shot. We fought
    as long as we could. My husband would say “we will fight until we can’t” We have no regrets because we gave even more than our
    best shot. We would have had regrets if we
    just allowed the bank and the flipper to steal our house without a fight. So now I tell everybody and anybody what I’ve learned and
    what the media is not reporting or falsely reporting.

  35. And right up there with my favorites….the judges… congress.

    The Public Policy Polling survey of 830 Americans from January 3-6 revealed that Congress had hit new lows in the eyes of the same US voters who sent representatives to work there.

    The legislative body proved less popular than traffic jams, Donald Trump, France, lice, Genghis Khan, cockroaches and used car dealers, the poll found.

  36. @JG, here’s the cite that squashed service:

    In Minnesota, a civil action is commenced “when the
    summons is served upon [the] defendant” or “at the date of
    acknowledgment of service if service is made by mail.” Minn. R.
    Civ. P. 3.01. Where, as here, service occurs by mail, plaintiff
    must send a “copy of the summons and of the complaint (by
    first-class mail, postage prepaid) to the person to be served,
    together with two copies of a notice and acknowledgment conforming
    substantially to Form 22 and a return envelope, postage prepaid,
    addressed to the sender.” Id. R. 4.05. “If acknowledgment of
    service under this rule is not received by the sender within the
    time defendant is required by these rules to serve an answer,
    service shall be ineffectual.”

    I used a process server, but he evidently failed to provide a return postage paid envelope for their return acknowledgement. The kicker is that you can’t serve their branches here, they just won’t accept service. I know the SOS will accept it, but my process server just decided to mail it, instead of going to the SOS office. I wonder if I have a claim against my server? I’d hate to do that, as he’s just a working stiff, but that’s what insurance is for, right?

    Any loop hole works for the bad guys when the courts are steamrolling, and you know they never point out tips and tricks in the borrowers favor. All you folks bitching about AZ have no idea what it’s like trying to defend against this machine in the land of legislated MERS. MN is hands down the worst state in the union for all things foreclosure. Dave Kreiger told me his attorney network is advising that no one buy land in MN. That’s a hell of a thing to say about a place, you reckon? Besides the fact that, it’s -0* for nine months of the year. I think we should give the entire upper midwest back to the Sioux. It was much cleaner in their hands anyway. Imagine drinking out of the Mississippi River…you’d have only a few nasty-assed froth-filled minutes to live if you tried that today.

    There’s no possibility this judge’s ruling could stand on appeal, but the last thing I want is to end up back in his court, as he’s so in love with banksters that he’ll simply find another way to drop my drawers and bend me over pointing out my bullseye to the banksters. But, and it’s a big but (I probably shouldn’t use that analogy after the drawer dropping one), the judge did NOT rule as to prejudice or leave to amend. SO I live to fight another day, only better armed with their truly bad representation in court, for example….two notes, their claim to be both servicer and creditor…..not being on either note…..never mentioning Fannie which I have proof from them that they actually own the note, at the same time that B of A claims the same…..having no assignment until after foreclosure was initiated….all of these things would get any bankster kicked out of any court in the union if there wasn’t an all out war attempting to create one big debtor nation in MN. Time for a change of venue.

  37. hman said:
    The person who “assigned” my mortgage on behalf of MERs also signed as the attorney in fact for Aurora”.
    Aurora is nothing but a lousy svcr unless they repurchased a loan imo and they would have done that pursuant to a default repurchase agreement. (not a hidc then) Have I reminded you of als v sattar, ny, wherein als was warned to stop alleging to be the proper plaintiff? I have a tome of case law on aurora if you want it. fwi might be worth.

    The alleged mers ‘officer’ who assigned the dot is also the aif for the transferee? stated another way: the officer of the assignor is also the
    attorney in fact for the assignee? The act of an officer is generally the act of the corporation, as is an act of a poa (the act of a poa is an act of its principal). So does that make the assignor and the assignee the same party (I’m not sure), not just present a patent conflict of interest, so patent it’s unconscionable?
    May I ask what arguments you made about this issue above? Since you are still in title, have you filed any Notice with the co. recorder giving Notice of any irregularities? Not a suggestion – it’s a qusestion.
    In court cases where any ‘irregularity’ has been adjudicated, it would likely p.o. the court or subject the homeowner to the court’s wrath if a homeowner now files notice regarding that irregularity. What about issues not adjudicated but could have been adjudicated in the action? I don’t know – ask a lawyer – but I continue to think as a lay person that it’s appropriate to record Notices of Issues and or Irregularities with f/c prior to f/c, particularly regarding the NOD, unless a court has resolved those issues.
    Title cos in Ohio are taking note of Schwartzwhatwasthat and foreseeing issues with title when the bankster was not the holder and
    assignee when f/c was done or initiated – i forget- (see article at re schwartzwald (was it?) from one tille cos.’ perspective. Actually, I’ll link it below.
    If the bankster had no rights when it foreclosed, I give, what did it give the alleged sub-trustee when telling it to foreclose? Just an order – go after this home? obviously a non-interest bankster couldn’t have established non-existant rights to a dot trustee so on what basis did a trustee act? We need to start putting some fear in these yeahoo sub-trustees for their bad acts.

  38. The courts aren’t the only problem…Banks are charging PEOPLE excessive fees on their bank accounts… WIPING OUT THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS…..SAYING YOU OWE THEM FICTITIOUS AMOUNTS & RUINING YOUR NAME & YOUR CREDIT & BLAMING YOU FOR IT.

  39. Sorry to hear about your dismissal, hman. The courts are corrupt, and they know they are corrupt. They know they should be deciding in favor of homeowners, but the fix is in. This country is to be brought low, and they’re going to try to blame us for it. There is no rule of law in this country.

    You at least have done what I said I was going to do post-lawsuit but haven’t yet done. You contacted the media. I’m working up to that. I decided that since the courts are so corrupt, the only appeal we have is outside their little gamed system, i.e., our appeal must be directly to the people. Even if we don’t win our individual battles or get our homes back, we will win this war when (not if) these banks are exposed and thrown in the dustbin of history.

  40. Here is a slew of documents put out by Heather Tucci of The People’s Trust 1776. I haven’t read them. Some of them can be handed out to public servants when they try to evict homeowners. – ZIP archive, unpacked size 7,515,606 bytes

  41. hman, you keep postponing that sale. try to hang in there, i know it’s tough. BSE is in AZ too. you gotta know when to say when. hope you can find something to keep the battle going.

  42. We lost our home 2 years ago to BOA in NC (a non-judicial foreclosure state). We adamantly reserved all rights without prejudice, seeking due process (jury trial). We did so repeatedly,in writing, via certified mail, to all parties- bank, servicer, trustee, and Freddie Mac. We wrote the AG, banking commission, governor’s office, etc. “Why bother?”, you may ask.

    It probably sounds naive, but we sought redress in the courts instead of blindly signing a request for modification and crossing our fingers because of an enlightening conversation with one of the VP’s in Freddie’s Mac’s loan modification office in McClean, VA, a fellow by the name of Terrence. He explained the reason so few mortgages had been modified was the securitization process had made it nearly impossible to identify all investors with equity interest in a particular note, and thus the inability to reconstitute such ownership ‘slices’ back into a single modifiable loan (assuming all investors agreed to such). The MERS recorded loans (like ours) were the worst offenders- a black box servicers and trustees fronting for investors they could not identify.

    Freddie Mac had managed to permanently modify so few homeowners, that out of millions of applicants, the photos of those actually helped fit on a single “Wall of Fame” in their office. Virtually none of those loans had been securitized and/or recorded by MERS.

    Of course, lack of identification of investors didn’t stop foreclosures from proceeding anyway.

    Our demands for due process as guaranteed by state or federal constitutional law were ignored.

    In the end, we only have those rights we are able to adequately defend.

    Now would be a marvelous time to apply the last power remaining to the commoner with no money- the COMMERCIAL LIEN. Follow the process to the letter, and “lien” on the private property of any individual who violates your rights under common law. Such a lien can be recorded by anyone (with valid cause) for a very small fee at the county registrar’s office. In NC, such liens can only be removed by the party who placed them, forcing the perpetrator to deal with you if they ever want to sell or refinance their property. It also wreaks havoc with their credit.

    Like so many have said, these banking abuses and fraud will continue until the individuals involved are personally affected.

  43. e.tolle, well, your judge is full of it because service is complete on mailing on the mailer’s end. it requires no acknowledgement of receipt by the bankster. He pulled that right out of the ether (or somewhere lower) or it’s big news to me. In fact, to avoid the service (when a cert of svc has been filed and even it can be amended, I think) a bankster would have to file a mtn to quash service for a damn good reason. Barring such a mtn and showing, it may be that a court has no juris to hear LATE arguments of the bankster in such a scenario and no juris is no juris (if that’s true which I recall it is, but who knows what i remember correctly) A case recently posted or commented on here disbursed with the ‘you have no standing about the assg’t bull, did one not? No, it’s not precedent everywhere but the court’s ruling was well-worthy of plagerism. Why stop now, me thinks:
    “Successors and or assigns” in a dot is not enough to confer jack and I’m going to prove it. Well, some day. (First of all and obviously, it’s not signed by anyone who could even pretend to bind anyone else)
    lay opinions – ask a lawyer or 10. That or get in groups of trustworthies and each group take a section of bull thrown at us to put an end to.
    MERS doesn’t need to show that its an agent or ben for the alleged current noteholder; it has to demonstrate that it was an agent or ben for the LAST noteholder since that’s the party who would be executing an asst of the coll instrument to the current alleged noteholder, and who knows who that is or what if any relationship it had with mers?
    What if I were the last noteholder – or YOU. Either one of us authorize MERS to do anything, including assigning the coll instrument to the party claiming it now holds the note (theoretically because you or I transferred the note to that party)?

  44. Hman

    That’s Heather site. Of note: because she wanted to find out how deep the corruption went, she used her own house to be foreclosed on in order to understand. Moral courage. She is an attorney.

  45. Hman,

    The sky is the limit. I screamed before filing suit all the way to… Obama, who referred me to some agency a tad too late, after I had filed suit. My attorney advised me to cool it at that point, which I have.

    I would stay in the house as long as I can and keep screaming. Also, and i don’t know yet how that works, Heather Tucci-Jarraf from Thepeople’strust1776 has been training people and attorneys on how to stop a sale and an eviction, by having sheriffs and police force sign a doc whereby they were elected by the people, they are supposed to serve the people and they take full responsibility for the actions they are about to take (i.e., evict you) on behalf of a bank while paid by the people.

    From what she said (and a few DAs are taking her seminars), public servants don’t want to do banks’ bidding. They sign, knowing that, either way, they will be in hot water sooner or later. And then, they leave with homeowners still in the house. A few sheriffs in CA are now simply refusing to evict. Look into it. Nothing to lose.

    Keep us posted.

  46. If they weren’t a party to the PSA, then how can they have authority? I don’t get it? WOW

  47. @ ETolle

    Yes, my attorney brought up the PSA and the banks attorney said We weren’t a party to those documents either?

    I also have an underwriting document that was accidentally given to me by the servicer. The document is instruction to the broker stating to close the loan as a GMAC loan. Can you say truth and lending violation? Where is GMAC in the chain of title? The document that was assigned is irrelevant? O wait GMAC was an “assigned” from MERS.

    The judges have the “You got the $ from somewhere” or “You owe somebody somewhere something” approach.

    I even wrote the investors attorney requesting I’d be considered for a loan mod? But I guess I’m still just a dead beat who wanted a free house. My attorney even stated we weren’t in default.

    It is unbelieveable. AZ is the worst of the bunch. All other states have put procedures in place. CA has the bill of rights, NV has the mediation, some places require the notes be shown, other states have layed the smack down on MERS. AZ offers assitance to those who are current because if they offered those who were past due assistance that would be a “moral hazard” per the attorney general because it would encourage other people to not pay their mortgage to get assistance.

  48. @ hman

    “The person who “assigned” my mortgage on behalf of MERs also signed as the attorney in fact for Aurora”

    That is bullshit. so, they are working for the same people, in the same action….wrong, wrong, wrong, your honor. How can MERS assign paperwork from a CD and when did they get the note?

    “the false recording statute doesn’t apply to assignment of mortgages because an assignment of mortgage doesn’t “create a lien” it only transfers an interest in an existing lien”.

    Why would a real party in interest need to create a false assignment? There is no lien with forged paperwork, nor can the lien be perfected without certain standards being adhered to.

    What basis did the judge dismiss your case on? The reason I am asking, is that appeals can be quite easy, except for paperwork needing to be very meticulous. The other thing: I have an appeal and we didn’t have to post a bond, we used the property as collateral….it is doable.

    Please don’t give up, unless you have to. This judges logic is flawed.
    The judge is wrong, need to get remedial law training, in my humble opinion…

  49. I don’t regret fighting. I beat the original broker. Yes, I have a signed judgment stating I had won and he had no interest in the property. Then came the “assignment”. The banks attorney stated the verbage on the DOT reads “it’s successor and assigns” and the assignment only has to come from the owner of the note (but in AZ the note isn’t required to be shown because it would slow down the process) My attorney argued it was bogus and such BS but the judge saw it the other way. She had the far better argument.

    Many of us know we are right but our thoughts don’t matter. Like I said I launched a press release hoping someone will pick up my story. It was sent to hundreds of journalist. I’m not done fighting. I want to try and save it. Actually, the sale was just postponed again. I’m just taking a different avenue because I’ve lost faith in the system. Sometimes you have to try something new.

    The press release outlines how I wrote the OCC, Attorney General, Maricopa County Recorder, Dept of financial instution, AZ Bar, trustee, etc…and nobody listens. I’m just gonna scream louder and hope someone hears me.

  50. We have to have faith.

  51. There are many battles to be won in this war. The only thing that guarantees our freedom is our willingness to keep fighting the tyrants. Never give up especially your guns. That is really the only thing keeping us free. If they wanted to take us over violently, they would have done it by now. They really don’t want that. They want to deceive us into complete communism…But never underestimate anyone…..They cannot be trusted AT ALL….NEVER GIVE UP THE FIGHT AND NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUNS…IMHO….These crooks will have to pry everything out of my cold dead hands.

  52. Well said papergate. I like the fire and passion. It truly is the only way we’ll eventually turn the tide, by sticking to our guns.

  53. @hman:

    If you give up I will seek you out and beat the bejesus out of you . . . don’t you dare give in – appeal – the court abused its discretion – keep digging – go back to the ‘scene of the crime with original paperwork – do it in pro se if you have to but don’t give up your fight – file bk – buy some time to look it all over again – you’re missing something – your gut/instinct knows somethings amiss – stay with your instincts – if the attorney wants out let him – keep the fight going because as long as it is being fought time is going to eventually win – dross the gold out of this mess – file chapter 11 – debtor-in-possession – keep the papers aflame hman – that is how we are going to turn the tides . . . BTW I would never beat the bejesus out of you but I sure as hell would lecture . . .

    Neil – where are you – give hman some insight would ya??

  54. I, too, am sorry to hear that hman. But of course it’s not surprising. Same thing happened in my case. Fraudulent assignments were tossed because I had no standing due to the judges favorite cite….. “homeowners were not a party to the mortgage assignment”. No matter that the assignments were derived from fraud.

    Hard to imagine a world where the banks can take any mortgage lying around, forget that it’s previously been sold, that doesn’t matter, they just assign it to themselves via MERS and wham, they are granted foreclosure, with no possibility of being apprehended for a crime, or at the least, being tossed from court for manufacturing fraudulent documents. Why? Because of their other favorite cite…. “attorneys acting within the scope of employment are immune from liability to third persons for actions arising out of that professional relationship.” Very hard to get around that one. In a sane world, given that doctrine, one would simply go up the corporate chain of that “professional relationship” and rein down terror in the form of the FBI and the DOJ all over the minion that ordered the crimes. But of course I’m dreaming.

    Also, as has been discussed here in detail, procedure will kill us Pro Se’s every time. They can pull stuff out of their ass at any moment, and you won’t even see the shit coming. In my case, the bank was very late in responding with their answers….they were screwed! Uh, no, actually, no problem, at least not for them. It would be for us. But having judges running defense for the criminals at the next table over unlevels the playing field every time. The judge in my case gloated that the bank wasn’t late in answering because my service to them was “ineffectual because Bank of America did not acknowledge Service”. I’d like to know if I have the same opportunity to simply refuse to reply to the bank’s service….I know the answer to that riddle already….we’re screwed.

    But, just like Schwarzenegger said, I’ll be back! If nothing else, I plan on making it costly for them, even if they do get their money from us for free. It just seems like the right thing to do.

  55. Hey! Look here! Real law in a real courtroom and a real bad decision by a judge who was Sr. Counsel at BoA 40 years ago –

  56. @hman,

    I am very sorry it didn’t work out. Of the old gang, not too many have been successful. I’d like to hear from someone who got through and won.


  57. The judge dismissed my case. The person who “assigned” my mortgage on behalf of MERs also signed as the attorney in fact for Aurora. It seriously is so fucked up. The defense attorney stated that the person was legally allowed to sign on behalf of both parties? He also said it is done all around the country. My attorney called bullshit but the judge didn’t care. He still dismissed our case.

    Seriously, they said that the AZ false recording statute doesn’t apply to assignment of mortgages because an assignment of mortgage doesn’t “create a lien” it only transfers an interest in an existing lien. However, there is a case in AZ court that is being appealed right now challenging this logic.

    I can appeal but I’m done. It’s not worth the risk. To file a TRO and than have to post a bond to stop the bank just to try and get to court where I can still lose and be hit with attorney fees, etc…I did launch a press release telling my story. I also sent it to hundreds of media outlets but hardly anyone responded.

    I wish everyone out there good luck! The tide will turn if you can hang in there long enough!

  58. They gave us nothing of value, that is what they are trying to hide. Derivatives are not wealth or ownership or an entitlement program. These crooks were gambling with credit slips and overissuing investments in a fictitious revenue flow by massive counterfeiting, fraud and other crimes. This is a massive crime scene and it began at the U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT.

    This is therefore, IMHO… their financial death certificate because they don’t own anything but a quadrillion dollars in credit fraud and millions of counterfeits and we are armed to the teeth. If it comes down to all out chaos, it is 300 milliion well armed Americans v a few thousand crooks. They don’t want us to know this is war….they rule by secrets, lies and deception to defraud. Their jig is up.

  59. The crooks are all full of it. This was never about a free house, that’s the brainwashing tactics. They use key words and phrases to try and make us look bad and feel guilty. Like “someone is owed this money”….”you didn’t build that”……”deadbeat”…… they are liars and psychopaths. This was about nothing more than stealing everything from us. This is about the complete theft of all of our freedom, independence and liberty. AIG, those $600 trillion dollar derivatives crooks might want to sue US…….? Make no mistake, this is war..NEVER give up your guns.

  60. Its also about inducing a signature to a mortgage loan agreement under false pretenses, we were supposed to have deal where we got something of value what we got was a financisl death certificate issued

  61. Artificially created default through “losses” of mortgage payments by the bank are a reality. Otherwise, i wouldn’t be in suit.

  62. The reality is, in my humble opinion, this should not be about a “free house scenario”. It is about the methods used to acquire “lenders” monies for funding, that may or may not have been done.

    In my case: I have found flaws in the “contractual” agreement for the loan to be “securitized” and lien the property. After using my personal information for financial gain (in some cases stealing the funds from the lender), without properly protecting me and the lender, one house, one mortgage…the issue becomes one of (1) encouragement of default, (2) inability to get a modification, which would make the lender whole, (3) skipping the strict adherence to the trust to again, protecting the lender/borrower and investors (4) purposely placing people who are prime borrowers in sub-prime categories, by altering applications-income and assets and in some cases, purposely creating defaults from non-payments to the proper parties, making the mortgage payments late on their end and collecting insurance proceeds, which absolutely satisfied the note…where the loan numbers are changed. Hmmmmm, assigned to a non- party of interest or non-holder, with no authority, well after the notes have been paid-in-full.

    Now, if the note is paid-in-full and a copy is sent to another entity for collection, that is a crime. You cannot collect on a debt, multiple times. This, in my humble opinion, is where we get to the real, nuts and bolts of the story.

    Now, we all signed a contract to pay x-amount for x-years. Here’s the caveat; why should we the “borrowers” pay for something, they have not had a loss in? It is a crime to get paid for your loss through insurance or any other means and keep collecting. It is my opinion, this is where the criminal actions have taken place. And further, who is more a scoundrel…a party who has fallen on an adverse situation, which can be remedied or a person who is victimizing that person, when the solution was readily available, not utilized, but used as a mechanism to further the lie and enormous financial gain?

  63. “Has there been a single case in the past five years of a homeowner who was current on his mortgage being foreclosed through fraud?”

    Yes, and some have not had mortgages. UKG

  64. Why not make up a sign,” STOP SUPPORTING THIS BANK! BANKSTERS ARE LIARS ! TAKE YOUR MONEY OUT NOW!” Go to your local
    neighborhood bank maybe the one who foreclosed on you or not and take a little stroll on
    the sidewalk (public property) in front of the
    Bank on a nice sunny day and if anyone asks
    tell them the truth that the media is failing to report regarding their banks business practices.

  65. “Banks spent $1.5 billion on this snipe hunt without turning up meaningful examples of fraud, the Times reports. That money could have been handed out to borrowers in the form of a $5,000 check for each file.”

    If I recall, banks didn’t spend a dime on that. Didn’t it come out of our pockets?

  66. This guy Fisher is back at it at Forbes. No balls, though. The comment section was never opened. typical.

    Finding Little Evidence Of Foreclosure Fraud, Feds Give Up
    English: Foreclosure signs, Mortgage crisis

    Over at the Huffington Post they’re still talking about “rampant foreclosure fraud.” But I was always skeptical of claims banks were stealing houses from innocent homeowners — one big problem bedevils that theory: Banks lose money on virtually every house they take back in foreclosure. And now the federal government seems to agree.

    With a pair of terse notices yesterday, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency basically admitted that its elaborate process for turning up evidence of fraud in hundreds of thousands of loan files was a waste of money.
    With the $8.5 billion settlement with Bank of America, Citi and other lenders, the government abandoned the Independent Foreclosure Review and switched to a system of direct grants to foreclosed borrowers, details to come. In a statement, Comptroller of the Currency Thomas J. Curry said “it has become clear that carrying the process through to its conclusion would divert money away from the impacted homeowners and also needlessly delay the dispensation of compensation to affected borrowers.”

    The New York Times reported today concerns grew “in the upper echelons of the comptroller’s office” at the cost of the loan reviews, which consumed up to 20 hours per file at $250 an hour. Banks spent $1.5 billion on this snipe hunt without turning up meaningful examples of fraud, the Times reports. That money could have been handed out to borrowers in the form of a $5,000 check for each file.

    The outcome shouldn’t come as a surprise. After I wrote a piece critical of the parallel mortgage settlement with state attorneys general last year, comparing it to the deeply flawed tobacco settlement, I was barraged with comments from critics accusing me of downplaying foreclosure fraud. I responded with one simple question: Has there been a single case in the past five years of a homeowner who was current on his mortgage being foreclosed through fraud?

    Silence. I did get a lot of legal gobbledygook from marginally competent lawyers who, as it turns out, were the real crooks in the foreclosure crisis. For excessive fees, they offered underwater borrowers the false hope they could somehow keep their homes without paying for them, either by challenging the foreclosure paperwork or convincing a judge that the national registry system known as MERS was not the legitimate party to foreclose. Those tactics mostly failed. The Federal Trade Commission has a website devoted to protecting borrowers from the real scammers in the foreclosure crisis, and prosecutors have found plenty of fraud. Last September North Carolina AG Roy Cooper, for example, sued three foreclosure assistance firms for charging upfront fees and delivering nothing in return.

    The reality is robosigning couldn’t have been the cause of foreclosure fraud because robots can’t engage in the self-interested behavior that underlies fraud. Robosigning was just an acknowledgement that in a large, modern lending institution only the central computer registry of mortgages contains all the information about loans, and no lawyer at the periphery can possibly possess additional information beyond what is in that registry. It may be nice to conjure up the image of a kindly loan officer, familiar with the circumstances of every person behind every home mortgage, but that’s not how the system works in big banks.

    The OCC released an interim report on the Independent Foreclosure Review program last June, detailing the agency’s ambitious plans for getting to the bottom of foreclosure fraud. It sent out letters to 4.4 million borrowers, ran ads in 1,400 publications including Parade, People magazine, and USA Weekend, as well as Hispanic and African-American publications, and racked up an estimated 341 million impressions. Nearly 200,000 people submitted their files for review and regulators selected another 142,817 files for “look-back” reviews.

    About the same time, the GAO released a report critical of the foreclosure review program, which involved servicers handling two-thirds of U.S. mortgages, because it didn’t provide clear enough information for borrowers.

    But by retreating to a class-action style payout system, where borrowers simply receive lump sums, the feds seem to be acknowledging that there wasn’t much outright fraud — as in banks stealing houses from innocent borrowers — to find.

    Fraud is a flexible term, of course, and many lawyers think it includes lending money to people who have no hope of paying it back. This so-called “predatory lending” doesn’t make any economic sense, unless you’re willing to buy the theory that the fees flowing from an ultimately unprofitable loan were enough to induce bankers to destroy their own institutions in search of a year-end bonus. That’s possible, but it downplays the responsibility of the borrowers who signed detailed loan documents, filled with caveats and cooling-off periods mandated by federal regulators.

    As for robosigning computers stealing homes, still not much evidence for that. If you know of a case, do let me know.

    Also from Forbes: America’s New Foreclosure Capitals
    America’s New Foreclosure Capitals
    1 of 21
    Joe Raedle/Getty Images Introduction
    + show more

    RealtyTrac helped us compile a list of the 20 Metropolitan Statistical Areas where a rebound in foreclosure activity could put a damper on home prices… again. We combed through data for more than 200 MSAs, considering a variety of factors including the number of both preforeclosures and REOs (bank-owned homes) relative to market size, the number of months of supply of shadow inventory in each market, and the change in the local foreclosure rate from May 2011 through May 2012. We also looked at the percentage that distressed sales have contributed to total sales activity in each market and how much of a discount that those distressed properties have been selling at.





    Report Corrections
    Reprints & Permissions
    by Taboola
    From The Web
    What kinds of clothing can minimize my fibromyalgia pain?Health Guru
    10 Best Cities for SinglesKiplinger
    The Worst CEOs of 2012Businessweek
    What Does Your Sleeping Position Say About You – The Daily OrbitRed Orbit
    Kaboom: TurkeyYahoo!
    3 Typical Pieces of Financial Advice DebunkedRecessionista
    Post Your Comment
    You are logged in as usedkarguy (Log out)

    Sorry, comments are closed.

    Enter Your Comment

    Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You’ll be notified if your comment is called out.
    Most Read on Forbes


    No, You Can’t Download Adobe CS2 Applications For Free +143,177 views
    The Least Stressful Jobs Of 2013 +48,234 views
    #Accounting: Why Finance Teams Need to Get Social +40,613 views
    New Year’s Resolutions for the Country +28,315 views
    AIG: Thank You America, But We May Sue You +27,976 views
    Top 10 Best Horror Movies Of The Last 2 Years +26,655 views
    NHL Lockout Is Over, But Will The Fans Come Back? +24,844 views
    Ten Resolutions The Most Successful People Make And Then Keep +22,640 views
    10 Reasons Your Top Talent Will Leave You +22,475 views
    Drug Companies Need To Push For Medication Adherence +21,077 views

    + show more
    Daniel Fisher Daniel Fisher Forbes Staff
    Follow (396)
    + show more

    I am a senior editor at Forbes, covering legal affairs, corporate finance, macroeconomics and the occasional sailing story. I was the Southwest Bureau manager for Forbes in Houston from 1999 to 2003, when I returned home to Connecticut for a Knight fellowship at Yale Law School. Before that I worked for Bloomberg Business News in Houston and the late, great Dallas Times Herald and Houston Post. While I am a Chartered Financial Analyst and have a year of law school under my belt, most of what I know about financial journalism, I learned in Texas.
    Daniel Fisher’s Popular Posts

    Detroit Tops The 2012 List Of America’s Most Dangerous Cities 239,943 views
    Obama Victory Could Spell End Of Conservative Supreme Court 233,592 views
    Inside The Koch Empire: How The Brothers Plan To Reshape America 224,344 views
    America’s Most Expensive Colleges 206,577 views
    Backpage Takes Heat, But Prostitution Ads Are Everywhere 165,515 views

    More from Daniel Fisher

    Who Just Made a Billion Dollars?
    Our Real-Time Billionaires scoreboard tracks the biggest holdings for 50 of the world’s wealthiest people. See who’s up & who’s down right now »



  67. And off topic on this page but Neil broached the Sandy Hook subject a few weeks back…

    I happened to catch Piers Morgan last night on his crusade against guns. That Alex Jones guy caused more damage to his own cause by flapping his wings like a mad rooster and being obnoxious, argumentative, inarticulate and an all around jerk than Piers Morgan will ever do…

    America self-destructing all on its own is not a pretty sight.

  68. How about an unfair bailout “lawsuit” for the American people? Bailouts were given to the gansters and not the real victims. When will people wake the hell up?

  69. Only in America. What’s next? BofA, JPMorgan Chase, US Bank and Goldman Sachs filing their own “unfair bailout” little lawsuits?

    What a great country! And make no mistake: if it doesn’t get dismissed right off the bat, guess who’s picking the tab to defend that insanity?

    AIG Mulling Lawsuit Alleging Unfair Bailout Terms By U.S. Government

    Reuters | Posted: 01/08/2013 8:12 am EST

    * Board to meet Wednesday to decide

    * NYTimes first reported plans to join suit

    * Ex-CEO Greenberg called Fed ‘loan shark’

    Jan 8 (Reuters) – American International Group Inc, the insurer rescued by the U.S. government in 2008 with a bailout that ultimately totaled $182 billion, may join a lawsuit against the government alleging the terms of the deal were unfair.

    The company confirmed a New York Times report that said AIG’s board would meet Wednesday to discuss joining a lawsuit filed against the government by the insurer’s former chief executive, Hank Greenberg.

    The move would be something of a shock development given that AIG just launched a high-profile TV ad campaign called “Thank you America,” in which it offers gratitude for the rescue, which was fully repaid with a profit last year.

    At the same time, Chief Executive Bob Benmosche has complained publicly that the company and its management have not gotten enough credit for avoiding a collapse, turning the business around and returning to profitability.

    Greenberg, whose Starr International owned 12 percent of AIG before its near-collapse, has accused the Federal Reserve Bank of New York of using the rescue to bail out Wall Street banks at the expense of shareholders, and of being a “loan shark” by charging exorbitant interest on the initial loan.

    A federal judge in Manhattan dismissed Greenberg’s suit against the New York Fed in November; a separate suit under different legal theories in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims is still pending.

    An AIG spokesman declined to comment beyond confirming that the board would meet.

  70. @ neidermeyer

    In my possession is a “ledger” with dates from 1986 to 2012. The ledger has entries from, let me read it exactly: 07/20/2005; misc. posting: 07/22/2005; investor reversal: 07/22/2005; investor adj: 07/22/2005; investor payment: 09/09/2005; regular payment: 09/19/2005; subsidence insurance: 10/10/2005-11/14/2005-12/07/2005-01/09/2006 are regular payments: then a hazard insurance credit on 01/24/2005…the loan was closed on 07/14/2005, unbeknown to me was the house was a foreclosure (I was told the owners died), thought it was an estate. Insurance was purchased for the year beginning on 07/14/2005-07/14/2006, per the lender, what’s with the insurance purchase on 09/19/2005.

    This is for a title claim, which has been denied this round. The original owners bought the house in 1986, same date as on the ledger. What were are thinking…maybe you have some insight, we have not gotten clean title to the property and perhaps do not owe a “legal” mortgage…

    Oh, then the property description is .31 acres; .81 acres and .91 acres on differing deeds. I know that is a title issue. The ledgers are different too: I have one from Blank Rome, Countrywide and BOA.

    I have two cases in different states and the ledger on the other one is showing a zero balance, with huge attorneys fees, prior to the zero balance. ???? Any thoughts here?

  71. @Poppy ,

    Please tell us about the “LEDGER” you have… from your 1-7-13 @5:19 post..

  72. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: business, control by banks, economy, finance, fraud, Master Servicer, OCC reviews, trustee Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  73. A boutique law firm..? Is that what they are calling themselves …? The State AGs office couldn’t think of a name for those kind of “attorney’s”……….we decided to call them whatchamacallit attorney’s ..

  74. Lots of info here at this link….

  75. David v Goliath – Pro Se Homeowners Beats Freddie Mac In Foreclosure Appeals Victory

    by Brian Mahany

    We like rooting for the underdog. Particularly when the underdog has no lawyer and takes on the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company (“Freddie Mac”). Freddie Mac is a government sponsored enterprise with over $2 trillion in assets. They certainly can afford great lawyers and take on small homeowners who dare take on the government alone. If you were wondering who might be crazy enough to try such a thing, meet Keith Mitan. He not only took on the mortgage elite all by himself, he won.

    Wells Fargo foreclosed on the home of Frank Mitan. While the case was pending, Frank died and Keith became his personal representative. Under Michigan law, mortgage companies can foreclose by advertisement. Such procedures are available in a minority of states. We don’t like them because the process is fraught with peril and fraud. In our opinion, having a judge review every step of the foreclosure process is a much better way to go.

    After the foreclosure, Freddie Mac purchased the home at a sheriff’s sale. Prior to the end of the redemption period, Mitan filed suit against Freddie Mac. The trial court tossed Mitan’s challenges but last month the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. This is a huge win for Mitan and Michigan homeowners in general.

    Michigan law was amended after the foreclosure crisis began. State law requires lenders to offer a loan modification to borrowers that qualify. If there is a dispute, foreclosures are supposed to be handled by a judge and banks can no longer just simply proceed by advertisement. Although Wells Fargo says that Mitan never replied to modifications discussions, Frank Mitan disagrees. Anyone involved in loan modification negotiations with the big banks knows that the banks repeatedly lose paperwork, provide erroneous information and generally mistreat and mislead borrowers.

    Mitan’s case will head back to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether Wells Fargo properly assessed Mitan’s eligibility for a modification. Our guess? They did not.

    The take home from this case is that non-judicial foreclosures are fraught with peril. At least courts in Michigan will now be required to really scrutinize whether borrowers were eligible for a modification before they simply throw out a challenge to the foreclosure. If the lender failed to do so, courts in Michigan must unwind the sale.

    The mortgage fraud lawyers at Mahany & Ertl do not handle traditional mortgage foreclosure defense cases. Instead, we are a boutique law firm that sues banks for wrongful foreclosures and denials of loan modifications. If you believe that you are the victim of a foreclosure fraud, wrongful foreclosure or have been ripped off by a bank, give us a call. Our lender liability lawyers have helped homeowners across the United States.

  76. The framers of the U.S. CONSTITUTION regarded the “trust me” principle of Government as dangerous and rejected it.

  77. I hope it doesn’t come down to guns and bullets on our land but, we will do whatever it takes.

  78. There are affirmative defenses your court will accept…..check a local law website. I have personally never heard of champerty as a defense to foreclosure. It is interesting ….is that contract law…? Is it a legal theory or a law?

  79. Most of us are “locked and loaded” these days. These thugs have been on my property and sent me letters threatening to trespass, saying they were advised the property was abandoned. I wrote back and said: bad idea, this guy Dave said: are you threatening me? I said no, just pointing out that in NC trespass can be met with grave consequences. After that I called the sheriff and made a formal complaint, to protect myself, in the event…this is no game.

  80. BTW I have a12-20 gauge pump action shotgun that will never be given up or taken away . . . so I get it stripes, thanks.

  81. Try the fraud at the onset… subject matter jurisdiction….because not by choice, but by necessity….you are a pro se …..and are learning as you go….you have just discovered it.

  82. Is champerty and maintenance a cause of action for damages, a defense to a lawsuit or both? – I suggest a cause of action for damages due to the ‘meddlng’ or malicious obstruction of fairness such that intermediary cloaked strangers to the original contract were perfectly aware that the named ‘lender’ was a fictitious non-existent in name only and was incapable of entering into or lawfully binding a contract with the borrower – this was to the advantage of the players so the transaction was ‘untethered’ to any real existing entity that would bitch or complain about shenanigans with its realty rights by total strangers – thus the borrower has been like cloned salmon or minnows in a fish hatchery – going in one way streams – borrowers are just starting to realize they were never ‘in bed’ for 30 years with a lawfully existent or capable real party principle in contract privity – the borrower was ‘had’ at the alter so to speak – the contract (note/mortgage) if noticed has never been executed by the so-called ‘original lender’ thus plausible deniability – the borrower needs to dispute the nature of the contract first – demand correction or reformation which they will never get – of course – that would ruin the casino scheme – but too this first breach by the ‘authors’ behind the note/mortgage has set up the transaction such that the borrower would never be able to comply with the terms and conditions because the ‘lender’ never existed – did not have a bank account or any financial account in which the money paid each month ‘credited’ the phoney name – the money always went to the ‘owner of the MERS MIN” number at the top of the note/mortgage – those are the true culprits – the borrower is not a cryptologist; it does not ‘decode’ numeric symbols into a language i.e., English in most cases – and had no idea that the true party was disguised in the 12-14 whatever amount of numbers at the top of the original docs – they are the sole owners so-to speak of the MERS involvement – not the named straw lender because it being fictional and non-existent – (a d/b/a cannot enter or bind a contract only a legally organized and existing entity with a designated corporate ‘people’) or person can enter and bind a contract – a straw name is not organized anywhere and cannot and did not lawfully bind or consummate the contract (note/mortgage) with the borrower – since it did not exist and was incapable of entering or binding any contract it was never a member of MERS and could not give authority or rights to MERS when it didn’t exist in which to enter into a contract re membership with MERS – it was a non-member and MERS has nothing to offer or takeaway from the contract (mortgage). The contract was thus void ab initio before closing at the gestational lending phase or earlier – when the typists was inputting data it purposely input a fictional, non-existing name that had the look and eel of ‘official’ so as to not shock or alert the borrower to say ‘hey, I just checked with the secretary of state that has no record of “bozo home loans, a Delaware corporation” – had the borrower seen the word “Bozo” upon first blush of reading it would have been alarmed something wasn’t quite Kosher – and it wasn’t but the subtleties are so cleverly crafted with names like American – Wholesale – Country . .. etc. that it doesn’t occur to borrowers to think that they would be duped into a contract with a mythical name – start going back to the scene of the crime people – check the original doc note/mortgage – is that lender actually – the exact way recited – show up with a secretary of state – no shortcuts – i.e., “ERA Home Loans, a Delaware corporation” is it exactly that name that shows up with a corporate name search? Do not make up extensions to the name – if there is no LLC or Inc. or whatever do not search for extensions that are not recited in your note and mortgage -search for exactly what the pretenders recited – If the name does not populate it is not a validly existing, organized entity permitted to engage in anything – as it is not a person and has no ‘person’ acting on its behalf with no bylaws, articles of incorporation, named signatories, etc., it does not exist and cannot enter or bind a contract – if its not human and not incorporated it cannot consummate a contract as it has no way of deciphering or engaging in an offer, acceptance or consideration – which means you never once paid that non-existent fictional whatever – and you never will as long as you do not demand correction or reformation of the underlying contractual docs – they won’t correct or reform because they can’t for the same reason you can’t pay – the real party is not and never was real to conduct or engage in anything – If the name does not show up exactly with the SOS of the state, you’ve been had . . . demand correction – you won’t get it cause no one can correct – but at least begin the dispute so you can claim a contract dispute begun such and such – when the 4 or 5 years is up the statute of limitations on a contract dispute runs and then no one will ever be able to correct or reform ATTACK THE ORIGINAL NOTE/MORTGAGE! Forget about the banks, etc., attack the two docs with your signature.

  83. The U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS ARE THE ONLY REASONS WHY WE ARE THE FREEIST NATION ON EARTH AND THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH. Those are the real reasons why WE THE PEOPLE can DEFEND OURSELVES from these rich sons of bees without an attorney…..Never, EVER give up your guns….

  84. papergate……..Fraudclosure suits are not being governed by RULE OF LAW….BASED ON LAW IN FACT OR EVIDENCE IN FACT…NO….Fraudclosures are being governed by LEGAL THEORIES….like CORPIS JURIS SECUNDUM….RULE OF COMITY….RULE OF JUDICIAL NOTICE… This is what complete corruption looks like …..this is COMPLETE TYRANNY…..This is why the Founders left Europe to get away from COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL RULE BY THE RICH ….THIS IS THE FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT OF DEMOCRACY UPON A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC…IT IS A SHAM & IT IS A FRAUD..

    That’s why European idiots like Piers Morgan believe in gun control….because they have never been free a day in their lives. They don’t even know what freedom is. Morgan believes because he is rich he is free ….. but what he doesn’t believe is they can come for him at any time…and he has no legal right to defend himself from them because he has no Constitution that affords him that right.

  85. Champerty and maintenance are doctrines in common law jurisdictions, that aim to preclude frivolous litigation. “Maintenance” is the intermeddling of a disinterested party to encourage a lawsuit.

    It is “A taking in hand, a bearing up or upholding of quarrels or sides, to the disturbance of the common right.”

    “Champerty” is the “maintenance” of a person in a lawsuit on condition that the subject matter of the action is to be shared with the maintainer.

    Among laypersons, this is known as “buying into someone else’s lawsuit.”

    In modern idiom maintenance is the support of litigation by a stranger without just cause. Champerty is an aggravated form of maintenance. The distinguishing feature of champerty is the support of litigation by a stranger in return for a share of the proceeds.

    At common law, maintenance and champerty were both crimes and torts, as was barratry, the bringing of vexatious litigation. This is generally no longer so as during the nineteenth century, the development of legal ethics tended to obviate the risks to the public, particularly after the scandal of the Swynfen will case (1856–1864). However, the principles are relevant to modern contingent fee agreements between a lawyer and a client and to the assignment by a plaintiff of his rights in a lawsuit to someone with no connection to the case. Champertous contracts can still, depending on jurisdiction, be void for public policy or attract liability for costs.

    Obviously this concept exists in US jurisprudence but disdained by “fans of entrepreneurial lawyering in the academy and elsewhere.” There has been recent common usage of the term in the media in Nevada and Ohio. (Green, Steve (June 14, 2011). “Judge rules Righthaven lacks standing to sue, threatens sanctions over misrepresentations”. Vegas Inc.) (Rancman v. Interim Settlement Funding Corp., 99 Ohio St.3d 121, 2003-Ohio-2721).

    A mischief, in those times it seems but too common, though a mischief not to be cured by such laws, was, that a man would buy a weak claim, in hopes that power might convert it into a strong one, and that the sword of a baron, stalking into court with a rabble of retainers at his heels, might strike terror into the eyes of a judge upon the bench. At present, what cares an English judge for the swords of a hundred barons? Neither fearing nor hoping, hating nor loving, the judge of our days is ready with equal phlegm to administer, upon all occasions, that system, whatever it be, of justice or injustice, which the law has put into his hands.

  86. For the latest on the cover up for this massive crime spree, here is a good link……

  87. The so called American success stories are rotten as well….The Bill Gates of the world. Instead of doing good work at home, he is over in Africa, sterilizing young woman. Africa probably has more natural resources than we do yet, their people are starving and dying of very treatable illnesses. IMHO….That is the true cover up for all of their evil……POPULATION CONTROL….GOOGLE AGENDA 21….

  88. I agree 110% Poppy….Time to stop complying, cooperating and conforming to all of their criminal fraud. The cops too….the soldiers need to stop fighting for the crooks who robbed all of us as well, because the real war on terror is right here at home, on all of us and it always was.

  89. My last little comment on this: WE have made the banks rich!

    If not for our borrowing, credit cards, ATM debits, car loans, deposits, etc…they would be NOTHING, NADA. This is how we are repaid?

  90. And the fact of the matter is: no mortgage is 4%, 5%, etc…the interest is calculated on the remaining balance, monthly. If you are paying for 30 years 2 1/2 times the value of the original mortgage it is NOT 4-5%…this stuff SHOULD be mandatory teaching in the 4th grade.

  91. stripes, it’s all a control thing. If they keep us indentured (more credit), less educated, working from paycheck-to-paycheck, raise all the prices and tax us into oblivion…they have most of us. We are so busy trying to make ends meet, we miss the entire thing.

    They like us in debt, they can control the entire outcome. Let’s face it, when the bank tells you they need to run your credit to open an account, ’cause you may bounce a check…bullshit. They love that. They make more money on people who are careless and have poor credit scores…then the good old boys club of the Equifax, Experian and TransUnion…70% have mistakes. Those who pay put the information they want in. In this country all you have to do is get sick to have a bad credit score, who the hell can pay those bills, even with insurance? Not one person in Washington, DC has addressed any of these problems, because they are paid prostitutes of corporate bullies.

  92. Now, if the media or politicians really give a damn about anything at all, they can contact me here and I will gladly give them contact information for that family.

  93. Same issue with the contract: borrow money in my name, without making me a “party” in that contract, just use my information to acquire the money for lines of credit (hundreds of millions), to sell the notes multiple times and never securitize the “note” for one payment to the lender for one house, then sell the long-term “value” of that same note, over and over, making Billions, all the while everyone; Tom, Dick and Harry have actually a fractional ownership of those proceeds and can “potentially foreclose” for sums “stolen” from the investors that bought into the “we can make you 12% if you invest in our AAA+ rated mortgages”, which aren’t mortgages anymore, after bundling and selling them as securities and never securitized…and we owe them what masterservicer?

  94. What is a game for the rich IS real mass human suffering for millions of others….that the media never tells anyone about. ..Send us your poor, your hungry and your weak so we can use them to rob them and tear them down to rob them again and make them weaker is their motto. It is a National Disgrace.

  95. Right on Poppy.

  96. Here is a true example of the real State of this Nation…….One of my kids lost a dear friend recently…The young man suddenly and unexpectedly passed away in his sleep at the age of 24….His parents had to take donations to bury him and could not afford to buy him a suit and had to bury him in his H.S. football Jersey…This is reality in the richest nation in earth…while the fat bastard politicians keep robbing us to pay for fraud there is mass suffering that no one ever hears about.

  97. @ ms

    Let me make sure I understand here: If you loaned me $10,000.00 for a car and someone else, say my wealthy brother paid you in full, for that car, because I couldn’t pay the loan back to you; you can take his payment, lie about the pay-off and then sell the debt or hire someone to collect that same debt (knowing you were paid) and ask them, to get you the $10,000 again less the fee associated with the collection. Is that about right?

    Maybe I am simplifying this, but it seems to be that easy. All the players have to do is “cry wolf” and get made whole, hide the satisfaction, in an obscure county, change the loan number and falsify the documents to collect from someone else and/or keep reselling the “note” for value over the time.

    Then start the foreclosure for more value.

  98. That’s the deception Poppy….WE THE PEOPLE are the PAYEES…..The FED are in Default in our names to US …..for an innumerable amount of our wealth. The Plaintiffs fc case re my property reads…..We the Plaintiffs wish to join the Defendant’s to sue AMCORE BANK N.A. (a failed bank) who is now MERS….!.That’s deceptive right….? Not only is MERS not a bank but, MERS released the Mortgage in 2007 to the title company…….then ….MERS released the mortgage again to the servicer AFTER the foreclosure lis pends was recorded…..Deception its what’s for dinner….breakfast & lunch & everywhere in between.

  99. “The payer is in default and payee may enforce his security”

    Sure, but most of the people in court are not the payers and have no cause of action and no loss.

    The next thing is: I owe the proper party, which has been made whole in their entirety…where, the debt has been sold (a copy of the note) under the guise it has not been paid…that I have proof of. And further, the copies of notes that have been sold, make it impossible to not have the risk of another party coming back at you for their subsequent loss, at some time in the future.

    Finally, the title to my property is questionable: there are almost 3 surveys that are differing and relates to the neighboring land. It affects any sale of the property.

    Then there are payoffs, deceased persons, not mentioned in the title transfer, companies out of business for 4 years with a POA from 1999, filing in 2004. A deceased corporation cannot sue or defend any action…the law.

    I have very serious doubts that my mortgage is enforceable. And further has the account number from 1986 when the loan was taken out by the previous owners’, with investor contributions present, before I signed my mortgage in 2005. Just got the ledger in 2012. How’s that working?

    Ordinarily, I would conceded on the debt being owed, but far too many circumstances of deceit are present and I cannot even imagine how to find the “real lender”…I’ll just bet that party would be more than willing to find a solution to this problem.

    FYI: @ ms, under honest dealings and clean hands a modification would fix 90% of this mess. Why don’t you tell us why they don’t want to modify? I already know why, are you honest enough to tell everyone here?

  100. If the Spanish people had a Constitution, they gave up their Constitution as did all EU countries….that’s why short of a complete military uprising by the people…..they are screwed …. never give up your guns America.

  101. Pamplona’s locksmiths join revolt as banks throw families from their homes

    In the years of the housing boom, Spain’s banks offered 100% mortgages. Now, while receiving millions in public aid, they are throwing people out of their homes. But there’s a rebellion under way, report Monica Muñoz and Giles Tremlett

    [This is great, as we read a few days ago. Solidarity and compassion at their best. What made me holler with laughter is the quotation below:

    “Spain must be the only country in the world where banks were allowed to offer 100% mortgages,” said Guillermo Perilla, a 31-year-old Colombian immigrant who bought a house on the outskirts of Pamplona for €240,000 in 2005. “Not only that, but in some cases they also offered further loans to the people taking out mortgages. The bank staff were on commission.”

    Not only did American banks do likewise but, in addition, they wrote 2 mortgages, one for 20% as a down payment and the other for 80% so that people wouldn’t have to buy PMI. The rest is history, as they say.]

  102. The judges will tell you… better get an attorney… that I say….take my advice and educate yourself before you go see an attorney…..because you are going to walk away worse off than you are right now in most cases. An attorney told my husband…your wife is an intelligent woman (he couldn’t win me over)……so, I am going to be honest with you….your chances of winning are going to be the same with or without an attorney…but if you still want to hire me….here is my contract….and let me just say….you wouldn’t have believed what it read….in part it said… must agree to fully comply, conform & cooperate with HUD…..24-7….or you my little pretty are going right back into fraudclosure….$750.00 per month while you are in court & 20% of the note when you sell or we will re-fry you into a lifetime of poverty ……. pick your poison…

  103. Someone once said The difference between a good attorney & a great attorney is….a good attorney knows the law…..a great attorney knows the judge. The difference re fraudclosures is…..and I certainly don’t mean all attorneys…..I am not talking about Neil or Max Gardner or Matt Weidner….but many of the attorneys are investors in this scam or are using it as a get rich quick scheme.


  105. Their manufactured lousy economy only grows for them….and that is intentional… CNBC reporting they are crashing in on the flu on Wall Street..Their shareholders and investors always Crony Capitalize on the sicknesses and other horrors they create…..CNBC guest says…..a (fraudulently induced) increase in payroll taxes for everyone may bring death to the malls. That’s what greed does…..greed destroys and greed kills and these high level sadistic crooks don’t care because they have innumerable wealth….all they really want is for ALL OF US to believe they own us….and they don’t ….This is PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE first & foremost…..they wage war on your mind…body and soul because what they really want in exchange for all of their fraud is your soul…..They are more than willing to create hell on earth and make you live in constant fear to steal your soul….they are soul squeazers…& stealers. This is all being done under the guises of a fictitious global war on terror & fictitious debt. This is really on our souls….and it is very deceptive……they will never tell you what they really want…..That is why knowing the law is power..and why society in general has been very poorly educated.

  106. MS….Read Amendments V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, & Amendment XIV; section 4….of the U.S. CONSTITUTION & ARTICLE I..Sections…8, 9, & 10 …ARTICLE III…SECTIONS 1, 2 & 3…..ARTICLE IV…..Sections……1, 2, 3 & 4…ARTICLE VI…. for starters.


  108. Hmm. Must be nice to have $10B handy like that… Wait a minute!
    B of A doesn’t have that kinda cash. We do! Get your money out.

    Bank of America in $10B-plus mortgage settlement
    Associated Press/Charles Krupa –

    Bank of America in $10B-plus mortgage settlement
    Associated Press – 2 hrs 52 mins ago

    Bank of America Corp. says it will spend more than $10 billion to settle mortgage claims …more

    CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — Bank of America says it will spend more than $10 billion to settle mortgage claims resulting from the housing meltdown.

    Under the deal announced Monday, the bank will pay $3.6 billion to Fannie Mae and buy back $6.75 billion in loans that the North Carolina-based bank and its Countrywide banking unit sold to the government agency from Jan. 1, 2000 through Dec. 31, 2008. That includes about 30,000 loans.
    Its shares briefly edged up 9 cents to $12.20 in morning trading, its highest level since May 2011.
    CEO Brian Moynihan said the agreements were “a significant step” in resolving the bank’s remaining legacy mortgage issues while streamlining the company and reducing future expenses.
    Bank of America bought Countrywide Financial Corp. in July 2008, just before the financial crisis. Countrywide was a giant in mortgage lending, but was also known for approving risky loans.
    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which packaged loans into securities and sold them to investors, were effectively nationalized in 2008 when they nearly collapsed under the weight of their mortgage losses.

    Bank of America’s purchase of Countrywide originally was lauded by lawmakers because the bank was viewed as stepping in to eliminate a bad actor from the mortgage market. But instead of padding Bank of America’s mortgage business, the purchase has drawn a drumbeat of regulatory fines, lawsuits and losses.

  109. LivingLies – There is no ambiguity except whether the credit bid and ensuing deed upon foreclosure is void or voidable. I maintain it is void and not voidable. Voidable means that the victim must do something to replace the job of the county recorder. Voidable means that the transaction stands and the deed is valid

    MS A voidable transaction is claim and the court will entertain the arguments Plaintiffs objective is to show that a fraud exists as its moot to recite…where a fraud cannot exist in an enforceable contract .

    A voidable contract in fact stand as having never been valid.

    A void contract deal with capacity ….drunken editor, underage minor executing a promise, severely retarded or mentally handicapped person , blind executing a altered contract

    Litigants use void ab initio like its an elixir for a foreclosure argument and its not. It merely identifies why a contract is VOID FROM COMMENCEMENT and VOID AT TIME OF A FRAUD BEING PERPETRATED ….at commencements.

    Look, I am an ex banker and not an attorney nor law degree. So any legal minds want to comment please do . But why are we on this weak and really lack luster topic.

    The mortgages agreement is in fact valid
    It will remain valid till the matter is resolved by its satisfaction
    The agreement is a promise to pay the obligation made to a promisee

    If one earned a check for his labour. And then squanders his check upon cashing it in Vegas at the tables…he has no recourse against the payor

    If one earns a check for his labour. And then cannot cash it as the payor has squandered his funds to make good on the check before cashing it in Vegas …he has no recourse against the payor for gambling… but for writing a bad check.

    But if one earned a check for his labour and is told he may lien the estate as the check is not good until 30 days…that is the note and forward condition of a promise to pay. The fact the payer squanders his winnings has no bearing on the promise to pay –

    The payer is in default and payee may enforce his security

    You are the payor and you owe the money for the check you wrote and do not have the funds to pay the payee. You went to the casino and you lost the funds like a derelict or gambler throwing away your cash for ….what

    and…before the hate mail starts…..know this !

    The payee and Casino whom you owe a debt and to whom you lost to are both one in the same . Where you lost the money for repayment to the other and still owe an amount due. They are one in the same

    …..MersCorp Casino & Resort.

    My point is the public sector and private sector must remain separate. B of A is a member bank under the Federal Reserve who owns the investment bankers now. Your (1) after tax dollars are consumed in a (2) over funded predatory loan ….then , after trying to eat and get bye, you (3) pay taxes on that you earned at year end. …And then (4) the act of taking a home used as collateral are taxed.

    And now Mers Corp owns the home. And the Gov extends tax relief one more your

    Who do you think Mers Corp is working for ….

  110. @ zurenarrh

    Further, the court appearances are NOT judicial, they are administrative. Common law, rules of law, real estate law, Statutes and Federal Procedural rules are NOT being adhered to. The whole thing is jaded and flies in the face of our Constitution, due process and judicial review. People should be outraged, far more than they are.

  111. Can anyone refer an attorney in the San Jose, CA area? I have been trying to get a referral for weeks and it’s all crickets. Thanks!

  112. @z…….I am keeping my chin up …..I have faith good will triumph over evil because I believe evil never wins…It may take on other forms ….but it never wins.

  113. There is no rule of law in this country. Hasn’t been for a long time. I’m late to this realization, of course, mostly because I’ve led a relatively privileged life up to this point. But if there was rule of law, Corzine would be under the jail. Bush and Obama would be in dark dungeons hanging by their wrists for eternity for war crimes. And so on.

  114. A bit on the $1,6B Fannie Mae/BoA settlement and Lorayne Souders’ First Amended Complaint in Souders v. BoA Central Dist. PA 12-CV-01074.

  115. stripes,
    I agree–fraud vitiates contracts. That is undeniable, unquestioned precedent. But that folderol we were taught in school about how judges have to follow precedent is complete fiction. Judges can and do whatever the hell they want, up to and including not ruling according to clear statutory language and/or precedent. The appeals court is a check against that? Yeah, right.

  116. @z…look at the fraud at the onset…that kills their whole shalamalamadingdong..Fraud at the Presentment means there is Fraud in the Factum of their case….U.S. COURTS have ruled….When fraud enters a legal contract ….fraud vitiates everything…..

  117. Read all about Hells Senior Management here …….

  118. You wish E Tolle…then you could have a hey day…..

  119. In Obamas press conference today about the appointment of Hagel & Brennan …… it really sounded like he said …..this is all coming directly from hells senior management.

  120. Hey straps/uvent, when are you going to do sports and weather, moron?


  122. christine,
    My money is out of the banks. I don’t use credit cards–don’t even have one. I use cash whenever I can. Attempt to educate any and everyone who will listen about what has gone on. Network with other litigants–not giving legal advice, of course.

  123. Nobody is going to do it for you. You wants the banks curtailed and dismantled? Get your money out. We got in that mess because rules had been “relaxed”. Since the new ones are being “relaxed” as well (isn’t fear of the unknown something else?), we might as well handle the mess ourselves. Get your money out and let them scurry to find solutions. They need us more than we need them.

    International banks won a concession Sunday from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, which relaxed rules for lenders that had been proposed in hopes of preventing another global financial crisis.

  124. I’m with you on that one, E. Tolle. The Deny and Discover strategy presumes that when faced with facts/law/evidence, a judge will acknowledge said facts/evidence/law and act in accordance therewith despite the judge’s personal prejudices in favor of the banks (whether such prejudices come from ignorance, fear, bank payoffs, or what have you). However, all of us who have been in the trenches know that very few judges will do any such thing.

    In fact, there are so few judges who will rule against a bank that we might as well say there are no judges who will rule against a bank. No judge wants to be the one to “open the floodgates” that would destroy the banks in a great flood of justice even if it means a small trickle of justice being done or equity being served in the single case they are deciding.

    And therein lies the greatest weakness and most unfortunate flaw of our “justice” system. It’s the single most useful excuse a judge (and/or their apologists) can summon forth to defend a decision that clearly doesn’t follow the law–that “if I rule in favor of this homeowner, the financial system will be destroyed.” Never mind that a single decision cannot undo the entire financial system–despite judges’ apparently overly lofty opinions of themselves.

  125. Can anyone answer this question—who is actual creditor (as defined in TILA amendment) in this situation/scenario?:

    “As trustee, DBNTC has no beneficial ownership interest or stake in any of the mortgage loans included in the Trust and instead holds title to the loans solely for the benefit of the investors in the securities issued by the trust.”

  126. Take all your money out of banks put in credit
    Make complaint against the county
    recorders office who recorded the fraudulent
    documents used to foreclose.
    Share your knowledge of the truth with everyone!

  127. Has it occurred to anyone that the only reason the Feds have been so actively going after those Swiss bank accounts has a-bso-lu-te-ly nothing to do with justice and fairness and everything to do with government being… flat broke? They need money! And a lot of it!!! Stop paying your taxes, you the 99%, close your accounts and things will move real fast! It’s been said over and over for… six years, right? Well, it would have worked then and it will work now. If people do it.

    Swiss bank Wegelin to close after guilty plea

    By Nate Raymond and Lynnley Browning
    NEW YORK | Fri Jan 4, 2013 8:27am EST

    (Reuters) – Wegelin & Co, the oldest Swiss private bank, said on Thursday it would shut its doors permanently after more than 2 1/2 centuries, following its guilty plea to charges of helping wealthy Americans evade taxes through secret accounts.

    The plea, in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, marks the death knell for one of Switzerland’s most storied banks, whose original European clients pre-date the American Revolution. It is also potentially a major turning point in a battle by U.S. authorities against Swiss bank secrecy.

    A major question was left hanging by the plea: Has the bank turned over, or does it plan to disclose, names of American clients to U.S. authorities? That is a key demand in a broad U.S. investigation of tax evasion through Swiss banks.

    “It is unclear whether the bank was required to turn over American client names who held secret Swiss bank accounts,” said Jeffrey Neiman, a former federal prosecutor involved in other Swiss bank investigations who is now in private law practice in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

    “What is clear is that the Justice Department is aggressively pursuing foreign banks who have helped Americans commit overseas tax evasion,” he said.

    Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, declined to comment immediately.

    Wegelin admitted to charges of conspiracy in helping Americans evade taxes on at least $1.2 billion for nearly a decade. Wegelin agreed to pay $57.8 million to the United States in restitution and fines.

    Otto Bruderer, a managing partner at the bank, said in court that “Wegelin was aware that this conduct was wrong.”

    He said that “from about 2002 through about 2010, Wegelin agreed with certain U.S. taxpayers to evade the U.S. tax obligations of these U.S. taxpayer clients, who filed false tax returns with the IRS.”


    When Wegelin last February became the first foreign bank in recent memory to be indicted by U.S. authorities, it vowed to resist the charges. The bank, founded in 1741, was declared a fugitive from justice when its Swiss-based executives failed to appear in U.S. court.

    The surprise plea effectively ended the U.S. case against Wegelin, one of the most aggressive bank crackdowns in U.S. history.

    “Once the matter is finally concluded, Wegelin will cease to operate as a bank,” Wegelin said in a statement on Thursday from its headquarters in the remote, small town of St. Gallen next to the Appenzell Alps near the German-Austrian border.

    But the fate of three Wegelin bankers, indicted in January 2012 on charges later modified to include the bank, remains up in the air. Under criminal procedural rules, the cases of the three bankers – Michael Berlinka, Urs Frei and Roger Keller – are still pending.,

    Although Wegelin had about a dozen branches, all in Switzerland, at the time of its indictment, it moved quickly to wind down its business, partly through a sale of its non-U.S. assets to regional Swiss bank Raiffeisen Gruppe.

    A corporate indictment can be a death knell. In 2002, accounting firm Arthur Andersen went out of business after being found guilty over its role in failed energy company Enron Corp. A 2005 Supreme Court ruling later overturned the conviction, but it was too late to save the company.

    Wegelin, a partnership of Swiss private bankers, was already a shadow of its former self – it effectively broke itself up following the indictment last year by selling the non-U.S. portion of its business.

    Dozens of Swiss bankers and their clients have been indicted in recent years, following a 2009 agreement by UBS AG, the largest Swiss bank, to enter into a deferred-prosecution agreement, turn over 4,450 client names and pay a $780 million fine after admitting to criminal wrongdoing in selling tax-evasion services to wealthy Americans.


    William Sharp, a tax lawyer in Tampa, Florida, with many U.S. clients of Swiss banks, said Wegelin’s plea “should serve as a wake-up call” to the world banking community servicing U.S. clients to takes steps to ensure compliance with U.S. law.

    Sharp called Wegelin’s change of heart “shocking.”

    Banks under U.S. criminal investigation in the wider probe include Credit Suisse, which disclosed last July it had received a target letter saying it was under a grand jury investigation.

    Zurich-based Julius Baer and some cantonal, or regional, banks are also under scrutiny, sources familiar with the probes previously told Reuters. So are UK-based HSBC Holdings and three Israeli banks, Hapoalim, Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank Ltd and Bank Leumi, sources also said previously.

    Those banks have not commented on the inquiries.

    In a statement after the plea, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Kathryn Keneally said it was a top Justice Department priority “to find those who continue to shirk their tax obligations,” as well as those who help them and profit from it.

    “The best deal now for these folks is to come in and ‘get right’ with the IRS, before either the IRS or the Justice Department finds them,” she said.

    Under its plea, Wegelin agreed to pay the $20 million in restitution to the IRS as well a civil forfeiture of $15.8 million, the Justice Department said.

    Wegelin also agreed to pay an additional $22.05 million fine, the Justice Department said. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who must approve the monetary penalties, set a hearing in the case for March 4 for sentencing.

    Last year, the U.S. government separately seized more than $16 million of Wegelin funds in a UBS AG account in Stamford, Connecticut, via a civil forfeiture complaint.

    Since Wegelin has no branches outside Switzerland, it used UBS for correspondent banking services, a standard industry practice, to handle money for U.S.-based clients.

    In court papers, Bruderer said that Wegelin “believed it would not be prosecuted in the United States for this conduct because it had no branches or offices in the United States and because of its understanding that it acted in accordance with, and not in violation of, Swiss law and that such conduct was common in the Swiss banking industry.”

    The case is U.S. v. Wegelin & Co et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-cr-00002.

    (Additional reporting by Martin De Sa’Pinto in Zurich; Editing by John Wallace, Steve Orlofsky and Peter Cooney)

  128. People keep banking there and paying the IRS.

    If they had stopped all that nonsense 6 years ago, we wouldn’t still be having this conversation. We’d be well into rebuilding this country and we long would have lost everyone of those bankers. Problem is: there are more people living their life in front of their monitor than actually getting off their butt and taking action. Well, I do what I advocate: I’m in court, I closed my bank account long ago and I pay cash for everything. It is a pain but if everyone had done that from the get go and weaned banks and government from all the money they have, we’d be long ahead of the game.

    Don’t come here to complain if you’re not willing to take action.

  129. My case is the ” poster child” of the above. Question – as a pro se litigant will my case be remanded- it definitly should be and if not ill taketo supreme level.

  130. I look forward to the day Mr. Garfield starts posting the results of his deny and discover tactics. We’ve heard about them for quite awhile now. When will they start disassembling the steamroller that we’ve all been crawling in front of?

  131. The OCC sent me multiple dead end replies to all my complaints and inquiries shortly after Bank Of America transferred my loan into their possession in May of 2011…..
    Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: