Blaming the Judge


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, Tennessee, Georgia, California, Ohio, and Nevada. (NOTE: Chapter 11 may be easier than you think).

Editor’s Note: It is easy to blame the judge when you lose and take credit when you win. But if you really want to win cases, you must be more realistic than that and take ruthless inventory of your own performance in court. Expecting the judge to do right by you or your client, is like wishing. Wishing doesn’t make it so.

Case in point: Judge Joel Lazarus is being skewered for violation of due process, incompetence, and for being blatantly biased. Judge Lazarus is someone I happen to know pretty well. He has been a career public servant for many years and has presided over several celebrity cases without the kind of vitriol that is now appearing in the blogosphere over his rulings in a foreclosure case.

Just to pick out a few things, and make this a learning moment, let’s look at the accusations against him.

RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL: In equity cases there is no right to trial by jury. Where the case is mixed equity and law, there is a split of decisions although granting jury trial is rarely overturned on appeal. From what I have read about this aspect in this case, a reviewing court would affirm his ruling. Foreclosure is an “equity” case whereas collection of money or monetary damages is a case at law. I totally agree that it would be nice to get jury trials in foreclosures, but it is highly unlikely that judges will allow that unless the collection of the debt takes prominence over the enforcement of a lien.

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW: In the case being used to tar and feather Lazarus, the borrower attempted to appoint an authorized representative instead of a lawyer to appear and argue the case. Florida law prohibits that and anyone who aids or abets that is subject to substantial civil and possibly criminal penalties. The Judge had no choice. If he had ruled in favor of allowing the “representative to appear” he would have been allowing the unauthorized practice of law. This would have subjected him to discipline. But that said I agree that there is a shortage of competent attorneys to represent homeowners and that the attempts to use analysts or representatives to make your case or defend your case is both allowed and proper. The Judge apparently was trying to find an easy way for the pro se litigant to make this happen by the appointment of a public defender which was later reversed because it really could not be justified. in all probability of the PD office complained that they don’t do foreclosures and the Judge was left with the only decision he could make, which was to withdraw the order appointing the PD.

“SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP:” If every Judge were to be sanctioned for getting angry in court or frustrated with attempts of pro se litigants to have their case heard in ways the rules of civil procedure do NOT allow, then we would have no judges. That sort of comment comes from the pro se litigant or representative continuing to speak after the Judge has already ruled. You can try it and sometimes it works, but more often than not, lawyer or not, you will be told to sit down and shut up. Observing the court rules and your own demeanor is more important than observing the judge’s demeanor, even if you think the judge was rude. But the converse is also true. Just because it is the Judge doesn’t mean you lay down and roll over. Judges can be wrong and frequently can be talked out of a ruling. Lawyers sometimes fail to object when the Judge asks factual questions in a non-evidential hearing or leading questions at trial.

The Judge’s politics: everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that includes the Judge. If Judge Lazarus is a tea party supporter, then the only question is whether that ideology is causing bias. I personally disagree with most of the essentials of what the Tea Party advocates believe should be the policy of our states and the nation. But I would defend to the death the right for them to have those  views and express them. If bias is the concern, then questions could be asked of the judge to determine whether he is in fact biased or has prejudged a case, and if so, recuse himself.

The underlying assumption is this: homeowners need lawyers to represent them in court.  The old days of pro se victories are coming to a close. Instead of blaming the judge for an unfavorable result you should prepare your own case and make sure your points are kept in issue by proper objections that are timely made and adequately explained and by avoiding tacit admissions when they agree to the authenticity of a document that probably is not authentic.



512 Responses

  1. They include the Mercedes E200 in both manual as well as Larnaca has
    an international driving license, passport and a valid driving license to
    drive the car or some other U.

  2. The real truth of the Matter is the State is committing the fraud. We have Carrie Ahart in the State of Misourri -Attorney General Office is simply part of the fraud as well. The Document creation is being committed by the County andCity recorders office. They have all of this set up. This was a complete Ponzi scheme. The Banks had investors in the State of Missourri to default. This emans the Hotel owners that are holding the certificates. With much strategy they have placed their family members in positions to prevent Due Process. Advocacy Groups to change the law while professing to help the homeowners. This is always benefical to the new investors,
    there is something terribly wrong when you have the level of foreclosures taking place with not one Attorney fighting for the people.
    Armstron and Teasdale whom are the Consus Group that purchased these defective trust are committing much fraud. Redirecting your email , phone calls and tracking your every move. The policians
    are using a switch and bait move. They say one thing to the Public however behind closed doors so something different.

    The US Trustees are all part of the fraud as well as the Judges. Thru a network of family member they are committing fraud. Passing properties to family members ill gotten through absolute fraud by the way of trust accounts. its rampant here in stlouis. Not one FBI agent will do a thing about it, This is why people are not protesting. They are clear about the fraud and the level of fraud,

  3. And we strongly doubt we will ever get them. Soon my Friend.. Berrry Soon they must release those claims.

  4. When BOA/BAC took over April 2009…. they also refused our payments… yet every month they sent a loan mod pack for my husband. They take up the entire filing drawer. I called them every month for 12 months and kept telling them … there was No hardship! We just wanted them to admit … we were not $12,000 in default and show us where CW had applied all our payments. Requested re-enstatement figures in Feb. 2010 got them and by them I mean Only the Re-enstatement figures..

    Sent Requests again in March.. same response ( differ Numbers.. haha). Paid them anyway! Come April … they say the account is in defaut … so I have them fax me re-enstatement figures again (again differant set of figures). I pay them again .. apparently the April payment came due before the processed our VERY LARGE re-enstatement cashiers check and kept the account in default. Paid April and Sent Mays payment. (in two seperate checks … each clearly marked what they were to be applied to) and overnighted them together as always and certified. I call in May and the account is still in default. I again send QWR … this time the response is two seperate bills from BAC for two property tax (half/half) and says we need to pay BAC. The third statement was for mo payment. Then comes the NOD in the amount of the annual Land Tax and Ins totaled together. What? We escrowed and paid those with our P&I. Things got intresting from there ………………………….. To this day, we still do not have answers to multiple QWRs from 2010-2013.

  5. I have a problem with contracting with a company and their assiciate attorney business partners that has forged docs to create a false defaut to get a fc deed under CWs LP. I just didnt get it! THEN I found out about the title and the SOL and what the behind the scene buttwipe debt collector was pulling on my own Family! Thats when it dawned on me .. they were doing the same thing with my Notary Affidavits. I had to find out the Truth! Buttwipes!!!

  6. Gwen…. the Judge doesnt like you because after you put BOA and Mers on Notice … you filed a lawsuit. Put him in a bad situation. I didnt want to do that to the Judge again …. 🙂 … So I sit on the sidelines this time around and just wait. My butt is falling asleep thou… I need to get back in the game.

  7. The CW loans were paid off via any of the following… Ins swaps. Title Ins, Tarp , Bailouts. There were two major suits … CW investers and LPS. Those loans the taxpayers can collect on are good to go and will be gone by end of March. Those others … with litigation issues…. well…. lets just wait and see.

  8. BOA could not settle anything for CW via Mers(or anyone else) because they were waiting“` dragging their feet til the outcome on another settlement. Ut Umm …..

  9. i get disgusted about a lot of the garbage on this website, but I HAD TO RESPOND TO THIS COMMENT ON MERS.
    When I sued in QT/DC I sued MERS 1, 2, 3 and MERSCORP. INITIALLY, these entities were represented by Bryan Cave who was also representing BOA, BAC, CWide, Merrill Lynch and Wilshire. Citi as Trustee for MLMI 2006 HE-t never got served and did not “enter” for over a year–that’s another story. HOWEVER, about a month later after entry of appearance, the lawyer for BOA etc. told me they had a “conflict” with the MERS defendant and someone else was entering an appearance (HUSCH BLACKWELL, the largest Law firm in the state of mo) However, recently when I talked to MERS lawyers about settling out claims against them in the suit, they told me they had to get permission from BOA to settle and it was not going to happen. Then about a week ago, MERS lawyers said they were willing to settle out those claims and send the settlement agreement. Now in my experience and I have a lot of it, this is BIZARRE!. ,

  10. JG,
    HOLD THE PHONES! Here’s the whole “holder” vs. “owner” controversy completely summed up, again from Kemp (I swear, it’s as though I’m reading this order for the first time, even though I’ve read it several times–just with a different focus now, I guess):

    “The right to enforce an instrument and ownership of the
    instrument are two different concepts. . .. Moreover, a person who
    has an ownership right in an instrument might not be a person
    entitled to enforce the instrument. For example, suppose X is the
    owner and holder of an instrument payable to X. X sells the
    instrument to Y but is unable to deliver immediate possession to Y.
    Instead, X signs a document conveying all of X’s right, title, and
    interest in the instrument to Y. Although the document may be
    effective to give Y a claim to ownership of the instrument, Y is not a
    person entitled to enforce the instrument until Y obtains
    possession of the instrument. No transfer of the instrument
    occurs under Section 3-203(a) until it is delivered to Y.”

    So an “owner” is not necessarily able to collect on an instrument. ONLY A HOLDER CAN ENFORCE AN INSTRUMENT. And being a “holder” requires, well, holding, or what the UCC calls “possession.” You probably already said all this below, JG, I just glossed over it, so forgive if I’m telling you something you already know.

  11. Sorry to go on and on about this, but writing about it helps me think about my situation and maybe it will help others…

    But applying this new (to me) wrinkle of the Kemp case–in which the judge specifically rejected the doctrine of “constructive possession” and stated that the UCC’s standard definition of “Holder” requires physical possession of the negotiable instrument–lends credence to my previous argument that if my note which was sworn to be held by Fannie Mae but which was also sworn to have never left the Recontrust vault, then neither Fannie, a Fannie trust/pool, or Recontrust could be the holder under the UCC or the “Note Holder” pursuant to the terms of my note.

    Even if we apply the principle that the genius in the article critical of Kemp linked below cited, i.e., that comments to the UCC point out that possession by an agent does in fact transfer possession to its principal, in my case (and surely many others), I have to ask, “Is Recontrust Fannie’s agent?” There was never any proof provided of this and neither Fannie nor Recontrust (and I sued them both) ever argued that Recontrust was Fannie’s agent. Therefore, Recontrust probably wasn’t Fannie’s agent and consequently, a note held in Recontrust’s vault and never in the possession of Fannie Mae is not “held” by Fannie in the UCC sense or the note sense.

    One last thing: the reason I like to focus on what the note actually says (i.e., that we must pay a “Note Holder” who has to fulfill both of the two criteria) is because that’s what the banks/judges do. Only they don’t want to focus on the definition of “Note Holder,” they want to focus on the “promise to pay” part. Both provisions–the promise to pay and the definition of Note Holder–are included in the note, but they look at us like we are crazy if we simply ask if the person trying to take the house is in fact the “Note Holder” and they tend to lose their cool somewhat if we have enough evidence that the would-be foreclosers probably don’t fit the notes’ defintion of “Note Holder.”

    So what I’m saying is, we must force the issue of the identity of (and the possible and likely non-existence of) the “Note Holder” just as strongly as they try to force the issue of the promise to pay. After all, we didn’t “promise to pay” just ANYBODY, we promised to pay a particular person who only has to meet BOTH of two criteria and in most if not all cases, there is no person who meets both criteria.

    I’m not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

  12. JG,
    Even though I’ve read the Kemp order a number of times, I always find new things in it. Apparently the Countrywide legal eagles tried to bring up the argument of “constructive possession,” but the judge found that physical possession was required by New Jersey law. From Footnote 13:

    “As an additional argument in support of the proposition that the
    Bank of New York qualifies as a holder who may enforce the note, the claimant cites to Mulert v. National Bank of Tarentum, 210 F. 857, 860 (3d Cir. 1913) for the proposition that it had constructive possession of the note because Countrywide intended to transfer possession, and that constructive possession is sufficient to permit the transferee to enforce the note. This proposition is not sustainable in light of the actual possession required under the New Jersey UCC. See N.J.S.A. 12A:1-201(20).”

    Interestingly, this particular section of the New Jersey UCC is identical to the UCC in my state (and in almost all states, as the UCC was adopted in whole by all states with minor variations in a few states). What that UCC section says is this:

    “(20) “Holder,” with respect to a negotiable instrument, means the person in possession if the instrument is payable to bearer or, in the case of an instrument payable to an identified person, if the identified person is in possession. “Holder” with respect to a document of title means the person in possession if the goods are deliverable to bearer or to the order of the person in possession.”

    So the judge in Kemp specifically rejected the argument of “constructive possession” using ONLY the standard UCC definition of “Holder.”

  13. JG,
    Footnote 11 in the Kemp order says this:
    “If Countrywide was in possession of the note, then it would have
    had “holder” status as of the date of the petition filing date, because the note was payable to Countrywide, no indorsement or allonge had been executed, and Countrywide was in possession of the original note. However, Countrywide did not flle the claim on its own behalf. Rather, it flled the claim as “servicer for Bank of New York.” The qualification of the Bank of New York, rather than Countrywide, to enforce the note is at issue.”

  14. You can download these internal documents penned by MERSCORP for its members called “The Building Blocks of MERS.

    Some interesting nuggets include:
    -If MERSCORP is named as a defendant, it is the responsibility of the member to defend MERSCORP in the action, paying all court costs, legal fees. Heh.

    -Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal offices at 1818 Library Street, Suite 300 Reston, VA 20190 (“MERS”) is qualified as a foreign corporation in the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts,New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Virginia.

    -For other states, our outside counsel has determined that foreign corporation qualification is not necessary. Similarly, our outside counsel has determined that MERS does not need to be licensed under any state laws dealing with mortgage banking or brokerage activities.

    MM: Really? Hmmm…

    -The MERS family is comprised of two distinct corporate entities. MERSCORP HOLDINGS, Inc. is the parent company of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

    —MERSCORP HOLDINGS, Inc. is qualified as a foreign corporation in the following states: California,Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Virginia. Qualification in most of these states was required because MERSCORP HOLDINGS, Inc. has employees based in those states.

    —Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is the entity that will be found in the land records.

    -Loans that are already in foreclosure should not be assigned to MERS. If a mortgage is assigned after foreclosure proceedings have begun, the foreclosure may have to be re-started. This will just add unnecessary delays.

    -As a rule, MERS should not take title at the end of a foreclosure. However, there are nine states where this may be unavoidable. The states are Connecticut, Louisiana, Michigan,Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Texas, and Vermont. A subsequent deed should be issued immediately following the deed to MERS either to the servicer or to the investor so that MERS does not stay as the titleholder for an extended period.

    -Please note that Fannie Mae requires in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and the Parish of New Orleans, Louisiana an assignment of the mortgage from MERS to Fannie prior to foreclosing. This is the same requirement you already follow on non-MERS loans. It has come to our attention that Fannie Mae may be requiring an assignment in Connecticut as well. Moreover, Fannie Mae has taken the position that MERS cannot be the note-holder, so Members servicing Fannie Mae loans should not foreclose in the name of MERS in judicial foreclosures

  15. You can download these internal documents penned by MERSCORP for its members called “The Building Blocks of MERS.

    Some interesting nuggets include:
    -If MERSCORP is named as a defendant, it is the responsibility of the member to defend MERSCORP in the action, paying all court costs, legal fees. Heh.

    -Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal offices at 1818 Library Street, Suite 300 Reston, VA 20190 (“MERS”) is qualified as a foreign corporation in the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts,New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Virginia.

    -For other states, our outside counsel has determined that foreign corporation qualification is not necessary. Similarly, our outside counsel has determined that MERS does not need to be licensed under any state laws dealing with mortgage banking or brokerage activities.

    MM: Really? Hmmm…

    -The MERS family is comprised of two distinct corporate entities. MERSCORP HOLDINGS, Inc. is the parent company of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

    —MERSCORP HOLDINGS, Inc. is qualified as a foreign corporation in the following states: California,Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Virginia. Qualification in most of these states was required because MERSCORP HOLDINGS, Inc. has employees based in those states.

    —Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is the entity that will be found in the land records.

    -Loans that are already in foreclosure should not be assigned to MERS. If a mortgage is assigned after foreclosure proceedings have begun, the foreclosure may have to be re-started. This will just add unnecessary delays.

    -As a rule, MERS should not take title at the end of a foreclosure. However, there are nine states where this may be unavoidable. The states are Connecticut, Louisiana, Michigan,Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Texas, and Vermont. A subsequent deed should be issued immediately following the deed to MERS either to the servicer or to the investor so that MERS does not stay as the titleholder for an extended period.

    -Please note that Fannie Mae requires in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and the Parish of New Orleans, Louisiana an assignment of the mortgage from MERS to Fannie prior to foreclosing. This is the same requirement you already follow on non-MERS loans. It has come to our attention that Fannie Mae may be requiring an assignment in Connecticut as well. Moreover, Fannie Mae has taken the position that MERS cannot be the note-holder, so Members servicing Fannie Mae loans should not foreclose in the name of MERS in judicial foreclosures

  16. Mary says ….Some other info we recently uncovered regarding MERS signing officers…

    In NJ, a number of hacks working at foreclosure mill law firms sign the Assignment of Mortgages as a MERS officer. Their name, signature and MERS title appear on the document. They are silent on the fact they are an employee of the law firm suing the homeowner. Conflict of interest anybody?

    We Google their names and they pop up on their law firms websites. Duh…

    Anyway, there’s more her to drill down on than conflict of interest, which doesn’t appear to worry the NJ judiciary.

    Here’s the thing – only employees of MERS members are allowed to apply for authorization to be named MERS officers.

    Hack attorneys working at foreclosure mills do not work for a MERS member bank.

    Now, the hack’s client, BOA, Citi or any other TBTF – can make a request to MERS, asking that the hack be allowed to sign documents that fraudulently assign a property from one TBTF to their client.

    So, there is a paper trail that homeowners and their attorneys should demand in discovery –
    -Piece of paper from TBTF employee to MERS, requesting hack be named a MERS signing officer
    -Piece of paper from MERS, confirming hack is a signing officer of MERS and specifically what documents they are authorized to sign

    Lots here. But details are very important here, because the fraud is hidden under layers of official sounding documents. These documents often deceive the judges and lull them into thinking that the TBTF is on the up and up.

    To win, homeowners and their attorneys need to peel back the onion one layer at a time to reveal the rancid fraud at the core.

  17. Are you seeing the Big Hole in the Side of the USS MERS yet John? Think Sinking Titanic full of Liability by its Members and Non Members per say…..

  18. one admittedly on the basis of an unverified UCC law class instruction I have, any one who is an agent but who executes an endorsement on another’s note without noting he does so as agent becomes liable to the endorsee on that note. I don’t know this, but it stands to reason that if a person who is not a person authorized at all to execute an endorsement does so anyway, in addition to fraud, that person is liable to anyone and everyone for its act. In addition to the fraud, if this is also true for assignments of collateral instruments (that liability attaches) then certainly a homeowner has standing to complain (because the liability extends to the homeowner).

    Any agency so stated or otherwise is subject to challenge.

  19. Nice John! Mers Must Go!
    ….. BOMBSHELL CASE – Assignment of Mortgage Does Not Give Bank Standing

    Posted by: JKral | on February 27, 2013

    The first DCA today released a bombshell case which adopts the position that our firm has taken for years.

    In Lindsey v. Wells Fargo Bank, 1D12-2406 (1st DCA 2013), the lower court granted summary judgment based on an Assignment that did not purport to transfer the Note. There was no indorsement on the note. The first DCA reversed the lower court and vacated the judgment because the Plaintiff failed to establish that it was the holder of the note and mortgage at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed.

    We have all been trained to cite Johns v. Gillian and language that the mortgage follows the note in equity absent some intent otherwise. Further, Lindsey tells us that if an assignment is made without the note, the note does not follow the mortgage. Thus an important question is raised: At what point can the note and mortgage become so separated as to prevent the holder of the note from foreclosing on a mortgage?

  20. That guy said requiring physical transfer is too big a strain for commerce? (That’s just where MERS and its buds are headed with total e-commerce. Even the UCC now addresses e-commerce at least to some extent.) It is SO like these people to get an inch and want the mile. Reminds me of the KY county recorders v MERS et al (which was dismissed for lack of recorders’ standing – bah humbug) wherein the recorders said mers and its members were all on-board recordation when it suited them and hell with it after that. They want the bens of -alleged – negotiable instruments provided by the UCC and the hell with the rest of it – and any other relevant law.

  21. z – to what does the asterisk and 11 refer in Kemp? A footnote? What does it say?

  22. To the best of my knowledge and as I’ve said before, any instrument signed by an agent must identify the agency and the principal. Take 10:

    We hereby assign all right, title, and interest in the deed of trust identified above to Deutsche Bank N.A. as Trustee for RYO Trust 1307

    Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc.
    as agent for Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.
    by Lauraine Brown its vice president

    Further as I’ve also posited, and this one admittedly on the basis of an unverified UCC law class instruction I have, any one who is an agent but who executes an endorsement on another’s note without noting he does so as agent becomes liable to the endorsee on that note. I don’t know this, but it stands to reason that if a person who is not a person authorized at all to execute an endorsement does so anyway, in addition to fraud, that person is liable to anyone and everyone for its act. In addition to the fraud, if this is also true for assignments of collateral instruments (that liability attaches) then certainly a homeowner has standing to complain (because the liability extends to the homeowner).

    Any agency so stated or otherwise is subject to challenge.
    lay opinions – ask a lawyer or 10

  23. In many cases you might be surprised to find out that it IS NOT the party with the right to enforce/legal beneficiary because they have already been paid off.

  24. NAGRAMPA v. MAILCOUPS, INC., 469 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006)
    for instance re unconscionability:

    “….we are required to turn to California law to address Nagrampa’s
    arguments regarding the unconscionability of the …. provision.
    California law holds that unconscionable provisions generally
    are unenforceable. Such unenforceable provisions may, however,
    be severed from any valid and enforceable provisions, even
    those also contained within the …. provision. The district court correctly proceeded to an analysis of unconscionability under California law as a defense to enforcement of the … provision included in Nagrampa’s …. agreement. Because the district court
    failed to properly apply California law…..we reverse and
    remand for further proceedings in accordance with this

  25. For Mers its more like … dont ask us, we dont know. So what you have to do is Nail the Mers Officer who signed it and the Party who recorded the doc… disclose who authorized them to act? (or who ya workin for?)

  26. z – the trusts may take possession by way of their lawfully appointed (key words) custodians. Also, possession by the trustee imo qualifies as poss by the trust. To answer your good question: what’s to stop
    bad actors from alleging they’re the custodians or agents for whomever they please? Under today’s litigation practices, absolutely NOthing, It’s just like agency which is being errantly presumed without evidence of the agency, and once again, only the savviest of litigators will unearth the lie. NG could do us all a monster favor by starting to discuss the true application of the rules of e v i d e n c e. The other day, as far as I’m concerned, we got a big teaser about evidence being in the sole possession of one party. That’s actually a big deal and he brought it up and then it was gone.

  27. guest at 8:36 pm – you know, that’s a question which has actually been ignored, probably for our assumptions of the answer. But when you think about it, MERS has bent over backwards to avoid revelation
    of the name of its alleged principal,boss, master, pick one- the party for whom it purports to act by use of member employees or just anyone really who pays the 25.00. Of known cases, it started in Boyko, happened again in Mitchell, Koontz, and who knows where else. What that’s telling me just now is that MERS doesn’t believe it’s own bull and it’s not going on record as saying So and So has the authority to either execute an assignment or order anyone else to do it. Don’t ask, don’t tell?

  28. JG,
    I agree that the MERS DOT is unconscionable. It’s a very novel, yet accurate, argument. Worth a shot, if you ask this non-lawyer who is not giving anyone legal advice. You’re exactly right–a computer database cannot be a beneficiary or a nominee, yet it claims to be both in the standard MERS DOT.

    You also said that if the trust DID take the note by transfer AND was entitled to receive payment, then wouldn’t they be the “Note Holder” as defined in the note. Yes, they would. BUT, in my case, BoA swore up and down that the note NEVER LEFT THE RECONTRUST VAULT (in Simi Valley, Callifornia) from approximately 15 days after I signed said note until 4 years later when it was supposedly sent to their attorney. Meanwhile, they again swore up and down that Fannie Mae (in Virginia) was the holder of the note that entire time.

    So what they’re saying is that Recontrust physically held the note but that Fannie Mae was the “Note Holder” pursuant to the terms of the note itself. That is, the note physically resided in California while the supposed Note Holder was in Virginia. Reston, Virginia to be exact–the home of none other than MERS. That means that neither Fannie Mae nor any Fannie Mae trust/pool could have taken the note by physical transfer because the physical note purportedly (according to sworn deposition testimony) stayed in Simi Valley, CA.

    This was the argument that caused the judge in Kemp v. Countrywide to rule in favor of Kemp, i.e., that there was no physical transfer of the note to BONY, who was claiming to be the trustee. Quote from Kemp decision: “First, under New Jersey’s Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) provisions, the fact that the owner of the note, the Bank of New York, never had possession of the note, is fatal to its enforcement.” (Notice the “owner” language!)

    Another quote from Kemp regarding possession/transfer: “What we do know is that the note was purchased by the Bank of New York as Trustee, but never came into the physical possession of the Bank. Because the Bank of New York never had possession of the note, it can not qualify as a “holder” under the New Jersey UCC. See Dolin v. Darnall, 115 N.J.L. 508, 181vA. 201 (E&A 1935) (“Since the plaintiff was not ‘in possession of the notes in question, he was neither the ‘holder’ nor the ‘bearer’ thereof. “).11”

    That is why I say that the trusts don’t take the notes by transfer. The trusts, as I understand it, CANNOT take notes by transfer because the trust is not a physical entity. The trust is a legal fiction and exists only on paper. There is no way for a trust to take physical possession of anything.

    There was an article that I found a while back that was appalled at the Kemp decision for this very argument about physical transfer/possession. It lamented that requiring physical possession of paper was detrimental to the financial industry. The article stated that there is such a thing as “constructive possession,” meaning that one can possess or be in control of a note without physically holding it. To me, that’s a very spurious argument. After all if someone writes me a check, I have to have physical possession of the check in order to be able to deposit it or cash it. I can’t claim constructive possession of a check endorsed in blank and get a bank to give me cash for it. It’s laughable. What is to stop any or every bank and financial institution from claiming “constructive possession” of any negotiable instrument endorsed in blank via some side agreement between the bank and some third party under this “constructive possession” argument? Why, that sounds exactly what we are both decrying here, i.e., the MERS system! Here’s the link to that article:

    I will email you this post if I can find your email address so we can continue this off-site if you like. This thread will soon scroll off the main page.

  29. Its like Neil says …. you have to bring the investers and the homeowners together and squeeze out the Marshmellow in the Middle. The Investers know the Truth …… oh yes we Do! Buttwipes!!

  30. Mers was recorded on title in favor of the investers, The investers in the Trust were also suppposed to get the Note within PSA guidelines and They Did Not! It was not the RPII ordering Mers to Act!

  31. John, the Mers straw officers could only act at the order of the legal beneficiary (the party with the right to enforce). so why are they having such a tough time spitting our who ordered them to act? Maybe because it was not the legal beneficiary who gave the order for the MERS officer to act?

  32. z – if the trusts took the notes by ‘transfer’ and the investors are the bens of the trust, meaning they have the right to payment,then wouldn’t one party satisfy those two prongs? Help me out here. Why did you say the investors didn’t take the notes by transfer (if everything to be done had been done)?

    christine said in one comment i now can’t find (para 2) that mers retained law firms. I agree with the rest of what she said, but not that one. FNMA, FHLMC and who knows else had lists of approved attorneys and MERS may have had such a list, also. Dunno. But MERS didn’t retain anyone to the best of my knowledge. Those approved law firms, which I believe FNMA 86’d for its appearance and fact of impropriety last year, probably got all the white papers and other missives of fraudclosure being spewed out by that whole gang, but it was to the best of my knowledge the banksters, not MERS, who paid the law firms when it is about foreclosure. MERS may have to pony up and actually retain and pay a law firm or two when it’s really on the hot seat, but that’s not the norm. In fact, it doesn’t’ even appear that MERS was aware of any of that one to one (one poor slug homeowner) litigation done in its name and it certainly didn’t supply any affidavits, declarations, or documents. Those all came from member and then even non-member employees. MERS, as I said, hasn’t been prosecuted for the acts of some of its 20,000 + straw officers. They apparently want and are getting it both ways: they’re officers when it comes to authority but “we dont know ’em” when it comes to liability.
    Actually, as far as I know, MERS has never even had to make the
    latter claim since no one has been after them for the liability for the fraudulent acts of its straw officer and stinking got me why not. In the one case where they WERE called on it, Koontz, the bad guys just folded like a cheap suit. Better to lose the battle than the war, right MERS?

  33. @poppy at 4:49 – I agree with most of what you said and I thought you said it well, tho I’m no scholar on the const, either. I think there’s
    civil fraud and there’s criminal fraud. I don’t readily know the line,
    except that RICO activity is criminal. Because much of what you say about what is “admission against interest” by court-ambush (taking your word on this one) and the routine admission of
    non-admissable hearsay, I have more than once posited that any homeowner or his attorney approach this issue as if it’s criminal law. We have to live with civil rules and statutes in civil forums, but as to proof or allegations, those are what needs the microscope
    of the criminal defense mind even as the civil rules and laws are the ones contemplated. I still believe that the provision in a collateral instrument making MERS anything is an unconscionable one.
    I can’t draw, but if I could, it would look like this:

    Picture a homeowner atop his small castle looking down at an approaching army on the other side of his moat.

    At the fore is Hultman, MERS’ secretary or whatever, bearing arms. 5 feet behind him are thousands of guys in suits, also bearing arms all pointing at the homeowner. Each rifle bears a diff name: BofA, US Bank, Deutsche, Aurora, Credit Suisse, CW, Carlito’s Default Buyers, Joe’s Pawn Shop, etc.
    They are marching over the land, designated the law.

    That’s the unconscionable position anyone who signed a collateral instrument naming the Mers utility / club as nominal ben finds himself in. Because there was no execution and recordation of assignments of the coll instrument, any one of those characters may lay claim to interests in our homes and any one of them
    may use its own employee to either assign the coll instrument to itself or the trust for whom it allegedly services on the basis of alleged possession of a bearer note or one allegedly endorsed to a trust within the time contractually and, I say, statutorily (trust law) mandated by a person qualified to make that endorsement. Even if there is law which should protect us, and I think there is, only the saviest of litigators will ever get to the discovery of FACTS.

    Americans buy homes on credit. That’s what most of us do. When laws, well most, were legislated, they didn’t contemplate one party’s unreasonable need for a law degree focusing on 20 different legal tenets. The recordation system which was designed to and did heretofore protect us from needless legal education
    to resolve contract disputes has been obliterated: for the need for the degree, the law no longer protects the very people for whom it was enacted.* When a situation arises which can only lead to that conclusion, as here with the MERS’ dot, something has to give. It can’t be the law (well, actually to at least help, more judges could decree and implement more local rules as some
    have – see courts’websites for their local rules), so that leaves the MERS dot.
    The provision in a MERS’ dot allegedly making mers both a nom ben and thee ben (actually one or either, and not necessarily that it says both – doesn’t matter just here) and the ensuing entanglements, most pointedly the one in
    my description of the characters above, has created a dispartity that is beyond the ken of the people for whom legislation is enacted.
    Something HAS to give: the MERS dot has to go. That part of a dot is in fact unconscionable. A utility cannot be a beneficiary, a nom ben, or an agent and the mers’ m.o. enables pure bullshyt.

    If that provision in a dot about mers is found to be unconscionable because it damn well is, including the whole stinking m.o., I don’t know the impact that would have on the contract as a whole. If if were some govt committee which was behind the Consent Order and not MERS as I suspect – or maybe they were partners- that’s what the committee found. Courts could find that the party
    named as the Lender in the dot is the beneficiary (because it IS, or in deference to NG – IF it is) and go from there.
    I maybe haven’t said this very well. Long and short 1) when the law
    no longer protects the people its designed to protect, it’s of no value
    to that polity and 2) the MERS dot is unconscionable for the reasons I tried to articulate.

  34. The whole sale lines like AWL could not sue after New Century and others went belly up. You are correct John. Who funded those wholesale lines? If they do not have standing to sue the homeowner, you would think they are sueing sumbuddy right? Possibly settling for pennies on the dollar? And how about those insurer lawsuits and settlements? So Much Stuffs in the Middle!

  35. Looks like you folks really like to beat a dead horse. On returning to see what you said following my last comment, I am the first to agree that judges are to blame, which is the subject matter of this thread. I agreed with Gwen and I think most commentators [save Neil] believe that most of the problems in our system are not just because lawyers are always pulling “fast ones” but that the judges happily let them do it, under pretext of waiver or procedure or whatever concocted theory they come up with. Rather than fight among ourselves and make personal attacks we should join together against the bosses and the judges they own. As for why people are berated [often unjustly] my commentary is solely to make you realize that it is all theatre. They have us fighting over what the law is when the law is whatever they want it to be. Therein lies the problem. Immunity is found nowhere in the Constitution and when they give it to themselves as “new kings” then it is our duty to make them follow the law not concoct their own.

  36. z – you’re right: judges are to “liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants and take up the strongest arguments they suggest”. In reality what happens is the harder a pro se tries to adhere to and cite law, the higher the court sets the bar for the pro se and begins to not construe his pleadings as he should, but instead scorns and mentally holds the pro se in contempt for his efforts. I’m still nautious from reading a recent fl think it was transcript. The court’s deference to the bankster’s counself was not totally unexpected, but the deference from the homeowner’s attorney certainly was. “All hail the king”. Not!

  37. Buck – I agree with you. Equity is a last resort, that is, when there is no law in place to determine the rights of parties or to prevent a manifest injustice. Allowing one party to benefit from routine shoddy if not fraudulent practices is not appropriately called the prevention of a manifest injustice, not even close.
    anyone – I think I’m closer to gleaning the ‘stuff’ behind the MERS’ Consent Order. I do believe that it may have been MERS behind it because of the liability it finally recognized or it was some committee actually understanding the MERS’ m.o. (Handy – MERS can blame the govt to its members) Either way, there was recognition – this one’s my presumption -that mere possession of a bearer note (and according to MERS, it belatedly learned the members didn’t in fact even have such poss) didn’t cut it for enforcement of either the note or the note and the coll instrument, and significantly came to understand that all the entries in the MERS utility were done on a voluntary basis and no oversight was possible because MERS the utility was not structurally able to oversee jack. My money, given the government’s track record, is on the Consent Order being MERS’ idea. Not long after that, MERS entered into the 7 year contract with Genpact. I’m guessing, and rightly so I’d say, to try to justify the millions of foreclosures done in MERS’
    name. Sure don’t know how they even hope to pull that off. Just a reminder and for those who don’t know – this is all being done off-shore.
    On the other hand, while we’re trying to make sense of shattered lives after the last round, MERS is moving toward total e-commerce, so that could be what Genpact is all about. Could be, but I believe it’s the former.

  38. stripes at 7:17 – article 3 applies to negotiable instruments. Not all commercial instruments fall in that category. To have said what you said, however, indicates some area of studying in that area, so it seems to me you could be a consistant contributor in that area if you chose to.
    Anyone – In the years before securitization (a shot at looking at “normal), it’s hard to say what actually moved the notes. At first glance, I thought it was just the endorsement and delivery of the note – that mtg brokers, say, transferred the note to their end and delivery. Then I remember that there were also contracts involved regarding those notes, and other written agreements pursuant to those contracts set out the terms and conditions and recited consideration, also, so article 9 comes to mind. So the existence of the contracts tells me the reliance wasn’t wholley on the endorsement and delivery. The questions are 1) could it have been and 2) what role does the fact that these notes are secured by real property play?

    Notes got blank endorsements at some point because that’s how, apparently, the warehouse lender wanted them, theoretically so that the warehouse lender may enforce if its warehouse loan isn’t paid off. But I hasten to reiterate that enforcement by the warehouse lender (of the note endorsed in blank) for non-payment was first (and foremost?) contractual and not wholley dependent on the blank end and possession. Plus the wh lender had some skin $$ in the game. The non-payment could contractually make the wh lender the owner of the note.
    The warehouse lender, by possession of a note endorsed in blank, wasn’t yet the owner, and any right to become thee lender or become a party entitled to enforce the note was on a condition subsequent, here the non-payment by the sponsor. Before the non-payment occurred, the warehouse lender, tho in poss of a note endorsed in blank, had no right to an assgt of the dot, tho I think under art 9-203(g), it did have a security interest in the dot which would remain until the wh lender was paid. The wh lender had possession of a bearer note, but it was still the sponsor who was its legal holder. Don’t know if this actually gets us anywhere because it’s the contract which makes the wh lender not the holder. Hmmm..but even so, it points to the fact that it’s a contract, not the UCC, which determines the rights of these people. Could a dishonest wh lender enforce by way of article 3 (in recouse states)? Yes, maybe, probably, if he could get away with it, but not in a court of law. In fact, a court would have to find his claim was without merit and he had no standing to invoke jurisdiction.

  39. Dear Mr and Mrs Johnson, We are sorry to inform you, that there is an underlying contract to your mortgage that you were unaware of, we were not required to to tell you because you are not a party to the contract. Suck It Up! If you want to buy another home …. Great! Let Us Help You! … After the sale …. oh.. remember that contract you were not a party to on your other mortgage? Yeah.. Well Congradulations You are a Landlord! ???? But we do not want to be landlords!! We Want to Sell!! Contract!s Work Two Ways!!

  40. Z.. the problem with this approach is … you can not leave the house to your children or grandchildren. When you pass away … they will FC on your Estate (deficiency judgement here) and your kids will not know what hit them! If they start sending you statements or invoices again … Do Not Pay! It re-enstates the debt! Get an Attorney and see if you can negociate with the RPII for their losses and clear the title.

  41. Z.. stay parked in your home if you are still on title. I suspect the LP on title has exceeded the SOL for the party filing it. They can only get possession and title by abandament or tax sale. Check for Yourself! If that is the case… damit keep your ass parked and pay those taxes and keep homeownerw ins as required by law!

  42. Resending now.

  43. do you have a cite for this case? looking at these cases to see if we can sue the big law firms representing the banks under fdcpa thx. you can send to me at

  44. i apologize but i believe i deleted. little fuzzy these days with my illness. could you please resend thx

  45. Interesting 9th cir. case decided in Hawaii re deceptive business practice re failure to announce postponment of trustee sale.Any comments?

  46. Gwen,
    Yes, sent it last night. I can resend if necessary.

  47. did you send already? to my email as an attachment? thx.

  48. Gwen,
    Sent you the FDIC page saying CWFSB Zwas inactive as of 4-27-09.

  49. Gwen.. my brother lives near you. He called me last night and told me the forcast there after already having 10in in the last storm .. Keep the wood burning and the long undies layered…It appears you could be in the same situation as our friends up in the NE part of the country. Rain chainging to Ice here now ….. Stay Safe Everyone!

  50. You are right Z….. I can not find … the party with the Right To Enforce. Only a Party with the Right to Enforce can file a Satisfaction of Mortgage and Expire the Lien once the loan is paid off.

  51. if you have not sent it to me yet, please do at thx
    in kc we now have six new inches of snow on top of the 10 we got a ew days ago and expecting another six inches. unbelieveable.

  52. God, I wish we could edit posts after posting without reposting. But we can’t, so here’s my edit of my last post below:

    You raised something that I had forgotten about–namely the sale of rights to payment streams and whole loans versus…whatever the opposite of that is. In my opinion, all of these types of things are ultimately dead ends because it seems to me that the only thing we should be concerned about is who is the person who can simultaneously fulfill two criteria: took note by transfer and entitled to payment.

    And I think that the collateral/security instrument is really just an afterthought to the note. As the SuCo said, it’s only an incident to the note. It cannot survive without the note, but they also said it cannot be separated from the note and if anyone tries to separate it (looking at you, MERS), that act of separating the note and mortgage is a legal nullity.

    So what I’m trying to say is this: he who holds the note, holds the mortgage and by extension, if no one holds the note (pursuant to the language of the note itself), no one holds the mortgage. Well, okay, so let’s look at the players again. MERS doesnt hold notes. Servicers don’t hold notes (and even if they do, they aren’t the “Note Holder” defined in the note because the servicers aren’t also “entitled to payment under the note”). The GSEs don’t hold the notes–they never took them by transfer and/or they’ve transferred all their beneficial interest in the notes to trusts/pools. Same with private label “securitizations.” The investors/bondholders/certificateholders aren’t the “Note Holder” because they never took the note by transfer.

    So, no “Note Holder” means no one can enforce the mortgage/DOT because the mortgage/DOT is inseparable from the note and as goes the note, so goes the security instrument.

    No one in this entire scam can fulfill the simple, two-criteria qualifications to be a “Note Holder” as defined in the note.

  53. JG,
    You raised something that I had forgotten about–namely the sale of rights to payment streams and whole loans versus…whatever the opposite of that is. In my opinion, all of these types of things are ultimately dead ends because it seems to me that the only thing we should be concerned about is who is the person who can simultaneously fulfill two criteria: took note by transfer and entitled to payment.

    And I think that the collateral/security instrument is really just an afterthought to the note. As the SuCo said, it’s only an incident to the note. It cannot survive without the note, but they also said it cannot be separated from the note and if anyone tries to separate it (looking at you, MERS), the act of separating the note and mortgage is engaging is a legal nullity.

    So what I’m trying to say is this: he who holds the note, holds the mortgage and by extension, if no one holds the note (pursuant to the language of the note itself), no one holds the mortgage. Well, okay, so let’s look at the players again. MERS doesnt hold notes. Servicers don’t hold notes (and even if they do, they aren’t the “Note Holder” defined in the note because the servicers aren’t also “entitled to payment under the note”). The GSEs don’t hold the notes–they never took them by transfer and/or they’ve transferred all their beneficial interest in the notes to trusts/pools. Same with private label “securitizations.” The investors/bondholders/certificateholders aren’t the “Note Holder” because they never took the note by transfer.

    No one in this entire scam can fulfill the simple, two-criteria qualifications to be a “Note Holder” as defined in the

  54. The GSEs admitted to multiple pledging the notes and, it is well known thanks to Gretchen Morgensen that the GSEs bought back the crap for pennies on the dollar….again, Securities Fraud from the Issuer and it really doesn’t matter what they did after that, it was securities fraud pooled or not. The judges are playing politics here. They know the law. They are lawyers. Fraudclosure is a giant scam and robbery of the American people. It is a disgrace.

  55. I agree with stripes–there was no securitization. Neil has also come to this conclusion, as has Max Gardner and Matt Weidner, both of whom have argued that the notes we are all arguing about were actually non-negotiable ab initio. The securitization is and was always an illusion.

    The upshot of this is that if you accept that the notes were securitized, you’re playing their game. On the other hand, in my case, BoA/Fannie argued both that the note was AND wasn’t securitized. Specifically, they said the note was in a pool/trust of which Fannie was merely a trustee, but ALSO said that Fannie held the note and was entitled to foreclose. So really the banks are trying to play all sides of this game, and the judges eventually just quit trying to follow the whole convoluted mess and just rule for the banks because that’s what judges do.

  56. dunno what that was about. The thing to do is try to figure out which courts are applying real law and which are applying bench law. I’m still going to look for that deal because I want to see what all the judge said when he told mERS, whom I believe was waving the note around, that it wasn’t in fact the holder. (MERS said it was the note holder and the beneficiary!)

  57. Anybody who commented on what I wrote at 4:53 about art 3 bother reading what I wrote? Doesn’t look like it.
    Z, I just got on this after a long day. still looking for that Hultman testimony. I found one of his decs in the Mitchell case, but that’s not what I’m looking for about holders. The material at the link below isn’t exactly on point about owners v holders, but it’s in the hood and worth a read. One courts says this and another says that. Imo, the thing to do is see who followed t


  59. Correct typo……not by overissue….







  61. John… Gwen is Right. When securitization is involved they are article 8 and 9. Not 3.

  62. these are 8/9 not 3’s. end discussion if they are securitized. I ‘ve said that and all the cases by good foreclosure defense lawyers are saying the same thing at the trial level. if you say otherwise, you are working against those of us who are lawyers and have done the research. THESE ARE NOT 3’S –CAN’T BE UNDER THE PSA.

  63. One of the long and shorts of what I said or tried to say is that because the rights to payments were sold as securities, it’s possible these are no longer, if they ever were, negotiable instruments subject to art 3’s
    holder provisions.

  64. Thankss, guest. They still haven’t taken my house even though it’s been almost a year since they “won” the lawsuit. Probably because BAC doesn’t exist and that’s who they’ve named in the land records as the holder of my note, even though in the suit they said Fannie owned it and always did. I have let them know I’m watching them. Right, guys?

  65. zurenarrah@ 12:47 – it’s prob going to take everything I’ve got and then some to get further on this unavoidable issue. There was, I remember, a time when I thought that the notes weren’t in fact enforceable (!) because no one party actually owned or even held the note AND also had a right to payment. It crossed my mind that the note itself had been “bifurcated” with those potential interests held by diff parties. I can’t remember what all made me think this. And btw, I do recall seeing that fnma did not want to take physical poss of the notes but I don’t recall if they made appts for custodians. Surely they did – what have you got on that?)
    The place to start imo is determining what everyone’s rights are IF everything to be done had been done and by what bar. Then take away what wasn’t done and see what’s left. I believe that because the payment streams have been sold to investors, and at least theoretically are securities, they may be regulated at that point by a different set of rules than ones we generally look at in the UCC, like maybe art 8. I think they are initially determined by contract, then the UCC (can’t swear to the order, but just now I’m thinking a contract rules and the UCC is turned to only for dispute resolution), but it’s what article of the UCC that comes first which is critical. I think.
    I don’t think that article 3 could ever stand alone, just in general. I think we start at 9, hit 8 as to the securities, and if that’s true, it may be that article 3 doesn’t apply to THESE notes at all. If the rights to payments have been chopped up and sold as securities, how could legit enforcement of a note ever be claimed by someone claiming as holder, unless it’s the trust? If it’s true that a thief may enforce (an unsecured note) under art 3, what’s the point of rights / contracts? Is art 3 just there to “hang on to your notes – they are like cash”? Because the payment rights are sliced and diced, the trusts absolutely must own the notes contractually. If that’s true, then it’s also true that the UCC wouldn’t apply to find anyone is a “holder”, altho I’m having a hard time articulating a connection of the dots on paper. If the relationship of the trusts to the notes is defined contractually, no one may haul out the UCC to posit otherwise, i.e., that a holder may enforce rights which have been sold as securities. So whereas the contract, the psa, articulated article 9 sales and assignments in regard to the notes and also called for assgts generally (but not always) of the coll instruments, once that’s done, we may have to look at 8 about the securities, and finally to art 2 for dispute resolution. In other words, the notes may have been subject to article 3 after 9 up until the payment rights were sold as securities. But I can’t profess to know if article 3 even applies at all to promissory notes secured by real property. It certainly seems not to be the case in non-recourse states, where enforcement of the note is not allowed – only an action against the collateral is permitted.
    Being a “holder” is of no avail in those states WITHout the coll
    instrument; therefore article 3 is of no value, not applicable to anyone, owner, holder, man in the moon in those states. The point is, here is a situation which is not resolved by Art 3 or even the UCC at all. The rights of enforcement are determined by the state’s statutory recourse position.
    Back to holder v owner, because I and anyone else can come up with a scenario or 10 where a person in mere possession of a note is not in fact entitled to an assgt of the dot (like Shady Sam), it must be so that a holder may be, at best, entitled to enforce an unsecured note only and on the basis of possession is not independently entitled to its collateral instrument. I remember more from that case I ref’d: it was the servicer claiming to be the holder of the note. It came out if wasn’t the owner. That’s when the homeowner alleged bifurcation because the dot had been assigned to the servicer, who admittedly didn’t own the note. I have to go into my notes etc to get any further.
    Big efforts are made here to keep us serious students of the germane misdirected and off-balance. It takes a concerted effort to stay focused, and I personally hope more people will make that effort.

  66. Do you mean Conversion as in …. Converting your loan into a 30year security and cashing out the intrest in advance for payments of services not yet provided or intrest not yet earned? What about those Early Penalty Payoff Laws?

  67. I am Sorry Zur! I Wish the Best of Luck to You and Your Family! You walk away with your head high … you fought back! And that is what counts. Believe it or not … it has been everyones little individual part to put a stop to this. And You were apart of that, your children and grandchildren will benefit for your part! Keep fighting to reform your state laws for their sake.

  68. What Laws….? that buttwipe Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law that says they can bring a fc without proof of claim….? These are not mortgages of yesteryear, where the Issuer held the note & mortgage in a vault until the mortgage was paid…..NO….NO…NO…these are supposed to be MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES….and SECURITY ENTITLEMENTS …….. These are not MORTGAGE SECURITIES….SECURITY ENTITLEMENTS….OR NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS……..THEY CAN’T RE CASH A CHECK 5 YEARS FROM ISSUANCE… STEALING PROPERTY …..or Create a Security or a Security Entitlement by foreclosing…….the properties do not secure these frauds…damned conniving crooks…!

  69. No–didn’t appeal. Waste of money, time, and energy in my case.

  70. I Also want to Remind Everyone … Your State Laws play a role in this to. Good Luck Everyone!

  71. Zur… I am assuming you filed that appeal? Good Boy!! Keep us informed.

  72. I understand Gwen, I Trust my Husband is in Good Hands! Thank You for the Advise! I just wanted to clarify the proceedural differance between securitized and non securitized Notes. Sorry Stripes … They Got Cha!

  73. as i said, mostly i deal with securitized loans. For an answer to this write gin parsons . send me an email and I will give you her email. i don’t like to publish that on line. gin is the absolute go to person on ucc along with alina virani

  74. But then again there is this blank allonge transferring without recourse… then there is MERS who says they were on the other end of that transaction and recoreded its status of the Note to the Deed in 2011. Then there is CWHLs claim on title as Note owner via broker and title via mers. CW 08 claim in JC to affirm it. Case was dismissed. Buttwipes!! Buttwipes! Here.. Let Me Flush Again!

  75. The FDIC should be auditing the Issuer…..

  76. Therefore, we did not authorize any of it…..!

  77. The investors should be sueing the Issuer of the fraudulent investment, which is more than likely themselves….and not the property owners who had no knowledge of any of this and did not consent to any of it.

  78. The best I can figure is that the Buttwipe Mortgage Brokrage on the Note whom is now a dba as itself in another name…. is on the hook for $255,000 draw from the investers for a $149,000 principal loan amount. Yikes!


  80. There is no such thing as hidden parties when it comes to real property…..You either have the legal agreement or you don’t …there is no hiding in the shadows…….THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE LEGAL TRUST AGREEMENT OR THERE IS NONE…..

  81. Gwen, Ginnie Mae confirmed his note was never registered with them either. So if securitization does not apply .. UCC3 applies.

  82. I am a party to those contracts and any contracts that had anything to do with my autograph…….the LAW SAYS….the title company has a fiduciary duty to both parties….

  83. I know you are a part of the criminal class but that does not make you above the law. You are being robbed on the private side as well. Because YOU TBTF….are not above your own crimes….not by a long shot. There will come a day when you can’t afford to pay your bills either and then you will be sorry for turning against your fellow man.

  84. Yeah right the truth is undeniable. File BK….not a chance in hell I am going to pay for you crooks to dump your fraud and still steal my properties. Game on…

  85. Ahhhh ….. I am never gonna earn my Wings …. if I keep losing my Halo!

  86. Dag Gone It! I Lost My Halo To! I can not go out in Public to pick up my Grandbabies with my Horns Showing. I dont look good in horns either. Has Anyone Seen My Halo?

  87. No… it only trickled down on some of us. You are Not part of that Group. You are also not part of the “We the Taxpayer” group either. So Shut The Hell Up! ~~~~~SLAP_~~~~~

  88. Allow me again to clarify, the 4 large institutional investors are owned by the bank owners, the 8 largesse illuminati banking families and are funded by their rich investor friends. Only the very rich invest in those 4 large institutional investment firm who are…….VANGUARD…..STATE STREET….BLACKROCK….FIDELITY…..their SECURITIES FRAUD SCAM trickled down to us via their own scam artists…

  89. DUH! But that is not going to help you, …. that problem is being handles by those parties invloved. You are not a party to those contracts. Now … lets focus on where you are at right now … you either need to pack or file bk asap. Putting Guns In Your Childrens Hands Is Not the thinking of a Reasonable Person. But if that is how you insist it is going down … be it knownst to you … They know you are a Psyco Pathic NutCase… A Dangerous One … And they will have their Marching Orders ..

  90. I should clarify, the bank owners don’t use their own money to fund these investments…investors fund the investment banks …mostly the 4 large institutional investors.

    I blame the investment firms who misrepresented what they were selling the pension funds and the pension fund managers who obviously did not do their jobs. There is no way this many people just dropped the ball and did not do their due dilligence and check to see these trusts were bogus because these securities were never created.

  91. Wow Gwen! They just come right out and say BAC is non-existentt and has no interest in anything! They also say that Countrywide ceased to be on the date. I mentioned: April 27, 2009. This is extremely helpful to me. Thanks for sending!

  92. Dag Gone It if My Fury is Unleased Again. If you find it .. please send it home. You might want to restrain it with duct tape first… its been lubed with WD 40 and it can Move Fast!

  93. Oh wait…. Neil is an Invester… He should be on Top of Your List with Me! Sorry Neil … But if we are going to be Targets …You will be To! Truth Hurts! Go Get Him Stripes!

  94. Oh… And Neil pays his Taxes To … That should get Him Moved up on Your List. Right?

  95. Hey Stripes …. Neil thinks the Invester/funders should be paid back to! Do You Have Him on Your Hit List to? I’m just curious….

  96. Hell Has No Fury Like a Grandma Scorned, And there will Be Hell to Pay till the Last Buttwipe is Flushed from our System! Right Neil?

  97. Taylor, Bean and Whitaker are an investment bank. They don’t fund mortgages, they fund investments in securities. These were never securities. BABOOM….


  99. My Motto has alway been .. We are paying the Right Party Back. The party who took the actual losses, and it was NOT the Banksters! But they sure did do a good job screwing over the taxpayers to! Buttwipes Get Flushed!

  100. I can tell you this… the offices of AG, SEC, HUD and FHA all Agree … BOA nor CW were ever the Creditor, Lender, Funder or anything else! They all thought maybe his loan was part of the TBW scandal. It was Never registered. I am confident that CW invester money funded the loan thru a Wholesale Funding Line of credit. None of those other Buttwipes have a claim to Anything and They Know It!


  102. His loan # has always remained the same. They create a set of docs for us that is convienient for them… but who knows what is on their other sets of books.

  103. Gwen asks do you know if your note was securitized…..? Ignore these bar fly crooks and believe me and the few honest attorney’s that are out there like Neil and Max Gardner…..TBTF never created any securities…….They creared SECURITY ENTITLEMENTS without the SECURITY PART & OVERISSUED THEM….THEY ARE CAPITALIST CRONYIST PIGS AND NOW THEY ARE USING POLITICAL CAPITALIST CRONYISM…..WHORING TO STEAL ALL OF OUR WEALTH & PROPERTY…..Neil wrote an article on how Securitization would not even be legal if they did it. Because let’s be honest here, the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK DOESN’T PAY FOR ANYTHING. Maybe Neil can re post that one.

  104. My husband bought this house before we marketed our current home at the Time…. 2007, The day before Thanksgiving he closed. We ran into a few title problems witch prolonged the marketing and sale of our other property.

  105. these removals from mers are interesting. did you get a change in your loan no? we are looking into this more. for securitized loans we think its because the remics are belly up or the note i in a trust not trading but we have not figured out why notes that are not in a trust are being removed. as i said i work with about a dozen lawyers and 10 high end paralegal specialists around the country o a private email stream. we exchange ideas and info.

  106. <— Lien Theory … Non Recourse.

  107. I am speaking nothing but the truth, and it does not take a law degree to know the truth…I am a U.S. CITIZEN who did her research and that is why I bug these bar-fly attorney’s at this blog who have this judicial supremacists mentality that they are somehow above the laws of this land. All they do is lie and deceive and that is also, in fact, criminal. An honest attorney or citizen would agree with me, not these crooks, and many have agreed with me.

  108. Gwen, It was never registered with SEC either. It was also removed from MERS when we started asking about some title issues we were having. 🙂

  109. thx for reminding me.

  110. Where is the law written that these judges can run kangaroo courtrooms nationwide and ignore ALL OF THE LAWS….and therefore WANTONLY BREAK ALL OF LAWS…..? YOU DON’T NEED A LAW DEGREE TO SEE THESE COURTROOMS ARE BEING RUN LIKE DICTATORSHIPS.

  111. Yes… Gwen, I have all my records and a few extra conflicting sets to of them to boot. The Loan was not Securitized or Pooled. I have connections …. 🙂

  112. im a bit insecure as many people who don’t understand my sanctions or my disbarment attack me. Its hard as I know what happened, but idiots like stripes bother me. You are right. Thx for reminding me. I’m off to another doc unfortunately. Take care, keep the faith. if you have a personal issue write me at

  113. Gwen… Do not defend yourself to Idiots! Do not Feed Them!

  114. do you know if your note was securitized? have you checked title records.

  115. Im not confused. I am applying 35 years of trial experience and a law degree with the substantial briefing I have done in federal and state trial courts in four states, four circuit courts of appeal and the United States Supreme Court. You on the other hand are confused because you are uneducated, cludless, and like to rant and rave. Go to hell.

  116. And Your Grandparents! My Grandparents Were My LifeLine!

  117. ~~~HUGS~~~ Your parents set a Good Example for You!

  118. are you in foreclosure? or bankrtuptcy? have you raised this as a standing issue? Have you asked for discovery? Have they produced the note? have you raised an issue in your filings that wouold “make them” reply and if not allow you to got to the court?

  119. poppy do you have anything that cw or bac filed in their names in the last year? If so, please send to me a copy of the doc filed bythem to thx

  120. i thank you for that. I come by it honestly. My mom was a real estate agent in the 50’s in new york suburbs. when the law changed about selling to african americans she followed it and sold to blacks which was unheard of. we used to get pilloried with tomaties. Mom and dad always did the right thing. And so here’s a love story. My dad was a “halliburton”—yeah that halliburton. He met my mom on a tropp train during wwii. mom was ten years older and italian and dad was a member of the canadian family. Dad married mom. shortly thereafter they were summoned to canada–orilla–mom never had a clue about dad’s background. they went to a huge home on a hill with butlers etc. The ‘family” was gathered and told joe to approach. Dad had mom in hand and took her to the “family”. They told dad that if he gave up mom they would make him head of the family as most of the male heirs had died. Dad said no. He had to give up his name (he was thereafter Joseph Morgan Gill as opposed to Joseph Morgan Halliburton Gill, and all the money that went with that. He never mentiond this to me or my sister. My mom told us when we were 21. Gave us some family paprwork. Dad and mom had a wonderful marriage. Love conquerd all. They were good people and lived their lives helping others. Money is not the be all and end all. Love is and helping others as they always said. They died six months apart. Dad could have lived a long life as hi mother died at 103 but he did not want to live without mom. He just “fave up”.

  121. I am looking for the party with the Right to Enforce this Contract. (contract law) No one will step forward. I just dont get it?

  122. You are talking about politics Gwen, legal theory, not rule of law. I don’t live in small town America, I live in the most corrupt county in the country, Cook County. I have been a witness to machine politics my entire life. It is awful enough at the local and State level. Now it is horriffic, the entire country is being run on the corrupt Chicago business model. Some States like the non-judicial states are even more openly criminal as they are not trying to conceal their crimes of totalitarianism.

    You are intentionally trying to confuse Political Capital Cronyism and Judicial Supremecy with the RULE OF LAW….THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THINGS. This is in fact COMPLETE GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION and it is not legal, moral, ethical or Constitutional under any of the laws of this land..

    You Gwen, are biting off your own nose to spite your face if you believe this is something to be in support of or, is anything else but complete corruption at the highest levels of Government and everywhere in between.

  123. I think it could go either way depending if the Note was securitized or not securited. If the Note was not securitized… article8/9 would not apply. I may be wrong ..

  124. the point is that the servicer can be a holder. That’s why they are using it. they don’t know who owns the note. problem with 3 is that it is contrary to the terms of the psa and msa. That’s why 8/9 is applicable. don’t buy into their argument. there are cases now that are making this distinction and as a result allowing discovery on the psa to get at these issues.

  125. ucc does not apply ucc 8/9 apply and this does not totally supercede contract law. Read the psa, ucc c3 cannot possibly apply. go to and ask her for her briefs on ucc 3 vs. 9. she is the best person on this and has done mts of research.

  126. I’ve Noticed a Lack of FCs all together here for a few days. I wonder what is up with that? When you turn yourself around a few to many times .. you are bound to go down. Was that A Flushing Sound I Heard?

  127. DON’T KNOW IF MY REPLY TO THIS POST GOT THERE> oK ON FORCED PLACED INSURANCE, send a certified letter and a first class letter to the address where the forced placed letter came from. enclose a copy of your insurance and some type of letter from ins co showing that you have been paying. as for the discrepancy, chalk it up to stupidity. you can use this type of thing as an “admission against interest” in lawsuits.

  128. i trust you know that you should send a certified AND first class letter sohwing proof of insurance for a period of time. DO SO IMMEDIATELY. AS FOR THE CONTRADICTIONS. THEY ARE JUST STUPID. ITS AN ADMISSION TO BE USED AGAINST THEM.

  129. In other words, the Supreme Court rules on the law, and does not agree with the notion the judicial branch should be used as a weapon against the people by writing laws and passing them, “judicial supremacy” as a form of Government because the power of the people is superior to both. The power of the judiciary was not to be used like a dictatorship and to abuse its power.

    Congress, the Senate The House and the last 5 Presidents have done just that by repealing and/or weakening laws in order to pass their TBTF AGENDA…..They have severely abused their power and the judiciary, and have used the ELEVENTH AMENDMENT as a weapon against the people, AMENDMENT NINE……However, nowhere is there a Supreme Court ruling that says SECURITIES FRAUD may be used as a business model or a weapon to steal the wealth and property of the people…

  130. I don’t “rant”–I leave that to you as you do enough for evryone else on this blog. However, I do kow con law as it formed the basis for my 30 plus years of practice and was no 1 in my con law class. You have not got a clue about con law and how things are addressed by the SCT and how they affect state law. When you get your law degree and don’t misstate what lawyers are telling you and have some semblance of rationality perhaps someone will listen. Until then, you are a distraction, a jerk and totally ignorant and wasting our time and the space on the blog. Go to you know where–people like you piss me off.

  131. thx i would because again it contradicts what is actually happening “in the field” so to speak. Have a good day and hope you are not in the snow belt Like I am–another 10-15 inc of snow tonite after 10 to 12 last week. More now than we had totally in the last two years

  132. Gwen, thanks for the email. If you would like a scan of the FDIC page, I can send it as soon as I get home and find it. Anyone else who wants it, write me at

  133. I don’t know who Gwen is referring to in her Supreme Court rant however I do no believe the U.S. Supreme Court told the Banks they could commit Securities Fraud in our names to steal our property. Show me the law or case law that supports that please.


    The text of Federalist No. 78 by Hamilton counterbalanced the tone of “judicial Supremacist” and does by no means suppose a theory of a superiority to the legislative power. It only supports the power of the people is superior to both, (Marbury -v- Madison).

  134. The Federal Reserve Has Set You Up: Set Them Up – Right Back

    With the economy in its present Federal-Reserve-orchestrated-condition, your eventual default on the promissory note and mortgage against your property is assured.

    Prepare now, for that inevitable day. The following is one possible course of action against the criminal banks:

    References to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) are to the Federal UCC. Each state in the union, except Louisiana, has adopted the Federal UCC into its own law. The Federal UCC can easily be cross referenced to your local jurisdiction. When using the UCC in your jurisdiction, reference the version of the UCC adopted in that particular jurisdiction.

    i.e.: UCC § 3-301 has been adopted in the Alabama Code at — Ala.Code 1975, § 7-3-301.

    The Cornell UCC state locator can be found here:
    LII: UCC – Locator

    When in the position of being unable to make the next installment payment, or future scheduled installment payments, prepare for the inevitable claim from the banksters to have the right to foreclosure and enforcement of the NOTE-Mortgage.

    1. On the day after the date of the day you are served with the foreclosure lawsuit summons, a critical time clock starts counting down. By the last calendar day of the time-period noted on the summons as the time within which you are to ANSWER the foreclosure complaint, have prepared (1) for mailing via certified mail and (2) filing, in the case noted on the summons in the court docket, a Motion to Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.

    1.1 Start counting days on the day after you are served with the summons to court in response to the bank’s foreclosure lawsuit, (all calendar days must be counted). On the last day of the specified time period file your Motion to Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. (See Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6)). (Check the rules in the jurisdiction where the foreclosed property is located; if the court has local rules be sure to observe those rules also).

    1.2 There is no advantage in filing the motion early. Filing the Rule 12(b)(6) motion suspends the time for filing an ANSWER.

    About the Motion to Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted:

    2. The foreclosure claimant (bankster) is required to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case by evidence proving a valid cause of action. That proof must be established pursuant to the requirements of meeting the criterion for qualification as “the real party in interest,” and UCC § 3-301, and if applicable UCC § 3-309, and should be affirmatively set forth in the foreclosure complaint.
    The lawyers for the foreclosure claimant will fail to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case in the initial complaint, secure in the presumption that you will not question the bank’s standing to file the foreclosure action.
    The lawyers that do this type of sloppy work are incompetent BAR-flys, relying upon the collusion of the BAR-fly judge who will “overlook” this defect in the complaint.
    Your ability to zero in on the issue of the bankster’s standing to make a claim in foreclosure from the beginning, will immediately panic the foreclosure complainant. The lawyers who wrote and filed the complaint for the banksters are also subject to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, for filing a case where their client cannot establish themselves as “the real party in interest,” and having the right to enforce the instrument. No valid cause of action. Such complaint, without valid cause of action is frivolous. Ask for sanctions against the BAR-fly lawyers and their law firm.
    The BAR-flys have given themselves a 21-day “safe harbor” provision when filing a Rule 11 (Federal, may be different in state courts) request for sanctions, giving those bastards time to correct their frivolous incompetence. So, check the rules and case law in your jurisdiction. “They” made the rule. Throw those rules back at them like a javelin.
    The Motion To Dismiss must also contain words making it obviously apparent that the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this particular case is being challenged. Once subject matter jurisdiction has been challenged it must be addressed and affirmatively established by the court. It is an abuse of discretion for a court to fail, by either refusal or neglect, to address a subject matter jurisdiction-over-the-case challenge.

    NOTE: there is a distinction between the term “subject matter jurisdiction” and “subject matter jurisdiction over the case.”
    “subject matter jurisdiction” is a broad and general term referring to the court’s general subject matter jurisdiction over a class of case types. Without this jurisdiction, judgments of a court are VOID.
    “subject matter jurisdiction over the case” is a sub classification within the general subject matter jurisdiction of the court. The court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction over a particular case makes the judgment in that case VOIDABLE.
    See the following case for an explanation of the difference: Edwin A. Hisle and Olive Sue Hisle Cook v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Appeal From Fayette Circuit Court, Action No. 65-CI-17431, Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals, No. 2006-CA-001733-MR.
    Alternate link: []

    For the bank to establish a valid cause of action, the right to enforce the instrument must be proved with evidence entered into the court record pursuant the following requirements of law:

    3. Prove status of holder of the instrument. (UCC § 3-301(i)); or

    “Holder” means: (UCC § 1-201(21) )
    (A) the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession; or
    (B) the person in possession of a document of title if the goods are deliverable either to bearer or to the order of the person in possession.

    If the bank is the holder in possession of the authenticum NOTE-Mortgage, (original wet-ink NOTE-Mortgage), evidence of possession of the authenticum NOTE-Mortgage must be produced to establish standing to invoke the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

    Authenticum: In the civil law, an original instrument or writing; the original of a will or other instrument, as distinguished from a copy. (BLD6-133)

    4. Prove status of non-holder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder. (UCC § 3-301(ii)); or

    If the bank is not the holder, but has actual and present possession of the authenticum NOTE-Mortgage, the bank must produce clear evidence to establish that the rights of the holder have been assigned to the non-holder to enforce the instrument.

    5. Prove status of being entitled to enforce the instrument as a person not in possession of the instrument pursuant to UCC § 3-309 or UCC § 3-418(d). (NOTE is lost, stolen, destroyed).

    If the bank is not in possession of the authenticum NOTE-Mortgage, the bank must produce clear evidence to establish the right to enforce the instrument pursuant to the requirements of UCC § 3-309.

    UCC § 3-309, requirements.

    6. Prove possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred. (UCC § 3-309(a)(1)).

    7. Prove non-possession of the NOTE is NOT the result of a transfer. (UCC § 3-309(a)(2)).

    8. Prove that the person seeking enforcement cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. (UCC § 3-309(a)(3)).

    9. A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. (UCC § 3-309(b)).

    “Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means
    (i) the holder of the instrument,
    (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or
    (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 3-309 or 3-418(d). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.

    (a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if
    (1) the person seeking to enforce the instrument
    (A) was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or
    (B) has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;
    (2) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and
    (3) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.
    (b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

    An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument. (UCC § 3-203(a)).

    If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this Article and has only the rights of a partial assignee.(UCC 3-203(d))

    UCC § 3-201. NEGOTIATION
    (a) “Negotiation” means a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder.

    “The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, and the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.”
    Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274, 21 L. Ed 313 (1872) (SCOTUS). (Access Carpenter here:

    Carpenter recently cited in – Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, Kansas S.Ct., No. 98,489, (August 2009)). Access Landmark here: [Landmark Decision]

    10. All of the above references to the UCC takes a back-seat when it is realized that the banksters have transformed the Signed Wet-Ink Original Promissory Note (SWIOPN) and the Signed Wet-Ink Original Mortgage Agreement (SWIOMA) into SECURITIES so they may be used for exploitation in the stock market.

    11. A SECURITY cannot be enforced or “cashed” if it does not exist.

    12. A COPY OF A SECURITY cannot be enforced or “cashed.”

    13. A COPY OF A SECURITY cannot be misrepresented as having any value, this is called COUNTERFEITING.

    14. The banksters “bundled,” “pooled,” and sold the SWIOPN and SWIOMA to Wall Street manipulators. Those “evidences of debt” are GONE. They cannot be produced. Nobody knows where they may be located. If anyone DOES know where those writings are located, and the identity of the holders of the writings, they are keeping it a secret.

    15. A few interesting references to the serious nature of counterfeit securities:

    15 USC § 77b. Definitions; promotion of efficiency, competition, and capital formation
    (a) Definitions
    (a) Definitions
    When used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires —
    (1) The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing.

    Promissory Notes and Mortgage Deeds are characterized as “Securities” by definition.

    See: 12 CFR § 1.2(m)(3)
    “A residential mortgage-related security that is offered and sold pursuant to section 4(5) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77d(5), that is rated investment grade or is the credit equivalent thereof, or a residential mortgage-related security as described in section 3(a)(41) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(41)), that is rated investment grade in one of the two highest investment grade rating categories, and that does not otherwise qualify as a Type I security.”

    Securities are regulated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Very strict statutes and regulations govern what can and cannot be done with “Securities.”

    Reference requirements applicable to reproduction or “copying” of “Securities:”

    18 USC § 8. Obligation or other security of the United States defined
    The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.

    18 USC § 471. Obligations or securities of United States … -000-.html
    Whoever, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or alters any obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    18 USC § 472. Uttering counterfeit obligations or securities
    Whoever, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or with like intent brings into the United States or keeps in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    18 USC § 473. Dealing in counterfeit obligations or securities
    Whoever buys, sells, exchanges, transfers, receives, or delivers any false, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, with the intent that the same be passed, published, or used as true and genuine, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    18 USC § 493. Bonds and obligations of certain lending agencies
    Whoever falsely makes, forges, counterfeits or alters any note, bond, debenture, coupon, obligation, instrument, or writing in imitation or purporting to be in imitation of, a note, bond, debenture, coupon, obligation, instrument or writing, issued by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, Farm Credit Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, or any land bank, intermediate credit bank, insured credit union, bank for cooperatives or any lending, mortgage, insurance, credit or savings and loan corporation or association authorized or acting under the laws of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
    Whoever passes, utters, or publishes, or attempts to pass, utter or publish any note, bond, debenture, coupon, obligation, instrument or document knowing the same to have been falsely made, forged, counterfeited or altered, contrary to the provisions of this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

    18 USC § 513. Securities of the States and private entities
    (a) Whoever makes, utters or possesses a counterfeited security of a State or a political subdivision thereof or of an organization, or whoever makes, utters or possesses a forged security of a State or political subdivision thereof or of an organization, with intent to deceive another person, organization, or government shall be fined under this title [1] or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.
    (b) Whoever makes, receives, possesses, sells or otherwise transfers an implement designed for or particularly suited for making a counterfeit or forged security with the intent that it be so used shall be punished by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.
    (c) For purposes of this section—

    (1) the term “counterfeited” means a document that purports to be genuine but is not, because it has been falsely made or manufactured in its entirety;
    (2) the term “forged” means a document that purports to be genuine but is not because it has been falsely altered, com*pleted, signed, or endorsed, or contains a false addition thereto or insertion therein, or is a combination of parts of two or more genuine documents;
    (3) the term “security” means—
    (A) a note, stock certificate, treasury stock certificate, bond, treasury bond, debenture, certificate of deposit, interest coupon, bill, check, draft, warrant, debit instrument as defined in section 916(c) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, money order, traveler’s check, letter of credit, warehouse receipt, negotiable bill of lading, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest in or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, pre-reorganization certificate of subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting trust certificate, or certificate of interest in tangible or intangible property;
    (B) an instrument evidencing ownership of goods, wares, or merchandise;
    (C) any other written instrument commonly known as a security;
    (D) a certificate of interest in, certificate of participation in, certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or option or other right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; or
    (E) a blank form of any of the foregoing;
    (4) the term “organization” means a legal entity, other than a government, established or organized for any purpose, and includes a corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, joint stock company, foundation, institution, society, union, or any other association of persons which operates in or the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; and
    (5) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

    31 CFR § 411.1 The Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, permits color illustrations of U.S. currency, provided:
    – The illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;
    – The illustration is one-sided
    All negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use.
    Other obligations and Securities
    – Photographic or other likenesses of other United States obligations and securities and foreign currencies are permissible for any non-fraudulent purpose, provided the items are reproduced in black and white and are less than three-quarters or greater than one-and-one-half times the size, in linear dimension, of any part of the original item being reproduced. Negatives and plates used in making the likenesses must be destroyed after their use for the purpose for which they were made.

    16. Immediately after being served with the summons mail the bankster’s incompetent attorney a discovery request for production of documents; Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 34 – Production of Documents.

    17. Production of Documents for the opportunity to inspect, photo copy, certify, and validate

    17.1 All documents relied upon to establish the validity of the claim.
    17.2 All relevant ledger records.
    17.4 All relevant insurance records.
    17.5 All records pertaining to any relevant Credit Default Swap certificates.
    17.6 All records relevant to any guarantors.
    17.7 All records relevant to any investors in any aspect of the original transaction.
    17.8 All records relevant to any money transactions with respect to the original transaction.
    17.9 All records relevant to any assignment(s) with respect to the original transaction.
    17.10 All records relevant to any “aggregator” with respect to the original transaction.
    17.11 All records relevant to any “pool” with respect to the original transaction.
    17.12 All records relevant to any “Special Purpose Vehicle” with respect to the original transaction.
    17.14 All records relevant to any “Collateralized Debt Obligation” with respect to the original transaction.
    17.15 All records relevant to the present holder of the original writings with respect to the original transaction.
    17.16 All records relevant to any entity ever having physical possession of the original writings with respect to the original transaction.

    18. The bankster will have 30 days from the day they receive service of the request for production of documents to send you a response. If the bank fails to respond with valid answers within 30 days after receipt of your request for production of documents, file a motion to compel the banksters to comply with your discovery request. Ask the court for Rule 11 sanctions against the bankster’s BAR-flys.

    19. If the banksters fails to establish a valid cause of action pursuant to the requirements of proving that they are the “real party in interest,” and that they have actual physical possession of the original writings relevant to the original transatcion, (see UCC § 3-301, and if applicable UCC § 3-309), the court will be forced to dismiss the case. If the case is dismissed, the discovery requests are then moot.

    20. Once the case is dismissed, file a Quiet Title Action pursuant to the fact that the NOTE-Mortgage has been satisfied, and that there is no holder in evidence, that the NOTE-Mortgage were acquired by the banksters by false representation and fraud.

  135. am sending now

  136. Despite being declared inactive they continue to enter into settlement agreements and “answer lawsuits” as they have in my case. You can’t be “inactive” and then enter into a settlement agreement or file docs in a case. Those would be null nad void. So what gives?

  137. You have not read it correctly. You have to read all law in light of case law interpreting it, and most importantly with regard to the Constituiop the USSCT. Go to United States Code Annotated, a purple smallish volume in your law school or county law library. Look up the Seventh Amendment and read the cases under that interpreting it. Remember that Marbury v. Madison U.S.SCT 1803 determined that it is the S.Ct. that interprets the U.S. laws and the Constitution. That decision has never been overturned by Constitutional Amendment so you are stuck so to speak with their interpretations of the law.

  138. buck, you seem to live near me. call me at 816-223-7178. My concern with you is that you seem to put me in the same shall we same “pot” as stripes regarding sanctions. You obviously don’t know my history and I can provide you a slim book on those sanctions and my disbarment at . At any rate, I can’t go into your class action for some reasons I don’t want to post on. Please call me though, I am interested in knowing where you got my history from and why you thought I was “the same as ” stripes which I find an insult. Have a good week. Unfortunately, I have to go to the doc again this morning so they can tell me they “don’t know” after they changed my meds which was supposed to “fix” the problems I have. Doctors can be a bummer!

  139. Appreciate the head’s up, we are working on a response/objection.

  140. If anyone was involved with NEW CENTURY, please read what I posted below at 8:58 pm below. They’re looking for a judge’s authorization to throw away all their files.

    Must be opposed before 2/28/13.


  142. What we signed was a big nothing…..a big zero…..nada…ziltch. These were never contracts because they were never honored and were never intended to be honored. The contracts were used by TOO BIG TO FAIL as a ploy….this was a TBTF plot to get our signatures to use to dishonor us. TBTF stole our signatures in order to steal our property and dishonored the American people on steroids. They must be held to account….sued by us & jailed. All of these politicians and their appointments are TOO BIG TO FAIL APPOINTEES…FRAUDS who work for TOO BIG TO FAIL and not our Constitutional Republic. They are all IMPOSTERS and therefore, the U.S. CONSTITUTION and all of the LAWS OF THIS LAND REQUIRE THAT….WE THE PEOPLE should not comply, conform or cooperate with these frauds.

  143. MS said the mortgage was never delinquent and the borrower was current all 5 years?
    The truth is, the mortgage never existed and the borrower, the FED defaulted on its contrect before we were ever fraudulently induced to sign. They knew they were misrepresenting what they were selling us. Secret dirty deals between the FED and the Governments do not legitamize criminal fraud.

    MERS is a securities fraud laundering black op to hide securities fraud by the FED and their agents and agencies within the Governments.

    Non judicial foreclosures are unconstitutional and illegal.

    These are some of the reasons they want our guns. They expect anarchy will happen when the people wake up and realize they have been had by these SELF APPOINTED TOO BIG TO FAIL CRIMINALS.

    Never, ever give up your guns America. Stop sending these TBTF crooks your money & sue & abolish these TBTF crooks.

  144. The local radio station this morning reporting Chicago was awarded by Forbes magazine the label, the 4th most miserable city in the country. My response to that is, if this corrupt hellhole is not hell, the other 3 must actually be on fire.

  145. As I said earlier these fraud-closures are being governed by Securities Fraud. How did I reach this conclusion…? These are supposed to be Mortgage Securities, however, the UCC Article 3 are both the State & Federal Law requirements regarding how a negotiable instrument becomes a Security Instrument. The law was never followed, the Securities were never created.

    The PSA governs Trusts and had strict requirements about the way these trusts were to be set up regarding security instruments. The PSA was never followed nor the Prospectus regarding the servicing of the securities because they were never securities. Therefore, there were no trusts and there were no trustees and there were no laws governing the instruments, the trusts or the servicing because there were no trusts or trustees.

    Therefore, the courts are fraud-closing on misrepresented notes and mortgages that in fact are uncertificated securities…..SECURITIES FRAUDS…..This is the way they were misrepresented to investors as MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES…..However, the Securities were never created. They were misrepresented to us as MORTGAGES however, they were never Mortgages, they were stocks & bonds that were going to be misrepresented on Wall Street as Mortgage Backed Securities and OverIssued as AAA SECURITIES….THEY WERE NEVER SECURITIES…

    In court, the bank attorney told the judge I was asking him for PSA agreements and all kinds of things. He told the judge my defenses were stricken and I told the judge they were entered. The judge dismissed my request w/o prejudice. I later asked the bank attorney what is the note being represented as….? He said it is a negotiable instrument. We both laughed. A week later, he filed his response to my affirmative defenses, a year late. I have since re-filed my notice of motion.

    Yes, this is all criminal, and the corruption is unbelievable. However, I will not be deterred because the law is the law.

  146. JG,
    Thanks for responding—aniously awaiting your take!

  147. The mortgage never was delinquent. borrower was current all five years . Mers Corp is a security devise used by the Fed for pledge mortgage backs .

    The mortgages are in effect lien stripped…the collateral is common stock . and its impossible to conduct an unlawful detainer for possession where a non judicial foreclosure is void in California.

    Believe it – I tell you the truth peace

  148. @zurenarrh – good questions and good thought about what we signed. To address your second para, yes, I agree the note says that. That’s who it says may enforce the NOTE, a holder, but, imo, that is only the note, an unsecured note. (Bad news for them tho is that if I’m right about non-recourse states, a holder may not enforce an unsecured note. But neither can a noteowner, so wouldn’t matter if the note did recite “owner” in those states) That’s as far as I may get tonight, just trying to make a distinction about what you point out about the note saying a holder may enforce: says holder may enforce NOTE – and that my belief is it’s limited to enforcement of the note unsecured (where enforcement of a note alone is permitted by law (recourse states). In fact, I’ve got a case which alleges that when the coll assgt is assigned to a (mere) holder, the note and dot are now bifurcated. have to admit don’t know where that went since the att and the h.o. parted ways (don’t know why) after that deal was filed (by the att). I felt bad for the h.o. and was also irked because I really was interested in how it would play out. I haven’t seen it lately.

    You bring up an interesting point I see from my quick review of the rest of your comment, which I’ll try to take on in earnest tomorrow. fwiw. The court in the well known Mitchell case, NV 2008-9, made a comment that ‘holder’ is a legal determination. The judge was basically saying you’re not the holder just because you have the note in your hands. MERS, as I recall, was claiming it was the holder of several notes – in direct conflict with what it told Nebraska in MERS v NB such and such division. When one is in fed juris, rule 17’s real party in interest rule applies. This means the plaintiff must be the party who will benefit from the relief, and more accurately, the party who is aggrieved by the breach of contract and will be made whole (as possible) by a ruling in its favor. That’s not the servicer.. I wrote a deal on that somewhere and I’ll see if I can find it tomorrow and also weigh in on everything you said, which I was glad to see.

  149. @Poppy,

    You said:
    “I have documents, which I can scan, that state: Countrywide is closed…that is dated and acknowledged by the Secretary of State of NC and Texas. The secretary of State of Texas form: search for Countrywide Home Loans, LP, no results, search for Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, no records found, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, no records found…then NC the same thing and BAC reserved a name then never used it in NC, which is where they are located. Then I have BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP SOSID 0835861 cancelled on February 28, 2008.”

    Countrywide Bank, FSB also declared “inactive institution” by FDIC as of April 27, 2009. Not sure if link works anymore, but here’s where I found that info (I have a scan of it):

  150. One last thing before I hit the hay…Gwen, I would dearly love a copy of your affidavit saying BAC doesn’t exist anymore:

    I have recently gotten two contradictory missives from BoA. They’ve begun sending me monthly bills again for some reason. I don’t know why they think I’m going to give them another penny. But all the bills take pains to point out that they “service the note on behalf of the noteholder.” So in these monthly bills, BoA is telling me they’re not the noteholder, they’re just working on behalf of the noteholder.

    However, I am again dealing with force-placed insurance (long story for another post), and BoA sent me a letter saying that they were going to have to buy force-placed insurance on my house–and I quote–“to protect OUR [i.e., BoA’s] interest in the property.” Now wait a minute, I thought BoA was just the servicer. If that’s true, then BoA doesn’t have any interest in the property.

    One might think, okay, just a not-very-well-phrased letter (the insurance one). Maybe. But given that they take pains to tell me in the monthly bill that they are not the noteholder, why do they not take such pains in the insurance letter? Why wouldn’t they simply say that they are buying force-placed insurance “to protect the NOTEHOLDER’S interest in the property?” What are they trying to tell me, I wonder…

  151. In my last post below, I mentioned that we need to focus on the language of the notes. Some might say that the law (i.e., the UCC) supercedes the contract. I agree, but the language of the notes regarding the identity of a “Note Holder” (i.e., the person who BOTH took note by transfer AND is entitled to received payment) is simply a restatement of the definition of “negotiation” in UCC 3. That is, UCC 3 states that negotiation requires BOTH of two things: transfer of possession of the instrument (the language of the note restates this as “takes [the note] by transfer”) AND endorsement (the language of the note calls this being “entitled to receive payment under the note”). This is obviously why so many of us have focused for so long–and rightly so, I might add–on UCC 3 more than any other section of the UCC. The notes themselves are creatures of UCC 3 and must be examined in the light of UCC 3 in my non-lawyer opinion. That’s why I said earlier that this stuff IS complex, but it’s also very simple. And the simple part is this–who meets BOTH of the criteria set forth in both the notes and UCC 3? I believe the answer, as I said in my last post below, is that THERE IS NO “NOTE HOLDER.” NO PERSON can say they meet BOTH of the required criteria.

    So if no one meets the both of the criteria required of a “Note Holder”–and no one does, for the reasons mentioned in my last post below–what is a judge to do? The proper thing for a judge to do, in my non-lawyer opinion, is to tell the would-be foreclosers that they are TSOL. After all, it would be a very easy thing for a bank or a would-be “Note Holder” to just get possession of a note and make sure that said note is endorsed to that would-be “Note Holder.” How hard is that? Not hard at all. If the would-be foreclosers didn’t and/or couldn’t do two simple things, that’s THEIR problem, not ours. That’s what appealed to me about Neil’s quiet title strategy he was touting 3-4 years ago when I first happened upon his blog–all a judge has to do is look at the fact that there is no note holder, reason that the title/deed is in the homeowner’s name, and say “Guess what, bank? You couldn’t fulfill the simple terms of your own contract, so no money for you and no house for you!”

  152. johngault and all,
    The difference (to the extent that there is any) between a “holder” and an “owner” of a note has always vexed me. To my knowledge, UCC 3 doesn’t really address being an “owner.” It only addresses being a holder.

    I think that what we need to focus on is what the language of the actual notes we signed says, and that says that the “Note Holder” (not Note Owner) is the person who has met BOTH of the two following criteria: 1) took note by transfer and 2) entitled to receive payment under the note. Don’t think it matters a great deal whether that person is called “holder” or “owner.” But it does matter a great deal who that person is.

    Who is the person that has met BOTH of those criteria? Not MERS. The servicer? Arguably, if the servicer is in possession of the note, the servicer COULD be considered the “Note Holder” under the terms of the note, because the servicer is entitled to receive payment under the note. Now of course, I think the idea that the servicer is the “Note Holder” contemplated by the note is ridiculous because the set up of the (for example) Fannie Mae as note purchaser/BAC as servicer relationship is clearly not meant for BAC to keep the payment due under the note–BAC is supposed to send the payment on to Fannie.

    OK, so is Fannie (trying to use that as a placeholder for the secondary market) the “Note Holder” under the terms of the Note? They would of course say they are, but let’s look at the facts–Fannie doesn’t take notes into their possession (they didn’t in my case). That is, Fannie doesn’t take PHYSICAL, ACTUAL real-world transfer/possession of the actual paper notes. Further, Fannie sets up pools of mortgages (supposedly) and sells pass-through certificates to investors/certificateholders and then takes the money paid on each mortgage and holds that money in trust for the benefit of those certificateholders (according to Fannie’s trust documents/prospectuses). So if Fannie/trusts in general haven’t taken the notes by physical transfer and the trusts/certificate holders are the actual people who are entitled to the payment under the note, Fannie is not the Note Holder contemplated by the note. And the certificateholders aren’t the Note Holder either, because even though they are entitled to payment under the Note, neither the certificateholders nor the trusts have taken the notes by transfer.

    So who is the Note Holder under the terms of the Note? The terms of the note, in my opinion, should be the only terms that matter. That is, who is the person that meets both of the criteria set forth in the note? It’s not MERS. It’s not the servicer. It’s not the secondary market (Fannie, privatte-label trusts, etc.), and it’s not the investors/certificateholders. So who is the Note Holder pursuant to the criteria set forth in the note? That’s the ONLY question that matters.

  153. yes, guest and anyone else, the psa’s did appear to require the notes be endorsed to the trusts. We know that didn’t happen. They are endorsed to the trusts by some voodoo only when foreclosure is sought and it’s handy now to use the trust and its credit bid plus that’s what was supposed to happen. What if it had? Think about that, if you would. If a note is endorsed to a trust, and FNMA has to buy it back or otherwise pony up for its guarantee, WHO is authorized on behalf of the trust to endorse the note? NO one that I know of. Maybe a sec’n trustee has that power inherently – I don’t know.

    The way it goes down now the really handy blank endorsement
    allows anyone to claim holder status with no one liable whatsoever
    for the shift in possession to FNMA far as I can tell. There is no trail
    to evidence from whom FNMA gets the note. Alternatively, we should be seeing notes endorsed from trusts to FNMA and maybe I just haven’t seen them. If they’re out there, if the person executing an endorsement is actually a person in the trustee’s office, I would be very surprised, to put it mildly.( I do recall seeing two endorsements on one note by the same woman alleging to be a v.p. or like that for two successive banksters.)
    Some of the psa’s called for assignments of the coll instruments, also. I hear some called for assignments in blank, which is legally absurd – they are NOT bearer instruments -, possibly making the contract incomplete or messed. They weren’t assigned, were they? Some may have said MERS could be blah blah.
    What actually happened as to the notes if anything was that the lender named in the note endorsed the note, often in blank, or sometimes to a named party, who then endorsed in blank to pass around as necessary / when necessary, because in their estimate or rush or both if not comfort in knowing we’d never get it one way or another, that would cut it.. But the psa has been a bi-line to me, because ahead of the psa, I think but only for now, is the UCC. I may have known but forget. (stinks) People might be able to agree to deviate (just say) contractually. But in fact it may be the other way around: for all I know, said because I don’t now if I ever did, in the absence of a specific agreement, the UCC is just default law and also provides rules for remedy of breaches. But, as this article points out, it’s very important to know which is true. If the UCC is merely default law, the terms of the psa rule and had to have been adhered to. I’m not able to say more because I was learned on a, b, and c (years ago), but not at all on d – z, which leaves me, and like I said, that stuff literally gives me a headache so I can only look at it sometimes.*

    This article touches, albeit briefly, on remedies for breach of contract, which here refers to that between the investors and the banksters, the psa. But here I have to note that I’ve seen psa’s which, because they fail to identify the loans with the requisite specificity (loan amt and zip code, say, don’t get it), can’t even pretend to transfer anything. This one refers to where in the UCC dispute rules / remedies may be found – art 2.

    Most of the UCC deals with personal property, not real property.

    *Imo, the best use of time to study the UCC and its application hereto is by way of a classroom book or other annotated book. The latter especially is hard to come by and they’re expensive esp if not outdated by changes imo made in favor of banksters. Case law is good, also, (when available because it wasn’t taken off the books for you-know-who) to those who have searchable legal research engines.$$$

  154. The UCC has nothing to do with these fraudclosures poppy……these crooks are STILL counterfeiting & forging uncertificated securities. THEY ARE COMMITTING SECURITIES FRAUD TO GAIN UNJUST ENRICHMENT THROUGH FRAUDCLOSURE….The UCC, STATE & FEDERAL LAWS were never followed ……..these were dirty deals from the onset, they were criminal. Same with the fraudclosures. FRAUDCLOSURES ARE SECURITIES FRAUD ON STEROIDS….

  155. Many believe TBTF want anarchy. That is the only way they can create their ultimate goal totalitarianisn …. order out of chaos … because we will not willingly accept totalitarianism. That’s why I say stop cooperating with the A -1 jerks and sue them.

    Forget where MERS is getting their legal authority from……Where are the judges getting the balls to run these courtrooms like bully pulpits….? What gives of all people, judges, legal authority to ignore all of the laws of this land and our legal rights….? Where are these idiots coming from with their totalitarian crap? Are they freaking all insane or what?

    Guest talks about the UCC …. State and Federal Law that governs financial instruments ….. however they were never financial instruments because of the ORIGINATION FRAUD………Therefore these fraudclosures must be beng governed by SECURITIES FRAUD……


  156. And now, JPM trying to get the media to discredit NY AG. Banks are running very, very scared…

    Rueters is Writing Stories to Help JP Morgan Defend Itself from the NYAG Now

    Posted by Teri Buhl under Uncategorized
    No Comments

    J.P. Morgan’s outside counsel at Sullivan & Cromwell are showing signs of desperation in their mortgage securities fraud lawsuits. You know the ones that the bank says in SEC fillings are now $140 billion of litigation. Last week the banks lawyers got a Reuters reporter to write a hit piece on the New York Attorney General’s $22 billion civil fraud suit against JPM/ Bear Stearns/ EMC.

    The Reuters story, by Karen Freifeld, basically speculated a judge would be looking at a conflict of interest in the AG’s office because they hired a top lawyer from the firm, PBWT, who first discovered some of the alleged Bear Stearns rmbs fraud. Freifeld starts by writing a line that ‘legal experts’ think the former PBWT attorney who worked on the Ambac v. JP Morgan Securities suit has a conflict because she also played a role in the NY AG’s suit. Karla Sanchez, the lawyer in question, started with the NY AG in January 2011 – after the explosive amended Ambac complaint was filed. This is the complaint you just saw me talking about in the Frontline film The Untouchables.

    It’s odd for Retuers to not quote actual working lawyers in the story and leave the reader guessing that the reporter actually found attorneys to back up her claim. I called five securities lawyers last week trying to get one of them to go on the record that they saw a conflict here but none would. That’s because Robert Sacks, JPM’s puffy chested outside counsel from Sullivan & Cromwell, doesn’t actually lay out in the motion he filed last week what he thinks the conflict is.

  157. LL won’t allow anything from Deadly Clear so I can’t post the link. I believe this is very important for anyone dealing with New Century. The article is quite long and you’ll need to google it. This is serious and goes to tampering with evidence. Once New Century gets its motion granted, this is it.

    EMERGENCY NOTICE: New Century Mortgage Trustee Motions to Destroy Mortgage Files
    Posted on February 22, 2013



    On February 14, 2013, New Century Mortgage Liquidating Trust Trustee, Alan M. Jacobs motioned the court to allow him to destroy and abandon “certain” Mortgage Loan and Business files (Order Authorizing the Immediate Abandonment and Destruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files and Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files). It is so immediate that respondents have only until February 28, 2013 to answer! Click here for the Destruction of Files Motion.

    Apparently, another ministerial act to eliminate evidence that New Century Mortgage failed to timely assign mortgage loans to securitized trusts. Thousands (if not millions) of New Century Mortgage loans have fraudulent assignments filed in state recordation
    offices across the United States – and a lot of unknowing homeowners have clouded titles that with the destruction of their files – they may never be able to sort out the truth.

  158. @ johngault

    I think, IMHO, the UCC is pay dirt. It costs hundreds of dollars to get from a law library cases from the UCC file. Lexis-Nexis can pull some. I am working on trying to get them from a friend at Duke…hard to acquire and cannot find any online, well hidden, for a reason!

  159. I have to wonder about what stripes says…I know with most things, we have the elasticity principle, where at what price, behavior will change. Look at the gas, people actually sigh and generate relief when the prices go to $3.50 a gallon. WHAT? The corporations keep pushing until we cease and change our behavior. This is fact…economic fact!

    The finance industry may just be doing the same thing…how much will we take before this explodes and I mean “in the streets”…they spend millions calculating our behavior. I know this for sure!

    What is it going to take before people stand up and say enough?

  160. JG..Reposting this for you.gwen caranchini, on February 23, 2013 at 12:03 pm said:
    agreed but here is what they have done–they claim ucc art 3 applies so all they have to be is a holder currently and not show the chain–that’s what they claim. However the PSA says otherwise and in actuality its a ucc art 9 and 8 instrument. This is where it gets very complicated legally and few people understand this argument including lawyers. but boa and the banks are nothing but inventive when they have to come up to account for the fact they cannot show proper endorsements. Look at the PSA which requires the endorsements be made and that’s why endorsed in blank does not work. That’s why the banks have oppsoed homeowners having the right to raise psa issues. However, although earlier the courts seemed to agree with this now they are not and are revisiting it. Discovery is being allowed on some psa issues including this one. sorry–had to answer that one.

  161. The distinction I’m trying to make, I guess, is that the UCC was designed to make it easy to move promissory notes around for the benefit of commerce. But the UCC doesn’t regulate all things. It doesn’t regulate collateral instruments for those notes, with the exception (the one I know of) of finding that one who has paid for a note but not gotten delivery, l and s, has a security interest in both the note and its collateral instrument. If that’s the case as I posit, then even a holder’s rights would be subject to those security interests if they exist (which I have said I believe is the state of affairs for many if not all trusts). Or tell me why not. No one here that I know of, including and least of all me, can rattle off all things about the UCC, a very complex set of rules. The problem with looking at only article 3 is what else it ignores. imo. I don’t know how to play chess if I only know how the pawn or the rook moves. Some people point to Carpenter for the proposition that a mortgage follows a note (I say even if a mtg, not a dot, does, it follows the note’s ownership). Others, like the ASF in white papers, rely on Art 9-203(g) for that proposition, that a coll instrument follows the note. But that is NOT what it says at all. It says something else:

    “9-203( g) [Lien securing right to payment.]

    The attachment of a security interest in a right to payment or performance secured by a security interest or other lien on personal or real property is also attachment of a security interest in the security interest, mortgage, or other lien.”

    What are the enforcement rights of the guy with security interests in notes and their collateral, esp if the coll is real property, against those instruments and what are the rights of the secured party against the indentured party ? Got me. It’s hard to make myself read that stuff – gives me a headache and a half.
    One way or another, these notes are regulated by Article 9 before they get anywhere near article 3. There’s no doubt in my mind about it and the ASF concedes this.

    A suggestion: hurry up and download all this stuff before it disappears
    and don’t rely on a case cited to say what they say it says. Plus what that case says may itself be tweaked, like one I can remember. Lot of work.

    My comments don’t tell how one obtains a security interest in a note and its collateral – I know. But still I can say without any trepidation at all that the answer is in the UCC, most likely starting with Art 9. I say starting because to read the damn thing, you have to go back and forth from article to article and it’s dizzying. Plus you have to glean what is applicable to real property as coll v turnips. I’d like to believe the UCC doesn’t present any conflicts with the statute of frauds, but especially in light of (or darkness) of the bankster-driven amendments, it’s hard to say. Article 9 says somewhere that without a writing, one could never tell if a party has poss of a note pursuant to a security interest or a sale.

  162. I don’t see where anything you say is based in law or fact Christine. As I have said, you are the social justice queen. That will land everyone in the poor house with the microchip in their hand and lifelong slavery to these crooks. The rule of law needs to be upheld. TBTF needs to be sued and abolished. That is Liberty & Justice. Nothing else will do.

  163. We are all being catergorized and we are all being treated like inhuman specimens, lab rats under controlled conditions. I see this is all a test, to see how we will react as a a society to a morally corrupt Government and legal system who are criminals who are openly violating our legal rights and the rule of law are being ignored. If we keep allowing it, we are agreeing to the next phase of their crime which will be totalitarianism by their evil microchip technology and other control freak technologies.

    Take for example, the way the TBTF are debiting peoples tax refund checks for debts that TBTF have incurred, without our consent. These are debts we already paid for, therefore, they are shamelessly stealing not just our wealth but, our free will to tell them no, I do not agree with your methods because they are not just morally unethical but they amount to theft. This is all very undignified… fraudclosure……it is evil. They are trying to cause anarchy because people are at the end of their rope with all of their fraud. People really need to stop cooperating and being TBTFs inhuman lab rats. Going along with TBTF is like being forced into an insane asylum that is being run by the inmates. It has no purpose or dignity. It is inhumane.

  164. ??? Do you understand what you read? And didn’t you see it came from that same article? Click on the link, read if you know how, understand or don’t and ignore me either way. I don’t need your opinion. I don’t care for your opinion. All you have are opinions.

  165. guest said:
    “Evidence of the DocX forgery and fabrication process could be used to reach even higher. ”

    jg: should have been MERS that was held accountable because these bad actors did their deeds as MERS “officers” (and continue to do so), and like I said, dunno why they have remained unscathed. Not only unschathed, their un-scathe-ment has emboldened them for Round Two.

    “Who directly solicited the company for fake documents? The foreclosure mill law firms, which then knowingly submitted them into courts. Who directed the foreclosure mills to do that? The mortgage servicers, which are typically units of the biggest banks.”

    jg: no doubt, but sometimes it was the servicer, not the foreclosure mills, when the people executing the assignments were (and still are) the employees of the servicer.
    * * * *
    I think I see at least one fundamental disagreement here. Some people, most maybe, believe a note holder has a right to an assignment of the collateral instrument, and I don’t. To board my train, you’d have to believe there’s a diff between a holder and an owner which, apparently, many if not most don’t. Wish I knew how to prove it ‘quickly’, but I don’t. Yet others and maybe some of the first group believe a coll instrument follows a note, which I also don’t. Maybe a mtg does – maybe – but not a dot. Only the right to one follows imo.
    A note buyer may demand one to get it (from the last note owner) or he may to get it. But as I’ve said, even if any coll instrument follows a note, it follows its ownership, not holder status. Well, maybe I can come up with an example of this one. Suppose Harry sells his note to Craig. The note has a blank endorsement. After depositing Craig’s cash, Harry is walking down the street to deliver the note to Craig and a monsoon wind comes up and the note is off and away. Shady Sam finds it and says yahoo since he knows his possession may allow him to enforce the note against its maker. Is Sam entitled to an assignment of the coll instrument? How about if Harry had given Sam the note to hang on to for him – would Sam be entitled to an assgt of the dot?

    Here’s a deal about recourse and non-recourse states. In this one, Craig paid for the note and took delivery (Shady Sam didn’t get it). The crummy maker won’t pay up, so Craig threatens foreclosure. The maker gets wind that Craig doesn’t have the dot (because Harry never got around to the assgt, Craig hasn’t presented the assgt, and it isn’t recorded) and says ‘fat chance, Craig, you only have an unsecured note’. You haul his tail into court – or try. Imo, in a non-recourse state (they’re online somewhere), unless Harry is found and ordered to fork over the assgt of the dot, Craig has no action against the maker in a court for lack of jurisdiction since in non-recourse states, any action to enforce a note collateralized by real property must be against the collateral; Craig can’t get a money judgment. For this reason, Craig may not invoke the jurisdiction of the court against the maker until he either gets an assgt from Harry or the court decrees an equitable assgt of the dot in an action between Craig and Harry (even if Harry is in absentia after notice), not an action between Craig and the maker.
    If Craig were a holder and not the owner, would, could a court equitably impose an assignment? What equity would that serve?
    None, so a court wouldn’t. Therefore, in a non-recourse state, without an assgt of the dot, Craig can’t invoke the juris of a court
    to go after the maker on the basis of the note, whether holder or owner. He has to get that assignment first, whether out of Harry or the court in a diff action (assuming a court may in fact decree an equitable assignment).
    In recourse states, without the dot, it’s possible Craig may invoke juris on the basis of the note, because he may get a money judgment on the note. But even then, it’s not in this litigation that Craig may get a decree of equitable assgt out of the court. He has to get that in litigation against Harry. So the only thing Craig may do without the paper or equitable assgt is go after the maker on an
    unsecured note. And if Craig weren’t the owner, but merely a holder, he would have no basis for either.
    lay opinions – ask a lawyer or 10


  167. RE your comment at 3:27…..the nature of law is to maintain justice….And the law must be respected? You make following the rule of law sound like an option ….. this is about the rule of law as it applies to our legal rights and why our legal rights must be upheld to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of ourselves and our posterity… the U.S. CONSTITUTION is the Supreme Law of the Land…our moral code and a command….an order by our Constitutional Republic that protects our legal rights and protects all of the laws of this land. No where in the Constitution or the law books do they use the word we must “respect” the rule of law or our legal rights. …..

  168. ???

  169. My last comment is for Christine, the social justice queen.

  170. Attorneys are not cops however, when you hire an attorney to work for you and they are not willing to seek the justice that is needed by allowing criminals to get away with their crimes and continue comitting them is not maintaining justice. Liberty is upholding the rule of law, not this nonsense you spew…

    This is a severe test of what WE THE PEOPLE will allow. TBTF have severely weakened the minds, morals and free will of our society. I do not believe in letting known criminals and abusers off the hook for any of it. Not one iota. Liberty & Justice must be upheld and I will accept no less and no one should. I am a tough customer when it comes to the legal rights of the American people and the laws of this land being upheld.

  171. @ E ToLLe

    I’d like to see that myself…FC is scheduled March 20, 2013….with the same old paperwork, from 2009-2010. Still after CWHLS, LP was done, according to my records.

  172. Gwen, I will not Judge you by your accusers. I know that when your knowledge is a threat to others …. the extent they will go thru to discredit you. I have Judged You by your Actions Here as a Consumer Advocate and I knew … that you knew what you were talking about. I Like You! 🙂 Lets Go Kick Some More Bankster Butt while the Kickin is still Good!

  173. Bad Servicers! Bad Lawyers! Bad! Bad! Bad! You can Not Fool Grandma! No! No! No! You may have stolen several cookies.. but Ya Aint getting Grandmas Cookie Jar! No! No! No!

  174. Evidence of the DocX forgery and fabrication process could be used to reach even higher. Who directly solicited the company for fake documents? The foreclosure mill law firms, which then knowingly submitted them into courts. Who directed the foreclosure mills to do that? The mortgage servicers, which are typically units of the biggest banks.

  175. How to Identify Legal[ized] Plunder

    But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

    Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

    The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

    Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

  176. Very good (and lengthy) article on law. Replace “legal” plunder by “legalized” plunder (as in: banks get bailed out and subsequently granted a series of few passes by being given the opportunity to settle for short money while not being required to admit wrongdoing) and you have it.

    The Results of Legal Plunder

    It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

    What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

    In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

    No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

    The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing [although many a judge will declare: “This is a court of law. Not of justice.” That tells us everything we need to know and especially that justice will not and cannot be found in our courts]. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

  177. @ Trespass Unwanted

    Did an extensive search for BOA, N A and the only place I found them was the SEC…that’s how I learned about National Associations and learned a little abut the scope of what they can and cannot do. On mine they kept bouncing back and forth from BAC Home Loans, to BOA, N.A. and Countrywide Home Loans Servicing….

  178. @ Gwen, I don’t know what time frame you’re in need of, but I have CW assigning to B of A NA in 1/2012. Let me know if you need a copy.

  179. Obama has been openly touting that he works for the Federal Govt but Romney called him out on that when he asked him why is he engaging in feudalism with the Federal Government. Then he asked him what his investments are in particular, his retirement investments. A quick check on reveals Obamas retirement is invested in Vanguard one of the top 4 largesse institutional investors. Therefore, the truth is revealed, Obama works for TOO BIG TO FAIL and they are not the Governments, they are complete communists who have hijacked the Governments.

  180. This is why they need us to sign a new agreement to subvert the title to them. They are very deceptive criminals.

  181. This securities fraud began in 1982 Gwen and went on steroids in 1999, the year Clinton repealled Glass Steagall which was all a show, it was no more than political brinksmanship and a show of solidarity between the two parties secretly declared themselves completely corrupt and TOO BIG TO FAIL. Every county is not in a big city so I am lucky that I live in a major metropolis that gave me easy access to everyones public records. The Origination Fraud is in EVERY PROPERTY…..that was confirmed to me by THE ILLINOIS STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE. Every title is cloudy on the surface but if you do a PIN SEARCH THE TITLE HOLDER OF RECORD IS ALL OF US…

  182. Lots of nasty bugs going around. I hope you feel better soon Marilyn. The TBTF crooks are up to no good for sure. They are all neaky, dirty crooks and lying criminal bastards. They passed some new legislation in Illinoise recently RE THE FRAUDCLOSURES…I haven’t looked into it yet but, I am sure it reeks of more covering up for the TBTF crooks. These louses have no morals & no consciences. Hope they all get a wake up call soon that we are not laying down for their crap. At least I’m not. We all need to make a decision when fighting these crooks and stick to our guns and never give up.

  183. guest asked us:
    “Who gave the MERS officers their orders to act?”

    Answer: the servicer, the “MERS ” officer’s true employer and fiduciary. The alleged common agent, by way of Mr. Hultman’s 25.00 appt, makes an employee of its principal its (the agent’s) officer so it (the officer) can take orders from his own employer. Said another way, the alleged agent is deputizing an employee of its principal to act for the principal in the agent’s name: the principal is acting as the agent of its agent. NOT!
    I’ll back up: The party who could command the assignment of the coll instrument, or even of the note, is the last OWNER, not even the last holder. A holder may have a right to enforce a note, but it has no authority to order the assignment of the coll instrument or for that matter, of the note. So even if the dynamic described weren’t totally legally messed, WHO could tell a legitimate person to assign anything? The order can’t come from the trust, even if the trust is the owner of the note, because it’s the party who transferred the note to the trust who must similarly be the party to
    ‘order’ the assgt of the coll instrument to the trust. The order can’t come from the assignee or its servicer, even as an equitable right to the assignment exists to one who is the legit transferee of a note.
    Even if a trust now holds a note and may have a right to enforce as holder, it’s yet not the owner for lack of assignment and transfer, and the tell is that members attempt to assign the note to the trust in the “MERS” assgt of the dot, including a recitation of consideration.
    But, again, even if the trust were the owner, it’s not the party to order the assgt of the coll instrument in what attorney Wendy Alison Nora sagaciously calls “self-help”. The order has to come from the Last noteowner. It could also come from that last noteowner’s agent if it had one and that relationship were identified and demonstrated.

    And .I still say 1) as a nom ben, MERS may only alienate its nom ben status or 2) as a nom ben or agent, MERS has no authority to assign anything, or if it does, it would have to demonstrate that by a written agreement with its principal (and this means that all assgts should have been done if unrecorded until enforcement was sought, disregarding certain states’ laws mandating recordation of assgts) . MERS never planned to execute anything as an agent or otherwise. Its members were always to do anything in its name (the principal acts in its agent or nominee’s name?! This is I opine vigorously and again legally tweaked as heck) No where is MERS designated an agent, UNless that relationship could be implied by its membership agreement. But even that is at odds with the statute of frauds requiring expression of agency, which doesn’t recognize agency by implication when it comes to real property. The dot says MERS as nom ben may foreclose. Okay, disregarding that the Lender doesn’t sign the dot to confirm that right / obligation. But, the Consent Order, which may have actually been predicated by MERSCorp’s own recognition of its liability (think about that one if you will), was followed by MERS saying no more foreclosures in its name.
    Members, errantly relying on the routine MERS’ foreclose m.o. (members/principals would act in MERS’/nom ben’s name) were now caught with their pants down, having avoided the work of doing
    the assignments, and trouble probably ensued between the members and MERS. The solution, apparently whether MERS liked it or not, was to have the members execute assignments in MERS’ name instead of f/c in MERS’ name. I suspect this all is why Arnold left the building. We can only wonder if he were appalled by what had gone down and what woud go down, what a monster MERS had created, or if he only sought to protect himself $$$, or even if he refused to agree to what was to come in MERS’ name.
    It was only after the Consent Order that members began claiming wholeheartedly that MERS was a common agent, or agent at all. Before that, they claimed MERS was thee ben. MERS has seamlessly (and unbelieveably imo) moved from thee ben to an agent.
    But back to the question at hand, which is WHO can execute or order the execution by another of an assignment of the coll instrument: The last noteowner, who must be identified, or if the execution is by a true agent, the principal must be identified and they must declare and demonstrate the relationship. A servicer-employee wearing a MERS’ hat doesn’t qualify UNless it has the requisite approval and order from the last noteowner (not the alleged current note holder). But the problem is that even though post-Consent Order, members hold MERS out as a common agent, courts still take MERS as thee ben, a party theoretically able to assign interest.
    These positions – ben and agent – are not synonymous and that’s why if I had 10 assistants, i would find every case I could or every instance, every speech, where MERS or its member have claimed MERS not as the ben, but as an agent (because as an agent, identification of the principal and authority is required, disregarding that pre-Consent Order and still a nom ben had and has only its nom ben status to relinquish and nothing else, imo despite any other conclusions courts came up with). MERS can’t have been the beneficiary without bifurcation without MERS also being an agent.
    but that wasnt’ their claim pre-Consent Order. Alternatively, MERS was the ben as nom beneficiary with nothing to assign for lack of interest (other than its nom ben status).

  184. POPPY, WHEN WAS THIS ASSIGNMENT? cAN YOU SEND IT TO ME, I would like to show the court that they are actively involved in cases in the last year. you can attach your doc to your email if you can. thx


  186. Stripes..Feb 20..7:13pm….I did not see your reply to me as I went out of town and caught a nasty ‘ bug ‘…been down for a few days now…But I see your comment on my lawyer…a man who is highly spoke of on blogs…remember he has been on this case less than 2 years as the first lawyer was gently pushed out by me…the loss of time in more than 3 years has been due to the plaintiff stalling…stalling for one reason…not hard to figure that out…In Florida we seem to have some deep issues with alot of the judges…no hidden secret …justice seems to be just a word with them…therefore, I have an attorney to speak the court talk ..the rules/laws/statues …It makes my life a hell of alot easier…so don’t think I am getting a raw deal…we all are…with an attorney or not…we are all fighting corruption in many directions…


  188. thx for your kind thoughts. I am giving a seminar in Atlanta in April on what short sale and foreclosure buyers should look for in title and potential problems. Also how to deal with real estate agents, title companies etc. on these cases. I think they are a nitemare. It will be a one day seminar for $499. On sunday I am giving a short course on what options are available to homeowners who are in foreclosure or going into foreclosure and what to do (and not do) and how to hire a lawyer. Both will be april 13/14 at an atlanta hotel. Wil have brochure ready soon. I will have a title guy there, and i will do some of it and I have a paralegal who works with me who will also be doing part of it. if you havev thoughts that I should discuss. let me know. IF ANYONE OUTTHERE WANTS TO ATTEND LET ME KNOW AT GGCFORECLOSURE@YAHOO.NET

  189. Gwen, Sending Prayers for a Speedy Recovery and a Speedy Resolution for you in reguards to your Home. Poppy, I do not know what to say … I wish I could help you. This whole FDIC and BK thing with those players are beyond my scope. My 30yr old daughter sets stuck in that mess as an REO buyer. I wish I had studied title abstract and gotton my certification in 2006 instead of 2008. I sure could have saved this family alot of grief.

  190. I disagree with the assessment that just because these crooks brought a fc suit that means they automatically win. That is not due process, that is a dictatorship. They are simply trying to wear us out by forcing us to appeal these crap rulings on these fc cases that are fraudulent at the onset and are certainly not based in law or fact. Fraudclosure is a scam and if you lose in foreclosures court, good luck getting back what these crooks have stolen. A local attorney said in a podcast awhile ago, the most important thing we must do is get out of foreclosure court on a technicality. We really need to sue this totalitarian beast. The appeals courts are not trustworthy either. This is war on our liberty, freedom & independence and the more we back down, the more empowered this evil becomes. I am sticking to the facts, these cases are criminal.

  191. Gwen,

    SEC filings are the beginning of the public notice of the merger, accumulation of the asset of BAC by BOA.
    May reveal how the two entities will co-exist and for how long.
    If there are no SEC filings for BAC, then BOA must be providing notice of how it’s liquidating the assets, dealing with lawsuits, and how long each will remain independent and interdependent with BOA being primary for reporting financial transactions and filing and settling lawsuits for BAC.


    In Texas the AG showed that substitution of Trustee just to foreclosure could have been in violation of state law. It was in some public notice/news release in Oct 2011 where they sent a letter to Bank of America to get more information about their foreclosures and had halted all foreclosures.

    My home was still placed in a transaction but not under the watchful eye of any state or federal agency. My home was snuck past their system of no foreclosures and Quicken Loans was used to finance the property for another and their customer service number on file was an 800 number with the letters MERS in the 800 number.

    The tail is wagging the dog. We are responding to what is being shown to us. Our response needs to be different. All the fighting has not stopped the thefts. They are an occupying force. They need us to go to war with them to justify their theft. The would say, ‘If I’m not supposed to have their home why would they go to court with me over it?’ Going to court means we have an agreement and need the judge to settle the dispute. The judge needs the appeal, because the first time in court is under duress, under coercion, (powerful law words), but an appeal is your choice to go to court to fight the fight. Lose the home on appeal, and it’s a formal agreement that you ‘lost’ the home. No one has to settle with you, regardless of the paperwork or standing.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Free and Independent State of Life, Corporeal, Alive, In Being, n Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  192. You are correct Christine! It boils down to what your State has Ruled Legal. This is a Big Issue with out of state buyers …. they dont have a clue!

  193. I don’t ask or force anyone to believe anything.

    I find this report extremely interesting as it clearly outlines the basis for the UCC filings. Keep in mind that UCC is the code banks have been circumventing and homeowners are using to try and defend themselves. The conclusions are pretty clear.

    I, for one, have decided to follow this very, very closely and talk about it as much as i can. Nobody has to follow my lead.

    (PS: in case you asked, AG doesn’t mean Attorney general but Algemeine Gesellschaft, a very specific type of limited liability institution.)

  194. Who is MERS……? MERS is in reality, the Issuer of the fraud hiding behind a computer data base named MERS.

  195. The judges are willing to turn a blind eye to anything if we allow it. MERS is not a bank and legal transfers can only go from bank to bank. Case closed.

  196. People,

    Gwen does have it right here about MERS and the inability of prosecutors to nail it, which is why I don’t get Johngault fixating on it. In some cases, homeowners got the free house simply (as in Ohio) because: “Mers not being the original payee on the note, it cannot assign/transfer it.” But it isn’t true for every state. Some judges have decided otherwise. Study your own state caselaw3. Nothing is across the board and it really is case by case, state by state…

  197. And guess what poppy…..? Those fraudclosure judges are moving up to the appellate level..mwahaha…evil.

  198. As we speak I have Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, assigning substitute trustee, Brock & Scott, PLLC in the above referenced foreclosure proceeding. Then Brock & Scott of N Carolina assigned Lisa S. Campbell of the same office, with a different PO BOX, as substitute trustee, in 2010, complaint was filed, naming CWHLS, LP and an affidavit was filed saying I had the wrong party. Then BOA N.A. appears as the servicer/owner (supposedly) in court, we have a hearing and I am the Plaintiff, the judge tells me to be quiet and lets the defendants speak incessantly….then the judge tells me, if I don’t like his ruling appeal it! House is back up on foreclosure for March 20, 2013. There’s more, but that’s the nuts and bolts of it.

  199. I concur, TBTF are handing every American a steaming hot plate of b.s……fraud that is not legal under any of the laws of this land.

  200. May I add, they all concurred, we should reject these imposters.

  201. Guest,

    Quite honestly… I don’t know. I would think it does but since they pretty much sell right away, I don’t know what appears on the deed itself. That’s a question for Gwen…

  202. May I add, he is only one of many Chicago area attorneys I spoke with who gave similar responses.

  203. An attorney advised me long ago, not to accept any of the banks massive, unsustainable debt because it can never be repaid. It is slavery that they created & these fraudclosers are imposters who want complete communism.

    This came from an attorney who has 40 years experience in real estate law in Cook County, Illinois so, he should know.

  204. MERS is a farce, a sham and a fraud. TBTF is evil so we need to stay righteous America and keep on them. The truth does not lie. Keep shoving the truth at them, these foreclosures are big fat frauds.

  205. Here is a Giggle for you ….. If you were offered a loan mod or forebearance and you did not accept it. There IS NO changes to the Contract…. because there was NOT acceptance by the borrower to authorize that change! But we all know about that nasty duel trucking stuffs. BAC totally tried to force the Foreberance agreement as a contract! You know … and admission that CWHL LP was ut ummm…. his creditor. When they finally grasped that concept.. they sent him loan mod offers by FedEx on a monthly basis for over a year before the NOD was snt.

  206. They claim in their fc they are fraudclosing on the fee simple deed, the mortgage & MERS. However, when I asked the bank attorney face to face, what they are trying to use to fraudclose with, he said the note, it is a negotiable instrument. I laughed and said, the note is unindorsed, where did the money come from….? He laughed and told me the judge is allowing all of this and denying me my rights. So Evil IS governing these fraudclosures. How do you fight evil….? Stay righteous, evil hates that.

  207. ok, i have been off line and will go off line again shortly per doctor’s office as this stuff makes me “crazy”. I Im going to talk about two things here based upon a bunch of posts over the last 15 hours: merger of the corporations into boa and mers.
    First merger.
    As I said, if wilshire and cw are bought by BAC and then BAC is bought out by boa–what’s the status. Well in essence, BOA now owns the former Wilshire, CW, BAC. The more important question is why these corporations are subsumed but still existing for various purposes in different parts of the country. As most of you know BAC and CW at least, and less so Wilshire have entered into settlement agreements SINCE THEY WERE ALLEGEDLY BOUGHT OUT BY BOA> This is important. If they were truly bought out by BOA and BOA assumied the assets AS WELL AS THE liabilities, then it should be BOA who is entering into these settlements. But time after time you see investors and AG’s SINCE THESE ENTITIES WERE BOUGHT OUT BY BOA, ENTERING INTO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AS IF THEY WERE STILL A SEPARATE ENTITY.? WHY? One possibility is that these entities were allowed to keep certain sums of money or they have insurance to cover the debts they owe to these entities because of their wrongful acts. If that is not the case then BOA would be paying off these settlements and if you read carefully although BOA owns these entities BOA is not paying, the entity is purportedly paying. If BOA bought the entities but is still keeping them alive for some reason, what is that reason? To make sure the liabilities go to those corporations and not BOA? Is this for purposes of tax advantage or write offs. Is this to keep BOA value up while these entities keep getting hit? Or is it to somehow keep individual homeowners away in their lawsuits? NO ONE SEEMS TO BE ANSWERING THIS ISSUE AS TO WHO ACTUALLY IS PAYING–(AND NOT YOUR SUPPOSITION sTRIPES OR ANYONE ELSE) but who actually is paying these settlements and fropm what monies–insurance or otherwise? Then there is the question whether these entities are “bought” out or “subsumed into boa”. Those are two different issues. If they were bought out and truly no longer exist then somehow BOA is responsible for these debts and I don’t think BOA wants to do that–it wuld crush their stock value. But here’s an issue. I have a sj that was filed in my case by BOA CLAIMING THAT WILSHIRE, CW AND BAC NO LONGER EXIST AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED. They had some idiot by the name of T. Habib sign an affidavit they no longer existed and therefore should be dismissed. WHY NOW? Technically they were bought out years ago and subsumed, but kept on answering in my lawsuit. I have not answered this sum jud yet because I have been very very ill and seeing a ton of doctors and am on bedrest. I have difficulty breathing and spend a lot of time in the ER. But am trying to work on it. My research showed that In Oregon, BAC entered an appearance in a quiet title action saying they had an interest in the lawsuit! That was in the last sixx months. When I sent that doc to the lawyer for BOA here, she hardly hiccupped. Now, if BAC does not exist, it does not exist, period. It can’t exist in Oregon and not Missouri. ANY THOUGHTS? DOES ANYONE HAVE A CURRENT LAWSUIT IN WHICH WILSHIRE, CW OR BAC IS FILING DOCS? iF SO, THE SJ FILED BY BOA IS MADE IN BAD FAITH, SUBJECT TO BEING STRICKEN AND THEIR LAWYERS SANCTIONED FOR FILING A FALSE DOC. BUT, THE REAL ISSUE IS WHY ARE THEY TAKING ONE POSITION IN OREGON AND ANOTHER IN MISSOURI??? What do they gain by a sj on this issue? Now I have said I would dismiss them with a settlement agreement which would agree that they have no interest in my home, currently and will not move to foreclose on it in the future (they have never foreclosed after I filed a QT/DC action). They refuse to do that which I find interesting. I have asked for a settlement conference with a magistrate to explore that. If the goal is to dismiss them, and I am agreeing to dismiss them with prejudice as long as they state they will not in the future do anything, and apparently they claim they are dead corporations, why would you not do that??????

    Second MERS.I sued MERS, MERS 1, 2 and 3 and MERsCOrP in my QT/DC unjust enrichment case after BAC and BOA refused to take my payments and denied the loan mod that Wilshire had approved. They have not foreclosed and in an affidavit attached to one of their sj say I am not in foreclosure. Interesting. At any rate, I have done a ton of research on mers etc with a lot of lawyers I work with around the country, myriads of experts and what I call “super paralegals”, not the least of which is Dave Krieger who I have a lot of respect for. I read every case that comes out on mers but here’s the rub:
    First, MERS in some cases was made a nominee and in others actually the mortgage was put in their name. In either situation the problem is they did not pay anything for the mortgage. They have stopped since last year foreclosing in their name but they continue to act as nominee. Most courts addressing their nominee position say they can’t assign and can’t act as nominees but apparently they continue to do so. WHY, this clearly has something to do with the MIN system of recording. What exactly, no one has figured out. Ask yourself, have you ever seen a case in the MIN system that does NOT have MERS in some position on the DT/Mortgage. I think the answer is NO. Why not?
    Second, some county recorders and state attorney generals are suing mers claiming they have screwed up the recording records and denied states money. Those cases are not really going anywhere in many instances because the issue is who has standing to sue MERS?
    Third, at a point in time in many situation you will find that in a min search that there is no investor or you are no longer in the mins system. WHY? Who bought the note?
    Fourth, MERS frequently would as nominee assign more than once–how is that possible. Once you assign for the alleged owner of the note only THAT OWNER CAN THEREAFTER ASSIGN–THINK ABOUT IT. But MERS continues to assign, WHY
    Fifth, MERS is the nominee on the DT/Mortgage doc but they are NEVER ON THE NOTE! You can assign a DT/Mortgage if you are the nominee or lender but you can’t assign the note unless you are on the note in some capacity. ONLY THE LENDER OR SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE NOTE CAN ASSIGN. YET MERS ATTEMPTS TO ASSIGN THE NOTE WITHOUT CAPACITY TO DO SO. That is the Carpenter v. Longan argument. Assignment is invalid and invalidate the note.
    Sixth, boing back to assignment, if MERS assigned my note while it it was in default in violation of the PSA and MSA to Citi, what was actually assigned? Did Citi pay anyone for that assignment? What did Citi actually get? Where did the money go? I have recently determined through a contact that it is the Securities Administrator who has knowledge of all the payments on the note from any source. There is a securities administrator for BOA and CITI on my note. NO ONE HAS EVER TAKEN A SECURITIES ADMINISTRATOR’S DEPOSITION AND IT IS ONLY HE/SHE WHO CAN TRACK ALL THE PAYMENTS.

    SO FOLKS, ONE FINAL NOTE> i HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT FOR sPITZER AND FOR BIDEN IN DELAWARE. These guys don’t shy away from a fight so ask yourselves why they are not suing for fraud. Go to the standard jury instructions in del or newyork and bring up the jury instruction for proving fraud–HIGHER STANDARD OF PROOF. VERY VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVE. ITS NOT THAT THEY ARE IN BED WITH THESE FOLKS, ITS THAT GETTING THE INFORMATION IS WELL NIGH IMPOSSIBLE UNDER LEGAL STANDARDS.




  208. If you think finding the owner of your Note to payoff is tough …. Get this. Example. My husband recieved two loan mod application offers from two seperate companies yesterday in the mail. Both saying that after reviewing his mortgage account he may be elagible for … Invitation #1) ….. a reduction of his intrest rate and possible principal reduction of his principal balance on his origional loan of $138,000. Invitation #2) pretty much same BS … except it claims for his origional loan of $255,000.

    Now keep in mind the principal Note was issued for $149,000 and according to BOAna statements the principal balance is $143,000. Good Grief!!! Any Guesses why my husband wont talk to and sign a dag gone thing with anyone.

  209. There is a lot of criminal fraud here and they are fraudulently conveying and reconveying our titles during the fraudclosures. It is criminal and it is evil. The recorded mortgage does not a legal lien make so says the County Recorder of Deeds office. They should all be in prison by now.

    @trespass, I agree about that trust. The U.S. has the ability to coin & issue its own currency and its own Treasury. Time to sue & abolish these TBTF crooks.

  210. I want to maintain ownership of the land. I do no think they could take that from us without a successful repo. Right? I am just applying simple common sense here.

  211. Christine… I get that the Mortgage is incidential to the Note and they FC on the Note. A successful FC gets them the deed, Right?

  212. MS says “What goes in can not come back out”. Ok.. I get that could apply for a successful repo. But if the Deed Never lists the MERS monster as Land Owner of Record…..I would think it Never Went In ….. MS, Please Explain to Me! Am I not Right? I see how they get away with it in Title Theory States …..

  213. I don’t believe they are claiming ownership of the deed but of the note and, in the case of CA (and other states) the deed of trusts which, when defined, means “note”. Even when they foreclose, they do not claim ownership of the deed. i think there’s a confusion there.

  214. Trespass, I mean in the foreclosures, demand monetary restitution. IMHO, everyone deserves big fat monetary compensation here. It might be bad money but its better than no money. You can always convert it into something else later. Lawsuits are expensive however, we need to dig deep here. A defeatist mentality is just what they want. I don’t give up and no one should because these jerks are evil and what they did is evil and what want is completely evil.

  215. In lien therory states the Deed is in the Borrowers Name and the Lender is a lien holder. If the lender is a corp trust… I can see that they could claim the debt as an asset of the corp. But how can they claim a Deed that is Not titled to them as an asset? Common sense tells me they DO NOT GET THE DEED unless a successful FC/Repo has taken place. So I stand confused as how they can claim ownership of the Deed and Use it as Collateral for the Crops own debt obligations. You can Not use someone elses car title as collateral for a personal or business loan for yourself… can you?

  216. And I personally, stay away from MERS…e-filed everything. The notes and deeds were separated, making it very difficult to track the stuff…

  217. @ E ToLLe;…feel free. And I do not think or read into much of what is said, no worries, unless I am being attacked…I get the frustration herein and feel the same way. Trying to dig myself out of this hole, like everyone else.

    My sense is: UCC and corporate rules/laws apply here. Back at them, with their own game. The judges are wrong.

  218. Stripes,

    I have an opinion – not a statement of fact just and opinion –

    Suing would not work. We’d be throwing good money after bad, using their attorneys to sue, and they would not allow us to be recognized in our original capacity in their courtrooms.
    I read an article where someone listened to the OPPT interview with Max Igan. I didn’t listen to any of the interviews, but the blogger posted portions of the interview and showed in quotes what was specifically stated by Heather.

    I don’t want to go from one trust into another. So OPPT (trust) is not one where I want to have a God before me, as in, having someone be a Trustee over my actions and deeds and rights and property.

    In the interview it was specifically mentioned that all of Earth belongs to Earth and it’s inhabitants (in so many words), but the OPPT has (by their actions – which I say what they do is not agreed to by me nor is it my Will to go from one man made trust created against my will into another man made trust and accept it as my will.), Heather stated they gathered up all the land and life on Earth into a trust and placed it under CVACs. The people would not own any land but they could tend to it as it grew naturally. To me that meant no formal farming where the land is stripped of extra trees and vegetation and stiped with rows of a particular harvest. It meant, not removing trees or bushes to make space for building a home, and when a structure for shelter is built, it would have to fit within the natural environment without altering it to be used for the shelter. ie. don’t cut down a tree or bush on the land to build the home, but use the twigs and dead brush around you to create the shelter. The writer mentioned Agenda 21.

    Now I see how these foreclosures are playing into that Agenda.
    You tell people to own a home, thus getting them to get title to the land that belongs to them. Then you come in and take the home and alter the ownership, leaving the land titles corrupted so the one in the homes, don’t owns title to the land the home is on. Then you offer those who still own the land some money to settle the theft, and when they accept the money, they release that title to you who paid them.

    Now you have a bunch of people with no rights to land, all future sales will never give rights to the land, the people in the homes will Never have rights to the land because the deal they closed on does not include land ownership.

    Those who accepted the money as restitution for being robbed, will not have the land that is rightfully theirs and they can never pass it down as heir property.

    That’s why they foreclose on people who have made all their payments.

    The courts will never sue them because the courts accounting is sitting in one of the banks. The Judge’s retirement is being held by a bank.

    There is too much intertwined in this to use it to get the remedy required.

    Besides, too many people are registered as US Citizens.
    I had unregistered before this happened, so my remedy would have to be different. My remedy would have to be to have the access to the land without having to go through a trust to gain it, and free use of the land without having the trust tell me how I can use it. My remedy has to be full right of self determination including right to live my life on Earth without infringement of how I decide to Be alive and Do my living outside of their trust.

    If these foreclosures are part of agenda 21 , that would go with what you said earlier about it being political.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Free and Independent State of Life, Corporeal, Alive, In Being, n Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  219. I meant: BP, people still haven’t been paid. Over 4 years later.

  220. And that. my friends, explain why I am so intent on seeing OPPT succeed: if everything, including towns, highway, beaches, etc., have become corporations, no one is responsible for anyone to anyone and the most egregious conducts can take place in all impunity. Isn’t that what is happening already?

    Case in point: if I am a town and I am incorporated, the mayor, the council, everyone is an employee. If they authorize another Inc. to mine gold under my house for the town, unless it is specifically forbidden by the contract, they were acting within the scope of their employment. Suppose that the corp they hired hits a gas pipe and i blow up in smoke, who’s responsible? But the gold they found under my house belongs to the town. Get it?

    Does BP, Louisiana and Gulf tell you anything? How long has it been? And what are the cities saying? What? People have still been paid?

    When was the last time any city in the states used eminent domain to help homeowners and resolve empty foreclosures? Can’t do it. Too many corporations involved, with a finger in the pot but no responsibility other than collect. Did you see how difficult it is for cities to get those empty dumps cleaned up and the lawn mowed? Corporations will do that: if it’s not in the contract, it doesn’t exist. So… if it’s in no one’ contract, it really, really doesn’t exist and the neighbor can scream until the cows come home: it is no one’s responsibility. It won’t be done. Cuts down on costs…

    Rest my case…,

  221. Guest,

    Where did the limited partnership come about? You have 2 corporations (sometimes 3, either PLC, LLC or Inc.), a contract with hold harmless and indemnification and an agency relationship. No partnership but actual, separte entities with separate identity and separate roles to play, outlined in the contract.

    MERS doesn’t have employees. MERS contracted with attorneys firms (also members) or with LPS (member) or with the bank (member) whereby the foot work was performed by the employees of the contractor, in MERS name. The employee is untouchable except as a witness. Otherwise, as long as the guy was paid to do whatever it is he was doing, if his pay check came from his employer, he was within the scope of his employment and acting as an agent of MERS. MERS never paid any of them to do anything: it does not have employees and is not liable to anyone. In fact, MERS was all powerful in that scheme until certain states started looking into it and it decdiderd to stop foreclosing in its own name (MA, OH, KS come to mind).

    That’s what makes it so aggravating. Likewise for someone like Dimon or Stumpf. They can do pretty much anything as long as they are acting within the scope of their employment. However, I expect that Chase is held harmless for anything the little fucker does while sitting at the Fed Res. board: different entity, different prerogatives and different authority, even though he is sitting there as an employee of Chase. I bet his powers and responsibilities have been spelled out from A to Z.

    In the case of the bankers, pretty much the only people who actually have any authority are… the investors who can vote the guy in or out. Other than that, they are fairly untouchable. That’s what i came to learn long after Bill Black raged over the lack of presecutions: banks had learned during the S&L that they needed to protect themslves better. Before that thing exploded, they had put in place what they believe was an indestructible scheme. Why do you think it is so difficult to make head ways? Why do you think judges appear to rule in every direction? Scope of employment in an enormous hudle to get over.

    And then, if you follow the money (who pays whom), it is nearly impossible to crack. Why do you think that attorneys, as a matter of course, use the shotgun theory? It’s listed there, it’s alive and it makes money: it’s got something to do with it. Don’t know what yet but that’s what discovery is for.

    That’s also why i keep harping about the need to sue the bank.

    And by the way, I was placed in artificial default, and not even because i tried to get a mod. Bank simply “lost” my payments and refused to return the late fees, even though i was on time and had never missed a payment. Put in “suspense accounts” (we found out during discoverey). Got me really good and mad, especially after I had already posted a few rants on internet about my servicer and BBB and Cordray had intervened: they got me the payment back but couldn’t do anything about that over $1000 in late fees. Servicer still would not give me back my late fees and started to send default notices over the damn late fees. I sued and stopped paying.

    So, every case in different. Came to learn that it happened… a lot! But the great, great majority of people caved in under threat of foreclosure and intimidation and ended paying thousands of dollars in late fees they never owed in the first place. Without ever asking for a mod!!!

  222. Poppy, I didn’t mean to come off as a cocky know-it-all with my statement about CW and B of A and a possible merger. To the contrary, my post was supposed to read that it’s simply impossible to see through the self-serving smokescreen that these entities purposely put down so that no one can figure out there dealings, or come to any legal conclusions about their dealings.

    If you or I were to form 50 different iterations of a basic business form and then spread the liability around in a mangled mess, attacking with this entity here, then withdrawing into this one here when it suits, we’d simply lose to whomever showed up in court against us….and rightfully so. The courts i.e. the legal system were never set up to be a flanking maneuver for criminal cartels.

    If you have a secure email, I’d like to share something with you concerning those matters. We have a similar foe.

    Guest said, “BOA got suckered when they absorbed CWHL and got stuck with all their fraud.”

    Although I don’t have it handy, a recent report/article wrote that B of A is actually as good if not better in their fraud machine than was CW, they took nothing away from the Mozilo machine. At the risk of sounding like that idiot straps, it’s true that all of the TBTF banks are nothing but crime machines, where not a single one leads the pack. They’re all a syndicate with no moral compass whatsoever. And yes they should all be sued from here to infinite and beyond. Go for it assvent.

  223. The Power of Paper and How to Combat it..Your Weapon.

  224. Under discovery obligations (and motions to compel and sometimes contempt orders) plaintiffs will file an “assignment” showing some kind of a transfer to the Plaintiff from the original lender. This transfer occurs generally a few days prior to the case being brought. Such a
    transfer is nearly always impossible under the rules governing a mortgage backed security trust and is, in my view, very close to a fraud on the court. Such an assignment will be signed by a
    “vice president of MERS” or “vice president” of the Plaintiff when the signer is not a vice president of anything, may not work for either plaintiff or MERS, and, generally, only saw the assignment document for a few moments before they signed it. Defense lawyers who
    occasionally set depositions of such “vice presidents” are finding that these “vice president” positions are nominally created positions (i.e., not registered with the state division of corporations) designed solely to get over the “standing” hurdles of foreclosure defense lawyers
    (and to hide the problematic transfer that underlies the original loan).

    Kevin Hoyes, Esq. Key West, FL

  225. To me: and I have said this in court, simply, if you have rights under the contract, what would be the need to forge anything?

  226. My take on the limited partnership is they are using it in court to appear to have authority. Again, a ruse, to make it appear they bought “assets” /loans and are entitled to foreclose. If you take UCC rule 3 where it says “any” holder can foreclose, Blah, Blah, Blah…but the hook is, it is no longer a mortgage, but a security “instrument”….that changes everything. As Gwen said, it’s complicated and many do not understand, how the exchange works. UCC Rule 8 & 9 are pay dirt.

    The banks are taking the language and codes out of context and putting many of us in a place, if we don’t understand the mechanism, we lose!

    I always like the DMV analogy. Try and do with a car title what has been done with the mortgages and see what happens. Bring a “copy” of the title to the DMV…never will they let you register the car. There is more oversight there then at the banks.

    As far as I can see, when the “originators, lenders, converted the notes and sold them, the contract I signed was null and void, not voidable, VOID! My promise to pay was based on certain parameters, that were breached by the seller, when he/she put my property and payments at risk, with the gambling cartels and didn’t properly protect my interests in the given property and the title I am supposed to hold. This is a fiduciary duty to all that have an interest in my property.

    Further, a contract is “supposed” to disclose the terms of what WE agreed to, not altered behind my back! Any defaults by them, directly or indirectly, affect my contract and my ability to comply with that contract.

    And lets use “default” for a minute…Black’s Law: failure to perform a legal or contractual duty, or to perform an agreement…well I didn’t realize we had a unilateral agreement. We are talking about real estate here, not an insurance contract, which is unilateral in scope and definition, but still carries a fiduciary duty.

    There is not a lot of discussion here about the originators defaults, which matter. Why does the judge want to focus on our “supposed” defaults, when many of the originators, Countrywide and New Century early on 2006-2007,defaulted on their loans and didn’t properly “securitize and lien” properties, rendering the notes, as unsecured debt…again, the judges are losing focus and may very well not have the sophistication to hear this stuff. Ask to recuse them…it is within your rights.

    I am not an attorney, no advice, do not have the experience to litigate, but have read these documents to exhaustion and it is all skull-duggery, semantics, if you will.

    My piece…

  227. Nor should investors in everything we pay for be allowed to infringe upon our freedom, independence or our legal rights. TBTF NEEDS TO BE SHOWN THE DOOR….THEY HAVE OVERSTEPPED THEIR BOUNDS.

  228. I really don’t pity the investors in the fraud very much at all. They had a choice about where they chose to invest. It is the property owners and small business owners who took the biggest hit. That is unacceptable. Our freedom & independence was stolen because of the poor investment decisions of others. That is not right. Bad investment decisions should not infringe upon the freedoms of others.

  229. There is no way to “fix” fraud. To “fix” fraud means to commit more fraud. The only proper correction is to sue them right back, and get back what they stole from us.

  230. They couldn’t fix the fraud, it was too massive so they passed the fraud back to the Originators …. that is the result of the seeds they sowed, they also must reap.

  231. BOA got suckered when they absorbed CWHL and got stuck with all their fraud. After what BAC did to compound the problem instead of working with us to fix their mistakes …. I would have to think BOAna holds some serious liabilites when they step up and claim the right to enforce and are challanged. I dont feel sorry for them! They got too Big for their Britches and they need downsized and Regulated and Audited to Death at their Own Expense!! Not the Taxpayers and Investers Expense!

  232. What is meant by limited partnership…..? ZERO…..Because the swapper of the fictitious instrument or seller of the fictitious investment, never owned what they are swapping or selling in the first place. It is all fraud, lies & deception and it is criminal.

  233. The truth is, we were never in default. This entire manufactured fiasco was intended to cover up for the TBTF default to the U.S. TAXPAYERS …… and all of the debt they created off of the backs of all of US was created to mind enslave all of US. If you buy it, they can control you. I don’t buy any of it and no one should.

  234. Poppy.. re: CWHL LP contracts with BAC Servicing. LP … Limited Partnership? What was CWHL LPs Limitations of Partnership, How much ownership is a limited partnership? 20%? and their Liabilities? And Who were the other partners with CWHL LP?

  235. FYI…..insolvent….I am not insolvent, I was robbed…by insolvent TBTF….Who Do I Want You To Sue…? You have already done enough damage suing all of US……now it is our turn to sue all of you. Why?Because turnabout is fair play…

  236. I am betting that the real PII behind these games will not stick its neck out knowing the liabilities associated with enforcement of this contract under the terms of the Note. The Mortgage is Moot if the Note is Satisfied! So that Greedy Little Corp they created better start coughing up My Tidy Whitey Title that had Never been contaminated with a MERS prior to my husbands loan. I want my Title out of the Corportate Theft Operations.

  237. The reason why the CEOs of TBTF have not been jailed is they are doing exactly what they are told by the shareholders/investors who hired them. Dimon is said to be a “rock star” in the world of banking. That is why he has the $22 million dollar pricetag…..he is a master of fraud, lies and deceit, screwing the American people and that is why he is not in prison.

  238. When the RPII comes forward …. We can talk. Until then … I will wait and let the Good Guys (and yes there are some still left up there) keep greasing up the Wheels of Justice on Corporate Lawlessness.

  239. Who in Tarnations do you want me to Sue Insolvent? All parties are poof” who commited the frauds. And dammed if BOAna wants to give me something to Nail them On.

  240. Read Your Truth N Lending Disclosure Statement. Focus on the Prepayment Penalty, and if you are entitled to a refund of your prepaid intrest. Check it with your State Laws.

  241. Very Well Stated Christine! Thank You! They Lied to Us All! Not Fee Simple Anymore! Phooey…. I want them off my Title!

  242. They are flthy animals and the sad part of it is, millions of Americans are none the wiser. They accept the fraud as fact and cut their own throats in the process. I have heard every excuse in the book why people choose not to fight. I call it pure laziness and if you want to be lazy and make excuses for these filthy animals then I am sorry to say, you get what you deserve. No one is going to hand you your freedom on a silver platter. Certainly no TBTF politician, lawyer or judge. People have to make time to educate themselves. No excuses, no one is going to or can do that for anyone.

  243. I know what it has been like being accused of being in default when you were not. I been on the same path as some of you. Lets talk about the harm … they did not want to talk about. I hope those Homeowners who were not in default and Lost their Home to a Thief Sue the Buttwipes to Hell! If they come back .. we have a Jail for that!

  244. Johngault,

    “But what I really don’t get is since these robo-signors acted in MERS’ name, how is it that MERS has escaped prosecution for the acts of its “officers”?
    If MERS wants to have 20,000 + “officers”, they should be made to bear the consequences of their acts. And they’re not.”

    This is a good question. Why haven’t Jamie Dimon, Stumpf and Moynihan been held liable for their actions? Because they are employees of the corporation. They acted within the scope of their employment and, therefore, are immune from individual prosecution. Remember what DCB was saying: going after people personally is one of the most difficult thing to do. There is a specific procedure that few attorneys understand and until it has been followed to a “T”, they are pretty much fool proof.

    Why do you think the idea of everything having become a corporation has so much pull? Because no one is responsible any longer for his actions. We, individual homeowners, do not benefit from corporation protection. Become a corporation and buy a house: foreclosing on it will become nearly impossible for any bank The downside is that you, individually, don’t own it and can’t pass it on to your children. You can’t sell it. It is literally owned by the corporation and become one of its assets.

    This, by the way, is the reason why most self-employed create an LLC: it allows them to put computers, vehicles and tools in the name of the corporation and even if they, individually, have debts, no one can go after the tools of their trade.

    It’s a system. We need to know it to navigate it.

  245. For those bankster buy-backs they have not managed to fc on … there is a reason for that! The system will be perged of what was salvagable of the CW, CWALT and AWL assets by the end of March. Hold on Tight! Its been a Slippery Purge and Salvage Process. And that last Swirley is a Little Tricky Getting Bluffed and Bullied is Tough! But to Catch A Bully and Give Him a Dose of His Own Medicine is Karma! You will come out Clean in the End. Washing Assets with Dirty Hands didnt work.

  246. Maybe they should hire me. Doubtful they would want me…I am too honest for the job.

  247. I don’t believe any of this stuff was a surprise to any of these agencies. They are all big fat frauds & phonies. Like gee…the FDIC “thought” they had a legal cross collat on our home….well like gee….I guess not because I have the cancelled paid note & mortgage so suck old chicago bricks….fraudsters. There are no legally enforceable liens blowhards..and MERS is another TBTF fraud & a big fat lie.

  248. MERS Straw Officer … Clue#2 …. It was not the investers/trusts who autherized the MERS agent to act and it was not the Goverment who autherized them to Act in the past either. Remember… I told you they hid the duel tracking and defaut/ re-enstatements from the investers and All the insurers including FF,FM,GM,FNHA,HUD, Imagine HUDs surprise seeing those titles … The Federal Prosecuters were brought in … Oh yes they were. Dag Gone It if the Wheels of Justice are not Slow!


  250. Sorry Stripes … that is not the situation in all cases. Yours is not an exception and this situation does not apply to you. 🙁

  251. I never heard of half of these jokers….they appear out of nowhere…they are all imposters.

  252. There are 2 titles. The fraudulent electronic title the bank cooks up and the real title at the County Recorders office. The title at the County recorders office tells the real tale and all it takes is a PIN SEARCH to locate the only title holder of record, US….all of the other crap recordings are just smoke & mirrors crap.

  253. Oh wait.. I forgot one … 1st Advantage Mortgage revived as a Zombie doing business under alias aka 1st Advantage Mortgage. Title Office and Title Agent ..Long Gone.

  254. They all got too greedy. Did they really need to get this greedy? If you know their ultimate goal has always been totalitarianism, then you get it. It was never about the money for these greedy bastards, it was always about complete control of the people. No one will ever accept that tattoo b.s. in America. They are way out of control.

  255. If you think we have been thru the wringer … you have not heard it all. My husband bought this property out of a Family Trust and the title agent apparently forgot to file the Trust Agreement autherizing the Trustee to act… and appoint a sub trustee to act and sign on her behalf at closing. Guess BOAna would have to file fraud suit against that Closed Trust, Themselves, My Husband, MERS and CW to get FC. How do you like those Apples? Do You Want Our Title?

  256. If the Buttwipes do not want to be reasonable … and want to Play..”Its All or Nothing” …. They Lose!


  258. There is truly no way to evade paying taxes if you live in America….nearly every dime we pay and spend is a tax that is being siphoned out of the U.S. by TBTF & THEIR INVESTORS…….THAT IS WHY THERE ARE 4 OR 5 BANKS PER BLOCK AND CORPORATE AMERICA ARE EVERYWHERE…..TBTF & THEIR SHAREHOLDERS/INVESTORS ARE WHORING UP THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WITH U.S. TAXPAYER MONEY……

  259. It could also be like … Granny with a Double Barrell Shot Gun Loaded with BuckShot! Aimed to Please! 🙂

  260. You are right Marilyn, I meant Medicaid…they have no health insurance. The TBTF crooks are holding that hostage too…..and we all paid for it already. TBTF are trying to shove OBAMACARE down our throats and NO ONE wants the microchipped mark of the beast AKA OBAMACARE….

  261. The USS MERS has Sank! Its Member/Owners take a Big Hit! Its like Killing Two Birds with One Stone.

  262. The Straw Mers Officers… Who writes their paychecks? MERS? The Master Servicer? The owner of the Note and Mortgage with the Right to Enforce? Who? Clue ….MERS as nominee for the hidden party. Yep! Yep! Who is the hidden party MERS is acting as ut umm nominee.. beneficiary for? Who gave the MERS officers their orders to act?

  263. Every American is a U.S. TAXPAYER…..everything we spend and pay is a tax. The income taxes are not the half of our tax burden. 70% of our incomes are going to fraudulently induced taxes….from the mortgage to the utility bills to food to gas for our cars……the majority of the money we pay is going to the TBTF INVESTORS……..OBAMACARE will tax nearly all of our income….RIGHT INSOLVENT GUEST…..?

  264. Illinois Law allows re-enstatement of a mortgage one time in a 5year period. We have apparently re-enstated 2X in 5yrs and that option is not legally available to us. If my husband applies for FHA loan mod… hahaha ….. he does not qualify (over qualified) and is denied. Wham Admission of Debt and No Re-enstatement Remedy available. And he can not sell me the property and transfer title over to me without those nasty little sec B exclusion in a new title policy for me. . Whoops… yeah… they forgot to put me on title. But I signed a document I thought at the time was a mortgage on a property that I was on deed to.

  265. In his testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in November of 2010, former MERS president and ceo R.K.Arnold testified that before member employees could become certifying officers, they were given a test administered by MERS. He also said these were the same people who would be doing the foreclosures if MERS weren’t in the act. I take both statements as bald-faced lies. He then goes on to say that when MERS discovered that some of the robo-signers were MERS certifying (read straw) officers, MERS suspended their authority until they could be re-trained.
    “Re-train” without question infers they were trained in the first place, and I defy MERS to show robo-signors or anyone else actually received one iota of “MERS-the-Utility” training. All the training in the world, however, won’t change and wouldn’t have changed imo the dynamic of a business, such as LPS and whomever the heck else I forget, which had formulated mach-speed business plans to get the job done as quickly as possible, the niceties of legality be damned.

    But what I really don’t get is since these robo-signors acted in MERS’ name, how is it that MERS has escaped prosecution for the acts of its “officers”?
    If MERS wants to have 20,000 + “officers”, they should be made to bear the consequences of their acts. And they’re not.
    Further, and I’m deadly serious, MERS shouldn’t be allowed to speak to anyone without someone in the room who know s from shortcakes about mortgage loans from the consumer side. This is I don’t know what number of times I’ve read MERS propaganda and see that it passes as fact and goes utterly unchallenged. Mr. Arnold also stated to the committee that it was MERS strictly enforced policy that the member be in possession of the note to foreclose in its name and that MERS became upset when it learned of all the lost-note affidavits. Oh, really? Better late than never – not. If members hadn’t had carte blanche to act in MERS name with no oversight by anybody (the only ‘oversight’ to this day is the challenge from homeowners), this wouldn’t happen. I think Mr. Arnold should have to get off his boat and come tell us just exactly how it was that MERS would have known if a member had a note or not. The whole MERS business plan stinks to hell and back. MERS HAS TO GO.
    But my deal here is trying to figure out how MERS has not seen the
    business end of a shotgun since it was MERS “officers” who were robo-signing.

  266. […] Filed under: foreclosure Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  267. Marlyin..I disagree…. Deep Pockets can feel the pain of Empty Pockets! Just stop keeping your money in their pockets. And see how fast the Marshmellow Shrinks down to a managable size feeding off empty pockets.

  268. For 5years the Banksters have gone thru Hell and High Water to Prove Us Deadbeats! Forged document after forged document, each only snowballing into a bigger fraud. Shameful! Just Shameful!

  269. Not sure on where medicare and medicaid stand today…but stripe mentions her neighbor who lost her job and so did her husband..and could not get medicare…..I have medicare but had to be 65 to get part a..part B is taken out of the Soc. Security check..Medicare is for the elderly and needy according to the book they send….Midicaid is for low income and covers only certain things….It seems her neighbors need to apply at medicaid..not medicare? As I said I have no idea where either one stands to help anyone today…with the Federal and State seem to do as they please…deep pockets never feels the pain of empty pockets…..

  270. When BAC took over and kept refusing payments, I sent the payments to CW … hahaha! No they never cashed the two checks but the money was always sitting in the Bank. I was sure the Judge was going to be hardpressed to believe them after the previous ordeal where are auto payments were claimed to be NSF and default was filed. hahaha …. it was a Showdown… Fed Investment Bank( forged payment letter) vs State Banks copy of our bank account paying those payments on the first draw. That is when you know.. just how dirty they play behind MERS Bad! BAD! BAD!

  271. Unless MERS identifies the party it was acting as nominee for when a second slander was placed on title or unlless BOAna files suit against my husband. He has no claim against BOAna that we can prove. As it stands sueing CWHL LP and BAC servicing seems futial.

  272. The first clue that your loan was a buyback… It was removed from MERS system. Those debts are being pooled in private in-house NA trust held by third party debt collecters. FNHA/Freddoe/Fannie/Ginnie have no use for a bad titles. Hard to Dump and sells cheap at cash sales without warrenty to title. Heavy Losses to taxpayer and investers. Bad Banksters! Bad! Bad! Bad!

  273. Or they could declare insolvency… right insolvent.. IVent

  274. The only lodgical thing to do is Jail the Tax Evaders all the Way from the Deadbeats to the TBTF scam artist! Stop dumping their Free Rides on the Backs of Working Taxpayers and Pensions and Other Retirement Investments! Reform Welfare and Get the Free Loaders there (who take advantage of Loopholes in the Welfare and Income Tax Laws) OFF their Butts and Off the System and Court Ordered to Repay the Taxpayers!

  275. Rumor has it, the Gospel of Barnabas has a lot of interesting secrets in it that have been hidden from us and are about to be revealed.

  276. The only logical thing to do would be to sue the TBTF crooks who robbed ALL OF US..just like Kudlow said.

  277. Yeah.. State budget cuts are going to be rough, not just for residents but for state pensioners to … all those properties and no one paying the real estate taxes to the State on top of losing the value of their pension investments in the MBS. Not to mention the Libor Scam and Mers Scams on the Country Records Offices. The rest of us will get our tax bases jacked up again to help cover losses the budget cuts dont.

  278. Bloomberg news reporting State Governors say economic recovery will be slow in the States because of budget cuts. Why aren’t they suing the TOO BIG TO FAIL crooks who robbed US…….? Is it because they are invested in TOO BIG TO FAIL…&…THEY ARE ALL CORRUPT & USELESS ……? There is no other logical explanation as to why they keep robbing ALL OF US…..!! Dick Durbin said “frankly the banks own the place”……WELL WHO FUNDS THE BANKS YOU CORRUPT DIRTY LIAR…..? THE U.S. TAXPAYERS DO…..!


  280. The FEDs are always barking up the wrong tree….the real problem is the banks who get rich from the scammers scamming others. Take Bernie Madoff & Chase Bank…..or MF GLOBAL……BEHIND EVERY SCAM THERE IS A BANK ENABLER….AND TAX EVASION…

  281. That is whit the when the CNBC program AMERICAN GREED talks about the banks or investors are getting defrauded by individuals they are not telling the whole story…..there are two sides to every defrauding and the media hides the fact, behind every “scam” there is a bank and the banks are always the main culprits.

  282. E ToLLe read my last post…I have the paperwork. When we went to court , they tried to push the CW Home Loans Servicing, LP…I came up with these doc’s and they asked for a continuance, which I NEVER should have given them, a lesson learned, anyway, then they came back to court with an amended request for Summary Judgment, on 12 (b)(6) now working for BOA, N.A. and claimed I was suing the wrong parties, CW, BAC Home Loans Servicing, etc…my fault I didn’t join the parties, another lesson…inexperience.

    They NEVER securitized the notes, per transcript of the court and the kick is: America’s Wholesale Lender is not a lender, but a Trade Name and is relevant. The notes say: Lender; America’s Wholesale Lender. Now, courts have differed on this, but one thing is certain, a trade name cannot do business as a corporation.

    I have zero doubt about what I say…the judges are NOT following their own rules of procedure, the rule of law, UCC rules and Federal laws. These parameters are spelled out very specifically under the law. I am sick of these judges making up the law to help these creeps. The law is the law, no exceptions.

  283. Many of the judges believe they are TBTF as well. It is an illness. They are so arrogant in fact, they are hiding inside of law firms and pooling our properties and selling off credit bids before they are even granted the fraudclosures. The banks are given the insurance money under the condition that once they receive the CDS INSURANCE MONEY……THEY MUST STEAL THE PROPERTY……it is a crime racket…..A PROSECUTABLE RICO ACTION…. Banks never get defrauded ….there is always something in it for them..THE BANKS HAVE EASY ACCESS TO OUR MONEY AND THAT IS THE ONLY REASON WHY BANKS PRETEND TO LEND….

  284. TBTF defaulted on all their payments……that is why we are here.

  285. I have documents, which I can scan, that state: Countrywide is closed…that is dated and acknowledged by the Secretary of State of NC and Texas. The secretary of State of Texas form: search for Countrywide Home Loans, LP, no results, search for Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, no records found, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, no records found…then NC the same thing and BAC reserved a name then never used it in NC, which is where they are located. Then I have BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP SOSID 0835861 cancelled on February 28, 2008.

    Then I have a document Countrywide I Home Loans, LP from CA, dated: 02/28/2000, Certificate of Limited partnership, amended on April 21, 2009 with BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP

    ..have more need to look for them, will provide ASAP…Whatever game they are playing…lies.

    The judges are lying…cannot imagine that? The acquisition was of servicing rights, prior to Countrywide filing bankruptcy.

  286. How did the TBTF rob and ring up the country…..? By hiding the underlying transaction. their default, AKA THE ORIGINATION FRAUD they were able to use non existent collateral to overissue investments. The result of so much bank fraud by the banks was they were so overleveraged with junk they had to dump and bail by insider trading in 2008….they used the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 not just to conceal the ORIGINATION FRAUD by TBTF but to commit a mass cover up of their crimes by handing out bad credit and refinancing people out of their equity…..they created a credit bubble to blame the victims of their massive credit fraud that began in 1982…under Reagan/Bush they turned the signatures of the American people into paper & electronic chattel without our knowledge or consent backed by our Labor, our birth certificates……NO COLLATERAL & EXPONENTIALLY OVERINSURED THEIR RISK THEY CREATED WITH CREDIT DEFAULT INSURANCE, PMI INSURANCE & OTHER TBTF SCAMS CALLED TOO BIG TO FAIL.

  287. Just one last thing here … My husbands CW mod fraud default 08 LP was Filed Under CWHL and NOT a CWALT Trust or MERS. Never registered with SEC or Ginnie Mae to be pooled. They defaulted it on his First Payment Jan 1st 2008.

  288. Those dumasses at CW not only didnt transfer the notes to the trusts… they didnt even transfer the notes to themselves before gambleing with them and filing LPs. Buttwipes!!

  289. What I think is, it would be fabulous for millions of us to file bankruptcy…ha, ha, ha…see how that works for the bitches!

  290. Corrected type:

    Poppy said, “Countrywide was merged and closed in 2008-2009. Just because they merged with BOA, does not mean they, BOA own the notes or any legal rights under them….

    You’re guessing now. There was no merger between CW and BofA….prove me wrong. CW is still active. And depending on which coast you’re on, courts have ruled 180* opposite on liability for CW’s sludge in the acquisition. Some call it a de facto merger, but that’s simply their analysis, as Moynihan and company purposely obfuscate the details behind hundreds of pages of blown smoke so that they can have their cake and eat it too. He’s publically stated that they’re holding on to CW so as to threaten to tank it in BK, forcing investors to take pennies instead of dimes on the dollar in buybacks. That keeps them at bay.

    As to how borrower-level courts see it, it’s all over the board. Some judges will close their ears to talk that B of A isn’t successor in interest, all Sergeant Schultz-like, others demand proof from B of A in accordance with law….remember that? The law? I have dozens of rulings all across the board. But, that’s exactly the way they like it, for they can steal houses with one fable, and defraud investors with another.

    And as long as Obama and his Just-Us Department concentrate on writing briefs in favor of killer drones and Monsanto, oh…and busting the occasional borrower modification specialist, all’s cheeky inside the beltway.

  291. Poppy said, “Countrywide was merged and closed in 2008-2009. Just because they merged with BOA, does not mean they, BOA own the notes or any legal rights under them….>/i>

    You’re guessing now. There was no merger between CW and BofA….prove me wrong. CW is still active. And depending on which coast you’re on, courts have ruled 180* opposite on liability for CW’s sludge in the acquisition. Some call it a de facto merger, but that’s simply their analysis, as Moynihan and company purposely obfuscate the details behind hundreds of pages of blown smoke so that they can have their cake and eat it too. He’s publically stated that they’re holding on to CW so as to threaten to tank it in BK, forcing investors to take pennies instead of dimes on the dollar in buybacks. That keeps them at bay.

    As to how borrower-level courts see it, it’s all over the board. Some judges will close their ears to talk that B of A isn’t successor in interest, all Sergeant Schultz-like, others demand proof from B of A in accordance with law….remember that? The law? I have dozens of rulings all across the board. But, that’s exactly the way they like it, for they can steal houses with one fable, and defraud investors with another.

    And as long as Obama and his Just-Us Department concentrate on writing briefs in favor of killer drones and Monsanto, oh…and busting the occasional borrower modification specialist, all’s cheeky inside the beltway.

  292. Wanna laugh..?…one of my in laws was told by a bank he was not credit worthy because he paid cash for everything his entire life & that is because he probably cheats the Government ….!! How rude huh?

  293. I know Poppy! How do you like those Apples! We have suffered no harm but we are deadbeat homeowners and out luck pensioners. See My Middle Finger Buttwipe!! As my brother would say … Sit on it and Spin! See … I am to personally attatched to the situation… Need More Duct Tape Please!! Oh Good, Hubby is Ready! ~~~~~~~~~

  294. Let’s be honest poppy……..the loans were not given to us, they were given to the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK……they proceeded to pre sell and overissue investments in loans they never made. That was criminal.

  295. That business loan.. “Home for youngest daughter and family”… I only owe around $14,000. I could pay it off to …. but I need the credit points. Do you think we should file Bk to fix the problems caused by their Greed or Not?

  296. You are correct. I know many people who have no credit history, because they pay all their bills on time and pay cash for everything.

    Banks don’t want them. OMG, why would anyone not loan someone money who has that kind of character? The best reason I can think of…they want you in debt. They cannot make money or CONTROL you, if you pay your bills promptly.

  297. Sorry Gwen…not Grew, typo….

  298. Even if we applied for a Mod with BOAna … we wouldnt qualify, no hardship, …. Dag gone it … hubby income alone is enough to qualify for 2 mortgages … lol. He owns everything… has no debt, well maybe one questionable debt. Me … well I have a business loan… sold the property to my other daughter. They make the payments for me. hahaha and my Lake property has been paid off for years! And I only have 6 payments left on my Jeep. I would pay it off … but I need the credit points. Being a cash buyer really has disadvantage to….

  299. And maybe Grew can answer this: when did a closed corporation have ANY authority to foreclose or accelerate a note? Last I checked a closed corporation cannot assign, transfer, sue, defend a suit or foreclose in the name of the closed entity.

    Countrywide was merged and closed in 2008-2009. Just because they merged with BOA, does not mean they, BOA own the notes or any legal rights under them…and when I checked the sale, BOA bought 1.4 Trillion in servicing rights only. The BOA N.A has restrictions on what they can and cannot do as a National Association. All bluffs…but as long as they judge knows nothing, sees nothing and hears nothing, it’s an uphill battle. They are breaking the law, every time they go into court and commit perjury and submit false documentation to steal, what is not lawfully theirs!

    My $.02

  300. Amazing…

    So far, we’ve narrowed it down to: the commies, the nazis, the facists, the trolls, Iraq, Rothschild, the bankers, Iran, government, Congress, judges, attorneys, the Muslims, OPEP, the Russians, the Chinese, MERS, LPS, the Feds, everyone of us bloggers jointly and severally, Vatican, the Spaniards, Satan, Lucis (aka Lucifer which is Oh so ridiculous, given the fact that Lux, Lucis means “light” in Latin… go figure), OPPT, OWS and anything that has a name.

    If that isn’t utter confusion and the sign of a profound and incurable mental illness, i don’t know what it…

    St. Kudlow, pray for Shill’s soul. Ain’t nobody else that will.

  301. stripes not so, in New century. They were processing pools to sell, but broke and no buyers. 27,000 loans went unfunded from February to March 06, 2007. Mine was one of them. Cease and desist orders and criminal investigations MADE them stop or they would have kept taking the money and hid in bankruptcy. They were even taking payments and squandering them, for liquidity.

    Even the notes that went into pools were “grossly” misrepresented for quality and adherence to the PSA, their agreement.

    Whomever said the PSA is not for you to discuss: I firmly disagree, with that judge. The PSA is the bible for trusts, dates open and closed, servicing duties and RIGHTS…you bet your behind that is relevant. And it is damned well part of how you defend yourself against these thieves. Adherence to THEIR contracts does have relevance.

  302. BAC did not file LP or Judical SJ, Althou CW case was closed they were still trying to get the LP in CW name that had never been released. I couldnt understand why they went thru such lenghts to commit fraud to get the fc or their offer of DIL or Mod. They concocked the whole dam thing to get the CW LP in FC in CW name because we didnt need a mod! All because of the SOL! Buttwipes!! I didnt know then what I know now.

  303. Gwen… When BAC stepped in they did the samething to us … refused payments …. said we had to pay the entire (no-default) default of over $12,000 to re-enstate. What? We re-enstated with CW. Nope! Not Paying It! They refused mo payments 3mo in a row! So What do I do…. I re-enstate with BOA ( ut -um…). Again paid All the Bogas Demands. How do they Thank Me…… Well here comes those tax bills sent to us from BAC. Nope! Wont Pay It! I Alread Did! And where was all my re-enstatement money applied to? BAC response … send NOD. Froze ever since …

  304. The “loans” were pre-sold….ROLFLMAO…….WHAT LOANS?

  305. I am doing my best E TOLLE….this is war against dark and evil forces. CNN reporting THE SPANIARDS were behind the 2011 OCCUPY MOVEMENT…….Let me put a name to those SPANIARDS…..THE LUCIS TRUST……

    @guest…I am well aware of their latest criminal violation….

  306. Do you know what their bright idea is now to cover it up? Change Servicers. hahahaha ……

  307. Yeah .. Hubby is not ready yet ..I am still here.

  308. Because the loans were presold …. Imagine the position homeowners are in when they didnt sign that refi and kept sending their payments to the same ole lender pretender… All while the “”I already am the New Lender”” who signed before you signed and you are not paying me … So let me forclose on you. Buttwipes!!!

  309. Strips/assvent, do everyone a favor….practice what you preach incessantly….go and sue the TBTF entities who are obviously (your words, not mine) agents of Satan, and at the same time include the FEDsters. And then come back here and tell us all how the hell you’re doing with that.

    If you offer it up as a non-stop remedy 24/7, you must believe in it wholeheartedly….so just do it. If you don’t take your own advice, repeated over and over again, why in the hell would anyone listen to anything you have to say?

    The answer’s an easy one. No one does. D-Brains.

  310. @ Gwen

    How can you be a nominee for the originator? Right off the rip it is wrong. Then, in the case of New Century, they defaulted on “lines of credit” issued to them. They were supposed to PROPERLY attach the funds to the homes and securitize the debt…which they didn’t.

    They go bankrupt and don’t honor the repurchase agreements THEY made for the money THEY borrowed, and now have recourse for a named nominee, didn’t lien the property and move notes to non-lenders, with the judges approval and try to collect for whom? And, where is the contract, which I made an agreement to pay this “lender” who is the originator, where they have borrowed on behalf of someone, using my name, SS number and personal information to borrow money and use it in their own company or personal account (this is in a transcript)?

    This isn’t rocket science…you know? The judges do understand what is going on…but the whole play is “you signed the promissory note and must pay someone” . The judge does not care who that is, but I certainly do, as I want any payments I make to be applied properly and further if they are paid in full, I do expect a signed release, as they have zero losses and made BILLIONS on the scam of converting my mortgage into “securities” and have no merit to the loses claimed in the court.

    This is not the contract I agreed too. There are millions of people in the same place and do not even know, unless a problem arises. And I bet (having checked multiple deed offices, thousands of satisfactions, minute, by minute) there is a satisfaction of deed somewhere, with changed loan numbers, as a condition of paid insurance for the losses they have claimed.



  313. Yes… But they were only suppose to assign it out once, and that is when it went in default. Dumbasses in a rush to cut costs filed LPs before they verified the defaults. So down the road … You have MERS and a CW LP. and No CW. AND NO No transfer of the mortgage or the note to CW. Now comes along BAC …finding out they bought servicing rights and escrow accounts that didnt exist any longer. Oh no… CW didnt get the fc deed either. So lets make up some more horse shit throw on top… everybody will believe us.

    And they would have gotten away with it to… except for those dag gone folks who didnt need a loan mod (only applied for lower intrest rate and got a Laughable Forbearance Agreement they told CW (the master servicer) to Stuff where the Sun Dont Shine and re-enstated. I guess BAC forgot to verify that or NOT …. Buttwipes!!

  314. BTW….Your CWALT fraud is NOT PROTECTED by the laws of this land or the U.S. CONSTITUTION. It is all fraud and so are you imposters. TBTF have desperately tried to turn the U.S. CONSTITUTION on it’s head but, THE TRUTH DOES NOT LIE, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION protects our legal rights to defend our Life, Liberty and Property, ALL OF THE LAWS OF THIS LAND SAY. UNSECURED INVESTMENTS IN THE WAY OF RETIREMENT FUNDS, or other so called TBTF entitlements that we the people funded and paid for upfront ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE LAWS OF THIS LAND .

  315. according to the dt they are nominee for the lender. there is some case law that once however the nominee assigns once–say in my case to merrill lynch or maybe citi or maybe aegis mortgage then they can’t assign again. Another thought on this is they were made nominee so that they could repeatedly make assignments but that doe not work under the law. so nominee for who–nominee only for the original lender who did the original dt.

  316. I have done my job, and have all of the proof to back up my claims, the facts don’t lie ….. you are deceitful and lying criminal felons. You can’t hide behind your powdered wig, it isn’t the 1700;s anymore. Your look and style are completely outdated. Your TBTF identity has been revealed and it cannot be hidden behind a manufactured title, agency, agent, robe or a wig. it felonious, heinous, egregious and treason to say the least. The truth is you are all imposters.

  317. Forget that you crooks are devious little equity strippers, you are now arsonists.This has been taken to a really low level.The documents presented by you crooks prove your criminality. You didn’t know you had insurance. ? Liars! The documents you presented upon the court tell the tale my properties are now crime scenes because of what you TBTF crooks have intentionally done. There is nothing to see on our end, we have nothing to hide but all of the proof to back up our claims

  318. Oh.. Just for the Records, I dont like the TaxMan much either … but he is not worth going to Jail for and loosing Time with my Grandchildren. That and I dont look good in Orange, it is not my color and it doesnt match the silver in my hair. Tickle Tickle

  319. Stripper Lesson of the Day! There is No retirement plan for strippers! If you plan to strip for a living… you might want a back up plan. Night Yall! Going Out for a nice evening with Grandpa!

  320. Stripes… your loan issue…. there is not one. Perfectly Ligit! I am sure they apprieciated you keeping the property maintained this winter for them til Market Season. March is the begining of Market Season… Judge is only going to give you 30 days! You should have spent more time working and less time bitching and cursing people for expressing their opinion here. Now you get ta packin and a movin… them property preservation companies steal everything once they throw you out. Well not really steal … its more like a Free For All on the Curb kinda thing if you know what I mean. —– > The TaxMan is at your back door! Pack! Pack Fast!

  321. There were loans/titles with issues that they had no bandaids for. Not to worry thou …. I sent LPS a Big Truck of Tissues. Or did I? Maybe not.. but I had Good Intentions. 🙂

  322. Gwen .. nominee for who? Majic Question. Guest, lets just say that everything you read about them is True and then some on Innocent Borrowers who are Clueless what is Going On behind their Backs! You can bet that an LPS/LSI order was ….. well…. lets just say it had Issues!

  323. Trusts appearing out of nowhere with no legal assignments…Ha, what a bunch of crooks!

  324. Take for example the CWALT REMIC TRUST 2010-2012 SERIES…that appeared out of nowhere to fraudclose on my commercial property and now they claim they are Midland Federal Savings and Loan. That is the type of TBTF tax fraud and tax evasion tactics the IRS should be investigating..

  325. It is TBTF corporate greed that put US here. Their “remics” and their “remic trusts” that appear out of nowhere were and are being used as tax exempt tax havens to hide their TBTF criminal fraud and deceptive practices. The trusts never existed and that is what they are hiding. Therefore, the TBTF owe the IRS booko bucks..The remics and the remic trusts are being used by TBTF to commit tax fraud and tax evasion.

  326. TBTF would have everyone believe the 99% are the problem, that we are the tax evaders when it is TBTF who are the biggest thieves and tax evaders on the planet.

  327. That’s right it is pretty low what we are dealing with here. They are threatening to send the IRS on people who have been robbed, tortured, and are facing foreclosure without proper legal representation and can barely keep food on the table or the lights on. Real low lifes. Good luck finding anything of value on mainstreet. We have been robbed into the poorhouse by these TBTF crooks as well as both Governments.

  328. @ guest: Re: “Guest, I am gagged by contract with LPS…”

    Such contracts, or orders, are probably fraudulent and void ab intio. A contract, or an order, to a person to conceal someone else’s crime is an “illegal contract”, or “an illegal order” PER SE (by itself), and of no force and effect. Especially when you reveal that here anonymously.
    So, I encourage you go spell out everything you know, or at least what you can reveal without compromising your real identity. & many thanks.

  329. Guest,

    So that you are perfectly clear on the concept, I never read what you have to post. The only reason I read that one is that you called on me. It won’t happen again. So far, you have nothing to teach me and nothing I would want to learn from you.

    Case closed.

  330. People who lose their businesses and are fighting fraudclosure generally are not rolling in the dough. Are you freaking kidding me? These crooks used my home as collateral without my knowledge or consent to secure the business property. jThen they pulled our small business credit line to steal both properties and doubled the property taxes on the commercial property to try and kick out the renter. That is why we are here scumbag. They forced us into fraudclosure. They are criminals.

  331. Funny how guest says she is a victim fighting fraudclosure but she claims to know my personal business. What a tare. As I said, we have nothing to hide. We have turned no profit in over 5 years like millions of Americans, we are just scraping by. .

  332. never–they use this nominee bs instead–

  333. We have nothing to hide.TOO BIG TO FAIL on the other hand are hiding gazillions in U.S. TAXPAYER MONEY….Take the $60.4 trillion dollars they have received to date from the U.S. TAXPAYERS…have they paid the tax man on that theft?

  334. You can make baseless attacks and spew all the inuendo you please christine..This is an attack by our enemies both foreign and domestic against our way of life and our Constitutional Republic. TBTF has hijacked the U.S. with criminality that defies most human comprehension. They must be held to account to the American people who pay for everything in this country, both monetarily and criminally.Quiet Titles and Declatory Judgments are justice for no one.

  335. Christine have you packed your bags and put your things in storage yet? The Tax Man is onto your scent and it stinks as much as the Strippers who also avoid filing and or paying income taxes. They have a Jail for that! Or are you not smart enough to figure that out yet by your own postings. Just Askin?

  336. I am talking about the victims who have already been fraudclosed upon Gwen. These people did not have a fighting chance, they had no incomes. They had no time to figure out how to respond to these complaints. They deserve a redress of grievances at the least. The attorneys are not being aggressive at all with TBTF and I am not pulling any punches here, that is unacceptable. All these attorneys are offering these people are loan mods that they know these people cannot possible afford. FOX BUSINESS said the U.S. GDP has been cut in half because of the crimes of TBTF. That effects every american

  337. “i have better things to do but i did not want anyone to actually believe something you might claim because you don’t know jack shit about qt or dc actions and therr place in foreclosure law. !”

    Fret not. The shill has been coming for months now, with the same inflammatory insanity and no one in his right mind reads what it writes. Didn’t take long for anyone to realize that it insults gratuitously, for the sheer pleasure of insulting and inflaming; that it had absolutely nothing of value to contribute and that there is absolutely no rhyme nor reason to that behavior other than a profound and incurable mental derangement with a commensurate viciousness. Nothing remotely human there. Nothing that can prevent anyone of us from being happy and enjoying life. The shill has no teeth. None, whatsoever.

    “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” Mark Twain

    The question remains, though… Why is Garfield tolerating it? Either he believes that the shill is harmless and can only discredit itself or, somewhere, it is serving his interests. I, for one, tend to think that, other than temporarily aggravating people, it has no teeth. Not even the ability to change the website logarithm.

  338. Has Anybody Ever seen a Lender(on Note) endorse the Note to MERS? Me either …. and I have tried and tried. Dag Gone It if they wont provide it for me…. I’ve pulled all their teeth and they have nothing to bite with.

  339. you are an idiot stripes. people who have been foreclosed upon and have not raised standing may do so ias part of a response to an unlawful detainer issuer–“standing” is but anothe word in my opinion for qt as you are saying they don’t own the title to the property. Justice is getting homeowners their house based upon the rule of law. And I don’t work for people, I only work for myself and lawyers who hihre me and put out information based upon hard legal research. I leave it to the likes of you to pontificate on nonsense which gets us nowhere. Goodby. Time for my granddaughtetrs.

  340. Dear Party whom filed this doc with the county recorders office, Under whose direction and authority did you do this? Dear 3rd Party, please show your standing or release your slanderous claim to my title. Get their release in writing. Then QT and serve Notice. Life Goes On.

  341. I am being realistic…we need attack dogs, not wimps in this war. The American people need monetary compensation, not just clear title. Have you seen these property tax bills? People can’t afford them.

  342. look at your dt or mortgage generally about par 21/22. You will see that mers is designated the nominee for the lender. As nominee for the lender it is the agent under most state law. Now it can take direction from the servicer (perhaps) but definitely from the lender according to the psa to take certain actions. BUT if they are not named in the note they cannot assign the note in any capacity. This is the problem. When mers is the nominee on the DT/Mortgage but not on the note it has no authority to transfer that note and doing so is a violation of carpenter v longan (USSCT 1872). The authority however has to come from the lender per psa and trust docs. there is also the little problem of whether there was any money trading hands.

  343. Again gwen..I am not talking about QUIET TITLE or any other such nonsense. I am talking about people who were already fraudclosed upon by TBTF….I see that is how you are trying to make a living these days is by getting social justice fixes for massive criminal fraud. If that makes you feel better, what a pity because that is justice for no one. People need to be compensated for these crimes against them and you sure are being compensated for the crimes of TBTF and creating more poverty for your victims. .

  344. that’s an interesting thought. However even in non judicial states as mo is, you can file a qt and dc action together (which should be done) qt homeowner has to prove superior title, dc (declaratory judgment) they have to prove they own the note–that’ why they hate it. But you can file an anticipatory qt/dc when you get notice of foreclosure in a nonjudicial state along with your affirmative defenses and a tro. Then you go to the presiding judge and take your chain of title analysis or preliminary title report from a title person showing the title is broken, you simultaneously file a lis pendens. The judge will with the proof of a broken chain of title based upon title report grant the tro and then the bank is screwed until the case is resolved on title and they are in the position of having to prove up note. stalls foreclosure but also puts ou in the driver’s state in a nonjudical state.

  345. Who authorized the MERS to file that document and under what authority did that enity have to direct such an order. Proof Please?

  346. Demand the court rule on the fraud presented. No counterclaim can be brought if the crooks failed to invoke the courts subject matter jurisdiction at the onset. The court has Civil Criminal Jurisdiction over the fraud at the onset or any fraud by any of these crooks. If you deny all Plaintiffs claims and call these suits what they are, criminal frauds, those claims must be addressed by the court.There is no legal fix for fraud. When fraud enters a contract, fraud vititates everything..

  347. you are wrong. qt and dc can be used as counterclaims to judicial foreclosure and can be used in nonjudicial states. As a matter of fact I am doing it and so are any no of real live lawyers who understand this stuff and don’t pontificate with bs like you do. on that note, go to hell. i have better things to do but i did not want anyone to actually believe something you might claim because you don’t know jack shit about qt or dc actions and therr place in foreclosure law. !

  348. I agree Gwen. Here you also have to serve all parties listed on title. I assume that is the way it is in any judicial state. They knew this and That is why they stepped up the Criminal Slander to titles by transferring the Note and Mortgage together via MERS and recording it to title.

  349. Correct error; Sue the thieves, the TBTF crooks for clear title plus monetary damages for harm done and harm intended. That is justice.

  350. The subject here is fraudclosure, not quiet title gwen. If you are fraudclosed upon by TBTF… another fictitious entity can bring another lawsuit to enforce another NOTE…Quiet Title is a social justice fix for massive TOO BIG TO FAIL FRAUD and criminality and is justice for no one. Sue the theives for clear title and monetary restitution for harm done and harm intended by these crooks.

  351. just woke up fm my nap to this tripe–that’s not true if you as part of your quiet title action file a publication which you obviously know nothing about. Once your quiet title is published for the statutory time period in your state in the appropriate “legal newspaper” and that newspaper files an affidavit with the county clerk’s office, the entity having another swipe at the note must come forward within the statutory time period. If not, then the court can enter an order directed to the county clerk to enter in the county records that no one other than the “winnder” of the quiet title action has an interest in the property. If someone does come forward in the future, you then move for injunction pursuant to the court order recorded that they have no right to pursue the matter because when published they did not come forth. END DISCUSSION. Obviously stripes you never read the quiet title laws in your state or any state–that’s why many lawyers are filing quiet title actions–to stop the second entity or third or fourth or whatever from coming forward once publication is done in accordance with state law.. now go sulk in your corner and stop bothering those of us having a productive conversation. im attending my granddaughter’s bday party by skype a much better use of my time than listening to your idiocy. You can rant to yourself and not bother anyone.


  353. Please allow me to finish my last sentence in my previous comment. the present holder of the original wet-ink NOTE could appear and file another lawsuit to enforce the NOTE…Remember, this all about greed and the destruction of the American way of life..Our Constitutional Republic, our liberty, freedom and what these TOO BIG TO FAIL CROOKS REALLY WANT…NO ONE IS SAFE,

  354. *Grins* CWALT… Go Sue TBIF” roflmao! Good Exercise!

  355. What contract could you be possible bound to when no contract ever existed? You are full of b.s… Remember people….Subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time. Even after judgment and execution. Present physical possession of the NOTE, must be established pursuant the fact that if the NOTE is still in existence, and a party not the holder and without a valid assignment traceable in an unbroken chain of title of valid assignments back to the present holder, is awarded judgment against the mortgagor (you), at some time in the future the present holder of the original wet-ink NOTE could appear and file another lawsuit to enforce the


  357. Let’s do si do….Legal Term… “shilling” Slang term for posing as an innocent bystander at a confidence game but giving aid and assisstance to the perpetrators of the scheme as a decoy. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, p. 1377 (BLDG-1377).

  358. I might be bound by contract to keep my mouth shut …. but did you know that the authoriteis can access my computer anytime they see fit? yep! yep! I have been retired for a over a year and they still ring my phone off everyday! Talk about Fools!

  359. Stripes… you are such an Idiot! A Big Loser! Someone who will be moving on Very Soon! Nothing to this conversation applies to your case or your cause …!! Its before your time per say… Guest, I am gagged by contract with LPS. Gwen, I would but I am not willing to risk getting shot by Idiots! That and my babysitter ( I know.. and at my age…lol) says its not permissable to call you. But I can promise you….. I am NO Shill! Just a CW invester and homeowner scorned and a taxpayer the bill was getting dumped on.

  360. The troll bar flys can talk nonsense all day, and regurgitate lies, however,once you know the truth, the truth is unchangeable. The FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OWNERS AKA TBTF,, their shareholders and investors robbed THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF AN INUMERABLE AMOUNT OF OUR WEALTH AND THAT IS WHAT TBTF ARE SO DESPERATE TO HIDE FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. They rang a quadrillion in unsustainable debt up on Wall Street off the backs of ALL OF US, and now it is time to sue these TBTF crooks & sheisters,

  361. As to the question of who authorized the docs? No one did. This was all done without our knowedge or consent. The money came from the U.S. TREASURY DEPT,…THE U.S. TAXPAYERS… THAT IS WHAT THE FED IS HIDING…INVESTMENT ……INDORSEMENT OR INSTRUCTION IS NOT OWNERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I asked the bank attorney where the money came from that funded the original transaction? His response? He laughed.

  362. As to what is going on in the courtrooms and a certain comment as to this is not the judges fault. fraudclosure takes time.. If they had the proper legal documentation, it should take 3 months to do the job. They do not have the proper legal documentation because these crooks already got paid ,many times over however, never paid back their original loan they took out in our names to the Treasury.The FEDERAL RESERVE BANK DISHONORED US AT THE ONSET….

  363. A third party debt collector can buy from a fictitious trust …a garbage can that holds garbage….when it comes to foreclosure however, they need to have been a party to the original transaction, even though it never actually ocurred because of the Origination Fraud and false reps of the original contract ocurred, the law is the law… If not for these strict property and trust laws, anyone could buy up this junk for pennies and fraudclose and steal your property.

  364. agreed but here is what they have done–they claim ucc art 3 applies so all they have to be is a holder currently and not show the chain–that’s what they claim. However the PSA says otherwise and in actuality its a ucc art 9 and 8 instrument. This is where it gets very complicated legally and few people understand this argument including lawyers. but boa and the banks are nothing but inventive when they have to come up to account for the fact they cannot show proper endorsements. Look at the PSA which requires the endorsements be made and that’s why endorsed in blank does not work. That’s why the banks have oppsoed homeowners having the right to raise psa issues. However, although earlier the courts seemed to agree with this now they are not and are revisiting it. Discovery is being allowed on some psa issues including this one. sorry–had to answer that one.

  365. BOAna has No proper chain of endorsements of the Note and Mortgage(Title) to show the court. Unless they are brave enough to file with the court what they did on the titles this late in the game. It all depends on how loud the borrowers growl and show their teeth. My teeth dig deep. Real Deep and I keep them sharpend!

  366. @ guest:

    Re: “Mr Anderson ran his own private LPS … as did others.”

    Who is Mr. Anderson? and which others??
    I know someone hunting LPS frauds and looking for all leads he could get on them.

  367. why–is it end of quarter or something???? sorry am out of here. time for nap for this illness. take care. another day

  368. Im sorry boa is not innocent. They were greedy and they assumed all the obligations and problems of CW and BAC. And I would tell you why, but won’t say it on line. call me at 816.223.7178. That is unless you are a shill for boa!

  369. There is No Servicing Rights or Escrow on these Loans. What is left will be dumped by the end of March.

  370. ok, this is probably heresy to many out there, but i looked at the mers thing early on with Dave Krieger of Clouded Title. I get that they never paid a dime for the mortgages, have no right to foreclose, can’t legally act as nominee, but when you look at the membership agreements and their business plan-other than screwing up the title, and that is not insignificatn–what does suing mers get us? You can quiet the title without involving mers essentially. We are not the ones to contest MERS business plan–its either the country recorder or the state–its not our fight. and there are a bunch of cases out there right now about who gets to sue mers for these lost income from filings. But suing mers does what for you? And one more thing, and I am sure MERS is looking at this cit–they have better lawyer than BOA and the banks! In my own case, MERS is separately represented by what I consider the best defense firm in the statet of mo. BOA well they have defense hacks and the defense hacks make no decisions, BOA IN HOUSE lawyers make every decisiion from giving an extension to what should be done. So although I have an issue with mers, they don’t do anything unless they are told to do it by a bank. Your bitch is with the bank, not MERS essentially. Suing them complicate things. I have a belief that it is for another day to go after meres but not in individual lawsuits and I know what is heresy. So I am trying to dismiss them from my case. Again KISS. Do you really want to win against mers in your lawsuit and loose the case against the banks? Judges are not above splitting the baby and the bathwater. KISS focus on the banks because they are the a holes who run the show. Read the agreements between MERS and the bank–MERS does nothing unless they are told to do it. They will get theirs–but put your energy elsewhere. Sorry Dave.-

  371. Let me restate my last comment. BAC used Fraud to cover up CW Fraud. That is why they both had to Go! BOA na is all innocent of what BAC and CW did. Until they file another Fruad …..

  372. BOA tried using fraud to cover up fraud. It no longer works! And Yes! You still have a private right of action …! If you chose to exercise it, I dont need the headache … I want them Nailed and Jailed!

  373. that’s true. but look at it this way, i talk to much in my own case. I say things in my case I would NEVER say in a client’s case. I get reminded and get my butt kicked periodically by two lawyers who shall remain unnamed who help me with my case behind the scenes. A long time ago I was told by a pyschic and a pyschologist that “justice” was what guided my life. In prior lives I have been jailed, beheaded, hung, shot, etc. Seems I have not learned the right way to go about this but this life I am a lawyer. Let’s hope I continue to be one in my next life but only better. As my sister Patty says all the time “less is more” and that is frequently the case in the courtroom. As my lmentor out of law school said to me –KISS and think about that–again that is less is more but making it understandable to a judge and a jury. He won as a defense lawyer with that creed and when I followed it in my own cases I won too. simplifying this crap is difficult–and other than your job, your home is your most emotionable possession. KISS. That’s why all these pro se’s putting a bunch of non legal crap in their cases pisses off judges. Its irrelevant pure and simple and it screws up the creed of KISS

  374. Gwen.. ask them who authorized the docs for CW, BOA? We know MERS did it … but what beneficiary authorized then to do it? MERS authorized itself to make itself legal beneficiary? Naaaa … why do you think they will not file those docs in state court now?

  375. I agree Gwen, I know the Judges know we are honest.. but I dare not go to court without councel to handle the procedures. I am quite an emotional person when there is injustice, I have no problem blurting it out …. Gets me in to trouble all the time. yep! I gathered and gave access and retired. I would never be a reliable witness because I can not maintain self control, my mouth runs faster than my brain and before I know it we are playing lier lier pants of fire and the fire dep is called to cool me off. I call it how I see it … but I know having the evidence in writing sent via them personally email accounts is not disputable.

  376. I disagree–these settlements do not bar suits against these entities by individuals for the simple reason that the individuals were not parties to the settlements! Don’t forget, a settlement agreement is a contract and the parties to the contract are bound–not someone else! So if I have a claim against boa that was settled by an ag–well that’s nice for the ag but it does not bar me from suing or settling that claim that BOA settled with an investor or ag.. That’s what folks don’t understand and I think BOA and the rest of them are hoping that people think they don’t have the right
    As for CW and BAC, I did sue them in my litigation. BOA filed a M/SJ with an affidavit by a guy named Habib claiming that BAC and CW don’t exist and can’t be sued. I did some research on line and of course found multiple lawsuits in which CW and BAC are actively filing documents independent of BOA! I sent an email to the lawyer for BOA one sat nite about 8 pm before going off to bed. (I get real tired with this illness and generally am in bed fairly early). Next morning I found the BOA lawyer had answered at 11 p.m.! Apparently, she had signed off on a SJ not knowing that BAC was actively filing documents as was CW in cases on the west coast! Now quite frankily I find that sanctionable. Do I think the judge will do anything?No. Should she withdraw the M/SJ. Absolutely and I have asked her but she refuses. This is nuts.

  377. i wanted to think on this before replying, Not all pro se’s are bad. But for all intents and purposes I am pro se. When you represent yourself you loose perspective. I can see things clear as a bell for others and then i look at my case and “go nuts”. The pro se’s who are just ranting and raving their anti whatever are killing these cases. The pro se’s who are trying are hated by the judges because they take up too much time. Pro se’s get frustrated by the system too because they think if they know one part of it–they know it all. Law is very complex today. You have to know the procedure to get your case in a posture to be considered and pro se’s forget it. They also see some federal law and think they will be better off in fed court or don’t realize if they plead the federal law they will get removed as we say to federal court. I’m not a fan of federal courts–they are aloof and the judges are either conservative republicans appointed by reagan (yeah we still have some of those) bush i or 2. Democrats are not Liberal–they tend to be moderate because those are the only ones who get thru approval. State court judges are a bit more into people so to speak. But again, pro se’s don’t understand the “forum”. And yes in many ways there is a good old boys club (in which defense attorney women participate but not plaintiff women lawyers). and that’s another thing the pro se’s don’t get. So when they don’t “get it” they blame the judge when they set themselves up for failure. Even when you know the system and have worked the system, these cases don’t fall into traditional molds. Its new, its different and its every day a crap shoot. Knowing the law is not enough. Using the system is what you have to do. Its not the best system, it has a lot of flaws and more so all the time, and we have to understand that in pursuing these cases.

    Thx for your kind comments. People like stripes and now buck who attack me are clueless about my background. Being a noisy new york italian woman transplanted to the midwest K.C. in the 70’s did not go over well out here. As my mom used to say, when you piss off the powers that be, sooner or later they will get you. They did,–wrongfully as so many judges said to me–but they got me. Its pretty bad when you go to a hearing on your disbarment and the judge hearing the case calls it a witch hunt and won’t recommend disbarment and the bar, at the instigation of some conservative federal (not state) judges, pursues it to the sct of your state and then Stephen Limbaugh (yea of that limbaugh family) ends up disbarring you. I might add the Bar never presented a witness against me, no testified against me, no client testified against me or defendant on the opposite side of any lawsuit. They just used the sanctions entered by two federal judges which was a first in the United States for seeking disbarment .

    Im studying for the bar (again) but its hard taking a test meant for law students–they don’t want “lawyer” answers, they want law student answers. Keep passing the multistate multiple choice but can’t seem to satisfy them with my essays. So I will keep at it. In the meantime I can write about my own case which may help others. I can write for lawyers who ask me for help and I can still believe I will fight another day. O by the way, I can represent federal sector employees before the EEOC and MSPB and that includes whistleblowers and I do that too. Im hopeful some people reading this blog will read this and perhaps understand why my disbarment is for all intents and purposes a joke. I have always represented the little guy or woman in employment and whistleblower cases. Hopefully, I will be able to represent a homeowner one of these days.

  378. Call Me Bait! But I look and smell like a Grandma! 🙂

  379. Did CW file LP in 07? Were there any title changes after that? When? Was old LP released from CW? What is Mo SOL ..?

  380. Gwen, because of the AG agreements and consent orders .. they are forgiven for past acts. But … not if BOA files after………… then and only then do you have a right to sue BOA, Your claims are against CW. Wink!. Get It? You cant sue BOA until they sue you …. only then are they on the Hook for …. you know…. Criminal Acts. Risky Business for those 3rd party debt collecters.

  381. Compare your old title policies to the new ones issued today, emphisis on sec B.

  382. Has any of you ever tried to get a copy of your Final closing title file from a belly up ins agent office? I Hope You Kept Your Origionals because you will not find the broker/lender on your note 90% of the time either. Imagine That? What Luck for the Banksters! If you are lucky and you closed remote ….. well Enough Said! Keep your Eye on those Title Insurer & Other Insurer Lawsuits. If they dont bury/settle those to.

  383. i so some real estate for KW. I am amazed that the title companies are still issuing policies and I don’t really get an answer. We use Chicago at Kw and I know damned well these houses which were bought the last time in the mid 200’s have securitized loans but somehow they are passing title insp. WHY?

  384. Mr Anderson ran his own private LPS … as did others.

  385. Poppy, my daughter bought REO .. same players as you. I bet you would love to see the these HUDs! Majic Pens … Copy Chops and Photo Shops.

  386. I mean … they were all Big Mers memers who had contracts for closings with them…. the title insurer agents.

  387. Trust me… E & O rates Went Sky High and Title Ins Agents and their local offices went Belly Up across the U.S. If you only knew how many filed BK against me. Buttwipes! Screwed the Homeowners and the Insurers! And they were All Big MERS contraters for closings!

  388. The Title Ins Agents have a Duty to the Title Insurer. Yes they Do! I have seen those duties violated over and over again for profit. Look at your HUDs and compare them to the ones filed with other parties. How many HUDs does you loan have? Title agent charges up to $1,000 for attorney fees when there was no attorney representation involved in the closings. That is just one example…. another world be the title ins agents were be issueing pleminary title reports for closings without title searches or abstracts… I can only imagine what the final title reports said that were issued after closing to the Title insurer.

  389. As an aside I did insurance defense starting out with a large lawfirm: was the only senior woman so to speak litigator on the hyatt regency collapse. My client a secondary structural eng. who was called in before the collapse to assess a problem on the opposite side of the lobby, had a $1m policy but in the three years it paid $3m to my firm for “defense”. The plaintiffs would not accept the proffer of the $1m.
    Ok, here’s my issue on these payoffs. I come at this as a practical litigator. IF we can first show that the note has been paid off, in whole or in part as a defense to a foreclosure (affirmative defnse) or as part of an offensive tactic in a nonjudicial state, THEN you don’t have to go to who owns the note, etc. etc. SO, I tried to get the judge to do a phased discovery doing first docs on the current valuation of the note based upon payments made by whomever on the note. It is my understanding that the “securities administrator” for the servicer has this info. I wanted docs, then I wanted to take the dep of the securities adm to see how the monies came in and were applied, and who reported to and why if the note was paid offf they continued to try to collect. Here is where you come to “biased : judgess. Defendant opposed this –of course, could not get the judge to even talk about it let alone consider my Motion to compel (in Mo fed court you can’t even file a m/compel until there is a tel conf and the judge oks it) You first need to put it intwo pages and send it in and then you have to ask for a tel conf and then after the tel conf you go forward with a motion to compel. Needless to say if the def object by the time you get thru this process youre discovery time period is over in fed court which in my opinion is the intent. The judge would not even give me a tel conf to discuss this. However, this in my opinion is the way to go–you should be able to get info on the valuation of your note to determine whether it has been paid off–as I say “if grandma pays the note, and its paid off, end discussion”. But the def did not like this and the judge who hates me for other reasons, did not like, it will be an issue on appeal no doubt.

  390. dammed contracts!! LOL!

  391. Very Nice Gwen! Very Nice! At least they have not filed a fc …. :)……. ( gagged duties……Sorry 🙁 )

  392. @ gwen: just bribe the judge. They get bribed from all sides!!! Just like our senators and congressmen, and everyone else in high government offices.!

  393. Interesting Gwen…used to be an insurance underwriter…I think this is of interest to all here, given they had insurance on everything.

    What is very troubling to me, is the very concept of being “made whole” and continuing to collect on “notes” that are completely paid-off. Everything about that is “illegal”…crazy.

  394. I was in default in 2007 after an investment went belly up but brought it current. I was in default again in 2008 when a business partner went to the caymans with my money on a land fill. Brought it current thru hard work. Kept current and had a loan mod approved but when BAC took over they refused to allow the loan mod and refused payments and refused to escrow. I then fiiled suit and they claim at least that they have not attempted to foreclose (why, because they would be in state court and the state court judges who they were before before removal told them they would grant my MSJ on bad title and Carpenter v. Longan and nullify the note). QUESTION: my position is that probably my note which is in MLMI2006 HE-5 probably was paid off by insurance not once but twice. In any event, there was a problem with compliance with PSA. Judge won’t let me get the insurance info. Anyone know about insurance on notes that go into default and another way to find it.

  395. What it appears and I am no expert, but learning every day. The bank deposits the $60,000, and NEVER puts the usury interest on the books attached to the loan, it is applied in a separate accounting process.

    The “suspense” account puts you in default, I know ’cause they have done it to me. It is intentional too. Remember, the acceleration of the full-payment is actually (question the legality of this, these days), the interest and principle, on the note, the agreement to pay, FULLY amortized, which they have added together and no one could pay on demand.

    As I keep reading these documents it becomes clear, we have made a deal with the devil, so to speak. We are making payments for something that is paid-in-full from the time the bank deposits the check for the $60,000.

  396. In Mo and I believe Ks. you can have a jury trial on any common law cause of action: contract, personal injury, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Again, like Cal you must ask for it at the time you file the petition or if you are responding to a lawsuit as part of your answer. You can get a jury trial in a quiet title action and unlawful detainer too if there are disputed fact issues. Although the court may ultimately make the ruling he would be bound by factual determinations made by an “advisory jury”. A federal court sitting in diversity must follow the state court rules on jury trials although the jury in a fed case is generally six jurors as oppoppsed to 12 in state court and the verdict must be unanimous in fed court and by 9 of 12 in state court. Also, if the facts determining the foreclosure such as standing are the same as the facts needed to establish a quiet title, you can ask that those facts determined by a jury be used in the foreclosure. So, in a nonjudicial state such as mo when you receive notice of a foreclosure, you file a lawsuit raising your affirmative defenses to the foreclosure and attach a DTPA unde rMo. Law, (allowing a jury), attach a quiet title (which essentially is another way of attacking standing (which allows a jury trial) and then show the court that the facts needed to establish affirmative defenses to the foreclosure are the same as in the jury trial issues and essentially get a jury trial. A little creativeness and thinking by a real lawyer with trial experience, gets you a jury trial. Sorry Neil I disagree that you are not entitled or will not get jury tried issues in a foreclosure. In a judicial state when suit is filed, again, you can raise the affirmative defenses and then file a counterclaim for qt and dtpa and again circumvent the no jury trial If there are common issues the courts are bound to apply the jury tried issues to the non jury tried issues in most states.

  397. And you are correct… it is a 3rd party debt collecter using the MasterServicer Name to FC.

  398. Dear Neil:
    Thanks for the painstaking comment on this judge. I have a couple of things to add here: You wrote:
    “If every Judge were to be sanctioned for getting angry in court …..then we would have no judge.”
    I think this country would have been much better off without judges since the level of their corruption has skyrocketed in the past few years.


    In California you can even have jury trials in Unlawful Detainer cases, but you must demand that at the first possible opportunity & pay the jury fees to clerk asap. Also, foreclosure cases are usually mixed with other causes of action, such as fraud & deceit, and for damages thus jury trials can be demanded too. As far as I know, only the quiet-title, TRO & injunctions & accounting, are the equitable remedies which can’t be decided by a jury.
    However, when the jury determines the factual basis of fraudulent conduct of the fraudclosers that also has a bearing on the decision on the quieting of title and the outcome of the other causes of action.

    Your response is appreciated. + many happy wishes for your birthday.

  399. Now if you were the Ins Co’s and found out the Buttwipe was still collecting on a defaulted loan you paid off (in multiples)……. ???? Ut Um…

  400. Ohhh and lets not forget what they did to the Titles (borrower damages). They need the FC deeds before SOL expires so they can get Gov to Payoff the Investers…less their absorbant fees of course (same feess charged and paid for by the borrower also). Double Dips Again!

  401. Did you ever wonder why when a party try to FC, they go all the way back to the origional default date? Years back? Yeah… Suspense Account my Butt!!! Profit/Fraud Account! The Never reported these loans to the Gov or Investers as Defaulted or Re-enstated. Greedy Buttwipes!!!

  402. Once a Note is in Default it Never comes out (they disreguarded state laws that allow re-enstatement and redemption). So when you note was Defaulted the entire $255,931.20 (not the $60,000 principal) is taken back out. Nice Profit/Theft! So a borrower who re-enstates or redeems ….. $255,931.20 has to be put back in out of Who Pocket? HMMM …. Mods would seem to have the same effect. Toss…Toss…Toss the Hot Potatos! Hot! Hot! Hot! Hide’em! Hide’em! Hide’em!

  403. @ Christine , Poppy ,

    Agree with 3rd party debt collectors (posing as servicers) buying bad debt from trusts and then foreclosing in the Master Servicers name … That’s what appears to have happened with AHMSI buying “asetts” from trusts where WF was Master Servicer … mine was an Option One that was PAID IN FULL by AIG in 2008 ,, anything you can add..

  404. In 1910 the U.S. federal debt was only $1 billion, or $12.40 per citizen. State and local debts were practically non-existent.

    By 1920, after only 6 years of Federal Reserve shenanigans, the federal debt had jumped to $24 billion, or $228 per person.

    In 1960 the federal debt reached $284 billion, $1,575 per citizen and state and local were mushrooming.

    By 1981 the Federal debt passed $1 trillion and was growing exponentially as the banker’s triple the interest rates. State and local debts are now MORE than the federal deficit, and with business and personal debts totally over $6 trillion, 3 times the value of all land and buildings of America

    Sheldon Emry

  405. IF $60,000 IS BORROWED,$255,931.20 MUST BE PAID BACK

    When a citizen goes to a banker to borrow $60,000 to purchase a home or a farm, the bank clerk has the borrower agree to pay back the loan with interest. At 14 percent interest for 30 years, the borrower must agree to pay $710.92 per month for a total of $255,931.20. The clerk then requires the citizen to assign to the banker the right of ownership of the property if the borrower does not make the required payments. The bank clerk then gives the borrower a $60,000 check or a $60,000 deposit slip crediting the borrowers checking account with $60,000.The borrower then writes checks to the builder, sub-contractors, etc., who in turn write checks. $60,000 of new checkbook
    money is added to, money in circulation.

    However, and this is the fatal flaw in a usury system, the only new money created and put into circulation is the amount of the loan, $60,000. The money to pay the interest is NOT created, and therefore was NOT added to money in circulation. Even so, this borrower (and those who follow him in ownership of property) must earn and TAKEOUT OF CIRCULATION $255,931, almost $200,000 MORE than he put IN CIRCULATION when he borrowed the original $60,000! (By the way, it is this interest which cheats all families out of nicer homes. It is not that they can’t afford them; it’s because the bankers’ usury forces them to pay for four homes to get one!

    There is therefore no way all debtors can pay off the money-lenders. As they pay the principal and interest, the money in circulation disappears. All they can do is struggle against each other, borrowing more and more from the money-lenders each generation. The money-lenders (bankers), who produce nothing of value, slowly, then more rapidly, gain a death grip on the land, buildings, and present and future earnings of the whole working population.

    By: Sheldon Emry

  406. One thing I do know; a servicer can BUY the notes from the trust at a very discounted price, if the trust is going south…how they get “true” ownership…Hmmmmm… an entirely different issue.

  407. “the mortgage was purchased by a trust and assigned to a new mortgage servicer”

    UKG How does that work? Doesn’t a servicer qualify as a debt collector? And what about the statute of limitations on these debts? Or is that what they are trying to circumvent?

  408. “servicer can’t be held liable as they’re not a party to the contract”?
    Maybe can’t be found liable “as charged”.

  409. The people are waking up and recognizing what’s going on. A good friend of mine told me her family was denied Medicare after losing her job of 25 years in banking…..her family are eating out of food pantries because they refied the mortgage and can’t afford both. Her husband has been unable to find steady work, he was a carpenter and has not been gainfully employed for the last 5 years. Her husband said only minorities are getting Medicare…he said these crooks want us all to kill each other. I agree, we are being weeded out, reduced to criminals and peasants and baited into accepting this creepy new world order crap. Everyone should be sueing these TBTF crooks. Another warning……….my neighbors kid told me anarchists are throwing water bottles on peoples lawns and if you pick them up they are bombs that explode.

  410. OPPT is a parasite maggot Christine…just like you. OPPT are trying to loan people their own stolen wealth. You illuminati vermin aren’t fooling anyone with your witchcraft, black magic and OPPT evil incantations….these evils are coming from the houses of the unholy… are demons from hell….

  411. Have a good night shill. I, for one, shall sleep like a baby with all those wonderful news of disclosure, corporation foreclosures, OPPT.

    My future is getting brighter by the minute. Such a wonderful life! Never a dull moment!

    Oh, I forget… Keshe Foundation keeps giving away its patents. New technologies being worked on. Love it, love it, love it!

  412. You are the obnoxious one. The people see your desparation. You are acting like a caged animal.

  413. I have no doubt all criminals will be held to account and that includes you trolls. The American people are not cooperating with any of this Globalist crap. Your sick fantasies are going to end.

  414. “I am really concerned people are falling for this OPPT…”

    You’re full of shit, shill. Scares the hell out of you but you’re mostly concerned that people are getting really excited about it. That burns you, doesn’t it? Face it, shill: no one wants you anywhere. Parasite. Maggot.

    Well, burn away shill. Then you’ll croak anyway. in the meantime, I’m happy with what I see. And the more obnoxious you get, the happier I am.

  415. Hey shill, debunk that from your little bank-paid shill position. You’ve got no teeth, no brain, no ethics, nothing remotely human in you.

    Whether you like it or not, shill, your world is no longer. Deal with it.

  416. Cry me a river… Your stupid excuses will not deter me from exposing the many too big to fail lunatics like you trolls who are feeding the public more deceptions and more lies.

  417. UKG,

    That’s why I sued. Servicer “lost” my payments, started playing the “suspense account” games and put me in artificial default. Until they got me really pissed.

    I seem to remember posting that Bridge case a few weeks ago.

  418. The rule of law in the U.S. says…third party debt collectors who are not before the court who are not amenable to service of process are imposters;fictitious persons;fictitious payees.

  419. nice to know where we can find you, stripes, at the “Lunatic Outpost”. How fitting.
    Neil, block this nonsense.

  420. Whatever makes you scream, flaming moron.

    OPPT is coming and it is a goooooooooooooood thing. Personally, I shall keep reporting on its progress and those of the Chinese and Russians buying all those empty properties.

  421. that should be “the decision in the previous post” ala “physical harm”.

  422. The crooks blocked that link…here is another or please google that link…

  423. Not repeating myself, just posting reinforcement of my thinking.
    The decision underneath says that unless they break your fingers or kneecaps, all is fair!

    Mortgage servicers beware: FDCPA may apply even if the mortgage is not in default

    Dykema Gossett PLLC
    Amy R. Jonker
    May 7 2012

    Author page »
    In a decision at odds with both the plain language of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and a long line of precedent, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled on April 30, 2012 that a pro se plaintiff stated an FDCPA claim against a mortgage servicer where the mortgage was not actually in default. In Bridge v. Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB, the Court reversed the district court’s grant of the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim. The Court held that the mortgage servicer and the purchaser of the mortgage were subject to the FDCPA (despite their arguments and the plaintiffs’ allegations that the mortgage was not in default) because the mortgage servicer treated the mortgage as if it were in default and attempted to collect it as a defaulted debt.

    The Bridge Court explained that it interpreted the definition of debt collector to include mortgage servicers who treat a loan as if it were in default even when it is not. Here, the Sixth Circuit is simply wrong. The FDCPA’s definition of “debt collector” excludes creditors and those who collect debts that are not in default. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(iii). For mortgage servicers, this means that the servicer either “stand[s] in the shoes of a creditor” for whom it is servicing the mortgage (in which case the FDCPA does not apply), or it “become[s] a debt collector, depending on whether the debt was assigned for servicing before the default or alleged default occurred.” The Bridge Court reasoned that a debt that is merely alleged to be in default qualifies as a debt that is subject to the FDCPA because the definition of debt collector includes collection of “debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.” In the Bridge Court’s opinion, this means that “a debt holder or servicer is a debt collector when it engages in collection activities on a debt that is not, as it turns out, actually owed.” Thus, in the Sixth Circuit, a mortgage servicer that treats a mortgage debt as if it is in default will be considered a debt collector under the FDCPA regardless of whether the mortgage was actually in default. The Bridge Court further concluded that the reason behind mistakenly treating the mortgage as defaulted—clerical mistake, error, or intentional—does not matter.

    In Bridge, the mortgagor experienced a problem with her bank clearing one of her monthly mortgage payments. The problem was quickly corrected but, before it was corrected, the mortgage was purchased by a trust and assigned to a new mortgage servicer. That servicer, having been wrongly informed that the mortgage was in default, treated the mortgage as if it were in default, attempted to collect amounts it had been told were past due, and hired a law firm to commence foreclosure. The plaintiff alleged in the FDCPA lawsuit that the mortgage was not actually in default and the servicer agreed that the mortgage was not actually in default, but the Bridge Court reasoned that, even though the mortgage was not actually in default, the servicer’s actions in attempting to collect it as if it were in default qualified the servicer as a debt collector under the FDCPA. The Bridge Court noted that no assignment of the mortgage was ever recorded to show that the trust had purchased the mortgage, which would have shown it was a creditor and that a new servicer had begun servicing the mortgage for the creditor.

    The Bridge Court’s interpretation is contrary to a long line of cases, and even Sixth Circuit precedent, that (a) examine the actual status of whether the debt is in default to determine whether the defendant is a “debt collector” and not to a characterization of the debt status, and (b) mortgage servicers are not subject to the FDCPA if they service loans that were not in default at the time they began servicing them.

    While the Sixth Circuit stands alone in this contrary interpretation of the FDCPA, mortgage servicers may want to check their newly received mortgages and carefully examine what may appear to be defaults before attempting collection.

    TagsUSA, Banking, Litigation, Dykema Gossett PLLC

  424. I am really concerned people are falling for this OPPT…ONE PEOPLES TRUST SCAM…Please check out this link ….

  425. everybody miss this one? don’t remember seeing it……
    talking out of both sides of their mouths? servicer can’t be held liable as they’re not a party to the contract?

    “So, Yerrrrronnnnnerrrrr, Defendant bank/servicer/bill collector/law firm/forger can commit multiple aforementioned criminal acts and not be held liable?”
    Again, I think this is where FDCPA has teeth. Otherwise, as the author says:
    …from the Association of Corporate Counsel newsletter……
    “A federal court’s lifeline to the servicing industry: no physical pain, no negligent servicing claim”

    Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC
    Stephen K. Pudner
    February 14 2013

    Author page »
    In Webb v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2012 WL 5906729 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 26, 2012), the plaintiff-mortgagor filed claims against Ocwen and Freddie Mac in state court involving allegations of wrongful foreclosure, negligent and wanton servicing, defamation, and breach of mortgage agreement. The plaintiff alleged that numerous payments were not applied correctly and that property insurance was wrongfully force-placed on her account even though she allegedly provided proof that she had already obtained insurance.

    After removing the case to federal court, Ocwen and Freddie Mac moved for summary judgment as to all claims, and the court granted summary judgment in favor of Ocwen as to all claims and in favor of Freddie Mac as to nearly all claims. The claim that survived summary judgment settled on terms favorable to Freddie Mac.

    This federal court decision is particularly significant because the court unequivocally held that claims for negligence and wantonness in the servicing of a mortgage can never be successful unless the servicer causes physical injury to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff’s property. “Pure economic loss—which is what [Webb] claims—does not suffice.” For the same reasons, the plaintiff’s claims for mental anguish damages against Ocwen likewise failed. The court also held that no claim for wanton servicing exists under Alabama law and that failure to comply with the terms of a note or mortgage does not give rise to a claim for negligent servicing.

    Moreover, the court held that a servicer cannot be held to have breached a contract such as a mortgage or note when it is not a party to that contract. This is an important victory and this case will be relied upon by the servicing industry in defending against claims regarding improper servicing of a mortgage, which is a common allegation in these types of cases.

  426. Trespass……Neil Cavuto of FOX BUSINESS confirmed this tonight…..POLITICAL CAPITALIST CRONYISM HAS HIJACKED THE U.S. & IT IS CRIMINAL…INVESTORS KNOW IT AND THEY ARE FLEEING THE U.S… guest said as a result of these TBTF crimes against US …THE U.S. GDP IS HALF OF WHAT IS USED TO BE.



    Yes, the judges are openly engaging in political capitalist cronyism. It is criminal and they must be held to account.


  429. Stripes,
    I never thought it backed up to politics. I figured it was a turn the other cheek from the politicians, but never considered their role in this.

    What matters is who’s closest to the life that is being dispossessed from their property. That would be the judge.

    Definitely not representing the interest of the One, but if it’s politics, that would make sense that their actions are for the benefit of the ‘Public’ for which the politicians claim to ‘represent’.

    My opinion is
    OPPT, I don’t know who’s behind it, but people are creating their own ‘future’ by what they attach to, today. Trading one control for another is their Free Will, but they should not get angry at anyone for what they do by joining in that ‘so called’ new paradigm.

    So called, cabal controlled by deceit against our will, and now they can control by deceit with the full participation of people of their free will.

    These are interesting times for many who are not prepared for these times.

    Trespass Unwanted, Life, Creator, non decedent, People, In Being, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino.

  430. USED KAR GUY…That legislation is justice for no one. The TBTF house is falling down and none of these social justice fixes are going to save it.


    Time for the American people to sue these TOO BIG TO FAIL CROOKS AND DEMAND THEY GO TO PRISON….!

  431. A couple of days ago, I posted a success story from Autralia. Now, Sweden. Right underneath is an action at Ft. Knox by OPPT.

    Getting traction. Thank Gawd for OPPT!

    Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt,Regeringskansliet103 33 Stockholm

    February 20, 2013

    Open Letter to the Prime Minister and the Ministers of THE


    Dear Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt,

    I am writing this letter to you to inquire about a very pressing issue, an issue that touches everyhuman being on this planet, at this very moment.

    I stand in my honor before you. My request to you has no other motive but my human desire touncover the truth, and bring remedy and hope to the rest of my broken hearted brothers and sisters.

    It has recently come to my attention, that we, the people of this beautiful country, had a corporategovernment. This implies that we actually did not have a government serving the needs of its peoplebut a corporation, acting as a government.

    *SEC lists SWEDEN KINGDOM OF as a corporation.

    The difference between the real, active and lawful government and the corporate government thatwas operating in its place is enormous. We the people, had, by an act of deception, becomecommercial commodities; our lives had a monetary value to the corporation and we were consideredcargo or chattel. Our personal possessions could be seized from us, our children taken from us, ourlives lost and our dreams stolen by it.We belonged to the CORPORATION. We were its slaves.

    This is very important information for all of us; information that we the people of this planet arewaking up to.~~

    On December 25
    2012 the world changed, but not the way we were told it would though. No
    cataclysmic destruction, no planetary upheaval, no “End of the World” prophecy came true. Still, the
    world has changed
    more than anyone could ever imagine, let alone dream of….

    After long years of legal investigations, through a series of UCC filings, and an extensive list of legalnotification processes, all the corporate entities around the world were foreclosed upon and dulynotified on December 25
    2012 by the
    One Peoples Public Trust (OPPT).

    As the only Law that governed our legal systems was Corporate Admiralty-Maritime Law (Law of Water or Law of Commerce) and not Common Law (Law of the land and the people) these corporate judiciary systems are now foreclosed upon as well.

    Since late December 2012 millions of people around the world have been introduced to our new Trust.
    All of us, including you, are the beneficiaries of this Trust. The funds that were kept in “safekeeping”
    for the people of this planet by the corporate commercial entities are now being kept for us bythe
    One Pe
    ople’s Public Trust (OPPT).

    Every man, woman and child of this world can now step out of the old slavery system that kept us inlack, ignorance, fear and injustice, and finally walk into the new era of personal freedom, abundance,love and compassion.

    I know of hardly anyone who enjoyed the old world of oppression, control, poverty and war; the worldwhere the biggest danger to the well-being and the freedom of the people were often their owngovernments; the world where a self-selected few had the power to control by fear, intimidation, theft,murder and torture the people they were supposed to protect, serve and help.

    That world is today in its last, dying days….and it is better this way……

    We have reached the end of this mad, destructive and cruel parody. For the first time ever, we arelegally free as the divine beings that we truly are, and not the commercial commodity that we hadbecome by the force of deception by a few.

    With joy in my heart, I notify you today, that the time of slavery and blind obedience to any and all
    “authority” and the use of force towards any and all peoples for the purpose of control, be it financial,
    spiritual, physical or any other, in order to obtain profit, power and dominance over our Divine andUniversal rights, is now over.

    We, the inhabitants of this planet, are now legally free, equal and abundant!

    I urge you to read the attached material. You, along with the rest of us, stand to benefit immensely
    from this historic change…. in every way imaginable!


    For every man and woman alive, there comes a moment when the biggest choice in life has to bemade, the choice that will forever change the stream of events to follow.

    We all recognize when such a moment is upon us. We are defined by its presence and power.
    Sometimes our awareness of its might and its consequences isn’t immediate but the result of a rather
    slow process that ends with a complete transformation and the final awakening to our true essence.

    his moment is here now… for all of us. We get to be the generation with enough courage,
    knowledge, compassion, love and understanding to make this historic leap from darkness into the
    light, from “reason” to “heart”, from service
    -to-self to service-to-others.

    This letter is to let you know that this historic moment of choice has now arrived for you as well.

    My humble request is that you read carefully the attached documents and become acquainted withtheir authenticity, the love for each of us conveyed in them and the poetry of the manner by which wehave all been liberated from our collective imprisonment, be it physical, spiritual, intellectual, financialor moral.

    I invite you to join the rest of humanity on this path to love, compassion, freedom, abundance andendless co-creation. Take a long, close look at all of us, including yourself, and your personal struggletowards the betterment of this fragile but beautiful world and see the future that now stands aheadfor us all.

    t it glorious!

    Come and join us. The world is waking up to our true nature and unlimited potential. There is nobodyelse who can give value to us and our experience but us.

    We now have a permanent legal standing which enables us to turn away from the slavery system andwe humans, the incredible beings of unbelievable potential and grace, finally get to dream the dreamand build the kind of world that we want to leave for future generations, with pride and a true senseof accomplishment.

    The wave of freedom is now visible on the horizon. The veils of the sad, dark and cruel illusion thatdominated us for thousands of years are lifting and the bright light of the dawn of the new era isshining upon us! For the first time in history we can dream the dream that our brothers and sisters of times long gone never dared.

    The corporate system in which a divine human was a commercial commodity is no more.

    The old corrupt entities are falling and their grotesque symbols are being swept away along with them.

    History scholars will try to explain the insanity and cruelty that ruled by force throughout the longcenturies of suffering and bloodshed. They will try to understand why humanity accepted such abuseof the weak by the force of the strong.

    They will find no an
    swers to our history of madness…..

    You will be making a choice now along with the rest of us. This choice stands to affect you and usequally.

    I ask you to take time and to listen carefully to that silent voice inside your soul. Only the mostattentive of us ever get to hear it. Only the best of us will heed it.

    Ask yourself under what liability you will be acting from now on and in whose and what authority.

    What “laws” do you intend to enforce from now on and in whose name?

    What “authority” do you serve and who do you represent?

    The end of this story is now becoming clear and known to more and more of us. Let us hope that thedecisions taken from now on by you, and all of us, in light of this historic action taken by the
    People’s Public Trust 1776 (OPPT)
    , will be made in accordance with this legally and lawfullyenforceable act.

    From this moment onward, your actions, as well as the actions of every human being alive on thisplanet, now and in the future, will carry with them complete personal responsibility and liability as webegin to act in absolute truth, aware of who we really are: divine beings with equal rights andobligations towards one another in perpetual freedom to create.



    I invite you to join the rest of us during these historic times. I extend to you my hand in invitation tobecome part of the solution and not part of the problem; part of the momentous act of the creation of the new world and not part that supports the old
    , sad, dark world that is no more….. It is no more.

    With all my honor, respect and love, I stand in truth and I salute you,

    With the utmost sincerity,

    Oliver Troll

    SEC (U.S. Sequrities and Exchange Commission) Corporate Registered Number0000225913 SWEDEN KINGDOM OF SIC: 8888Business Address: Box 16 306Riksgäldskontoret103 26 STOCKHOLMSweden

  432. Well, much has been tried thus far and not yielded meaningful results: big shots went on TV and denounced the system (Catherine Austin Fitts, Bill Black, Neil Barofsky, Matt Taibbi, Yves Smith, to name just a few). Courts are crumbling under foreclosure backlogs and grant banks actions in 99% of the cases. OWS started really strong but…

    If OPPT halp getting the job done, I’m definitely in favor! And it is getting traction.

    In The Money: ‘One People’s Public Trust’ Raids Ft. Knox
    Added by GM on February 22, 2013.

    Tags: topA Social Network for Authors
    New Yorker Times

    A group of angry people calling themselves “The One People’s Public Trust” appear to have used the Global legal system to foreclose on all the major banks and governments worldwide, or so they tell us, trying to give the people of this planet back what they say is rightfully ours.
    The[y] evidently are fed up with the way banks, governments, and businesses have learned how to manipulate the monetary system globally, and after repeated attempts to right this injustice, were forced to use the legal system to foreclose on these institutions.
    What follows is a press release from the group, telling us what they have done.

    An explanation of what this means to all of us should be forthcoming.
    >February 04, 2013 — The One People’s Public Trust today is alerting each man, woman, and child on this planet that banks and corporations operating under the guise of the people’s governments have been foreclosed upon by their own free will. The titles, ownership, and rights of these corporations and all their assets are now duly secured and held in trust for the one people of this planet, equally.

    Multiple investigations uncovered evidence of principals, agents, and beneficiaries of a slavery system that knowingly performed substantial and systemic deceptive acts and practices, fraud, theft, and commandeering of the value of the one people of this planet without their knowing, willing and intentional consent. Based on the record of this slavery system, The Public Trust lawfully and legally duly registered the foreclosure, judgment, and remedy against these corporations for the damages made and done against the people of this planet that they have damaged.

    This action is the outcome of multiple-year investigations. People of the planet, on every country, may have a financial interest in the assets of these former principals, agents, and beneficiaries of the foreclosed corporations and banks. Interested people everywhere on this planet are encouraged to investigate this matter on their own.

    The Public Trust asserts what is: that each man, woman, and child has unalienable value and rights granted and deposited in them by the Creator and not any one of the people is subordinate to any artificial principality, corporate fiction or the special interest of another without their appropriate knowing, willing and intentional consent made by contract or accommodation agreement. The Public Trust expressed that which already was.

    The people have already determined and demanded that public banking systems, national governments, and their supporting judicial systems must be fully transparent, accountable, and liable. The Public Trust has secured the value for all concerned, for all People are created equal.<

    Stay tuned to the Guardian Express for the explanation of this document, as soon as I can get it from them.
    Sam Davis


    Mortgage lenders in Illinois will have to prove to judges that they’ve offered underwater homeowners a variety of options, including modifications to their loans, before foreclosing, the state Supreme Court said Friday.

    The court issued a new set of foreclosure rules formulated by a committee that began work nearly two years ago, when lending institutions were being scrutinized for what some regulators said were questionable practices that fueled the nation’s financial crisis.

    read the rest at the link above.

    nobody here doubts you, Gwen. Please don’t feed the animals.

  434. Am I doing drugs and not sharing?
    Since when is a state’s SC a legislative branch?

    Also, I know that since 2009, NV has statutes which require mandatory mediation if the borrower says so (and see Pasillas and Levya cases), but I didn’t know that the D of C does, also. From an Alan White publication:

    “The District of Columbia, which permits non-judicial foreclosures, has adopted a similar mediation statute, which explicitly provides that a sale conducted in violation of the mediation rules is void…”

    I’m reading (trying to anyway) White’s paper, which is quite a task. It makes ref to a lot of cases with small comments on each:

  435. Oh, and the FDIC is in on this auction of properties too.

    From what I see the government is is full swing, selling things they do not own! How to stop them?

  436. Just a footnote: I have been watching properties on; Altisource, OCWEN LOAN SERVICING >>> to relocate my 87 y/o/Aunt, whom I care for. They are price fixing, claiming to have offers and they they lower the price, while they say it is under contract…given the current climate I have the documents to PROVE they are breaking real estate laws and manipulating prices, false advertising, the list is long. The point: this is an ongoing fraud, even in the auction sales. Same players, doing the same things, with OUR homes.

    Most of you know me here and I have printed every piece of paper and they are next on my hit list…Unacceptable! Screwing people on the front, middle and back end…

  437. If we were allowed to print our own money and drug traffic and steal we would be rich too. TBTF aren’t brilliant, they are criminals who have the money printing machine and access to our wealth by misrepresenting themselves. TBTF have robbed the people to corrupt the Government(s). By secrets, lies & deception they steal from everyone. They belong in prison.

  438. America for sale, continued. [as usual, click on the link to read the whole thing]

    Investment firms buying up Florida foreclosures

    By Kimberly Miller

    Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

    Hedge funds and investment firms are buying up Florida foreclosures, beating out homebuyers and local flippers, while steering the state into what some fear is another real estate bubble.

    The companies, including New York-based Blackstone Group and Lake Success Rentals, a partner of Toronto-based Tricon Capital Group, purchased an estimated 5,300 Florida homes last year that were in some stage of foreclosure, according to a report from RealtyTrac.

    In Palm Beach County, RealtyTrac measured 425 purchases by firms buying multiple properties out of foreclosure and usually with the intent to rent them out until increasing property values can offer a substantial return on investment.

    RealtyTrac Vice President Daren Blomquist said the buying trend accelerated around the second quarter of 2012 after billionaire business magnate Warren Buffett said he would buy up “a couple hundred thousand” single-family homes if he had a way to manage them.

    But Blomquist warned that prices jacked up by the increased competition could lead to an artificial inflation.

  439. THE TRUTH IS…….THERE IS NOTHING TO MEDIATE….the pigs in crap were meant to fail as Sheila Baird said. There is ONLY ONE legal correction for the Origination Fraud & there is ONLY ONE monetary correction for a quadrillion dollars in TOO BIG TOO BIG TO FAIL CRIMINAL FRAUD…..SUE & JAIL THESE TBTF CROOKS AMERICA….!

  440. You have to admit though… they really know something we don’t! Those guys can make money out of every situation! I’d like to feel, just for one day, what it’s like not to have a shred of ethics and humanity. Just to see if it really is what it’s cracked up to be… If so many profit from it, there has to be an upside somewhere, right?

    O well! I’m hopelessly not into money. Can’t change that at my age…

    Banks find way to benefit from robo-signing scandal

    Drew HarwellDrew Harwell, Times Staff Writer

    Thursday, February 21, 2013 3:18pm

    Big banks are finding a way to benefit from what was supposed to be their punishment in the robo-signing scandal.

    In Florida, they have spent 75 percent of $7.7 billion in settlement outlays approving short sales and forgiving home-equity loans, earning credit for debts they were unlikely to collect or sales that would have happened anyway, a monitor’s report released Thursday shows.

    Only about 15 percent of the money has gone toward principal reductions or refinancings that would keep Floridians in their homes, the report states.
    Related News/Archive

    “This is providing very little actual relief to consumers,” St. Petersburg foreclosure attorney Matt Weidner said. “It’s not keeping people in Florida in their homes. It’s writing off phantom debt (banks) weren’t collecting anyway.”

    Bank of America spokesman Rick Simon said the spending provided “meaningful relief to borrowers by eliminating debt.” More than 100,000 Floridians have been offered an average of $75,000 in debt forgiveness or other aid, and thousands of potential loan modifications are still being processed, according to the report based on bank data.

    But consumer advocates and attorneys have criticized the relief as sidestepping the settlement’s goals. Since April, the report said, Floridians have filed nearly 600 complaints over modifications, customer service and other issues.

    Banks’ relief of choice so far has been short sales, in which banks allow underwater homeowners to sell their home for less than they owe. Much like foreclosures, short sales torpedo credit and require people to leave their homes.

    Banks approved $3.2 billion in short sales for more than 29,000 Floridians under the settlement, the report shows. But because banks are increasingly approving short sales as less-costly alternatives to foreclosure, many of those sales might have happened either way.

  441. Funny… Ohio came up with something similar a couple of years ago. Banks loosely complied with the requirements of mediation but… didn’t give a hoot about it and pretty much none of those court-required mediations ever led to anything. It was… shall we say… aa additional, useless, costly formality? Note that banks participated in that brainstorming in OH the same way they participated in the IL one.

    How much do you want to bet that it was just a let’s-pretend-that-we-care kinda thing? Lucky for us, Freddie v. Schwartzwald has leveled the playing field once and for all.

    February 22, 2013

    The Illinois Supreme Court announced on Friday new rules aimed at mitigating abuses and uncertainty in mortgage foreclosures, and helping those who face the loss of their homes by imposing several require-ments on mediation programs and lenders seeking to foreclose.

    These include the identification of resources for government-certified counseling, for free legal representation to eligible homeowners, interpretive services and sworn assurances that all loan modification efforts have been made by the lender.

    The three, stand-alone Supreme Court rules reflect the Court’s concern over well-publicized deceptive practices at the national and local level and the significant impact the continuing flow of residential mortgage foreclosures is having on Illinois citizens and communities.
    The rules are a direct outgrowth of public hearings and 21 months of work by the Special Supreme Court Committee on Mortgage Foreclosures, whose formation was recommended by Justice Mary Jane Theis.

    The 14-person committee consisted of those who have been on the front lines in dealing with the housing and foreclosure crises, including judges; bankers and their lawyers; a public interest attorney; a law professor and the head of the Consumer Protection Division of the Illinois Attorney General’s office.

  442. You tell them poppy…!



  445. And so we are clear here; if any of you gangsters are reading these blogs. I am not a lawyer, but I certainly know a “fraud” when I see one. I may not be a lawyer…not sure I would want be, given what I see. But I surely know my case and what is being done in the courts. How to apply it, under the law, well that’s a work in progress. There is no intent to give legal advice…surely I WILL share what I learn.

  446. Ewscrey ouyay and amscray arbay ylflays……..




  449. A neighbor told me he got a random phone call from TBTF today…..telling him Barrack Obama says he still has time to settle any back taxes. He said WTF was that all about? I don’t owe any back taxes.. He felt insulted and pissed. I told him, it is TBTF greed. These people are criminals and terrorists. He was still pissed.

  450. i have 5 min befor im off line for the evening. Stripes, you are ignorant, you are a pain, you are a shill. you monopolize this website and one of these days we will get rid of you once and for all. I;ve speed read everything since I got off and all i can say is that you are the most ignorant peron of the law I have met in a long time. Worse yet, you seem to believe you understand the law. You and your compatriot Buck, take a hike so that we can have meaningful discussions on line.
    By the way, Buck if you are out there, I notice you did not take me up on getting my book on my sanctions and disbarment. Maybe its because you already know there was no recommendation to disbar at all but it was Limbaugh’s cousin who wrote the disbarment opinion over the objection of the judge who heard the case and several state and federal judges.

  451. Larry Kudlow said, it is official, the consumer is dead in the U.S…


  452. As usual, you make no sense Christine. You are a typical crook…..You are a full hog but you continue to stuff yourself.

  453. So predictable and so easy to rewind…

  454. If I have interpreted the 7th amendment of the Constitution – then a jury trial is granted for any equity claim over $20





  458. The reason I will not be deterred by ANY OF THE TROLLS HERE…..I have spoken to many attorney’s and Government agents. They all tell me everything I am saying is correct. These people are crooks. I had a bank attorney tell me the judge is allowing this fraud and denying me my legal rights. Explain that.

  459. Stripes,

    Don’t forget to do your tax return and send your money to the feds you scream about 24/7, so that they can give it to the bank, along with your house and your retirement, and wage wars all over the globe.

    Hey Toots, your are the problem.

    “Toots is a slang term for… more-negatively, “tart” or “prostitute.” [Wikipedia] As far as I’m concerned, any bank-paid shill is a toots.

  460. These judges simply are not following the rule of law and are blatant about it. These judges are using legal theory and political affiliations to govern these frauds…..the judges are committing crimes. That is not only criminal, it is high treason.

  461. I agree with poppy. An attorney told me that I know more than him or the judge. However, the judges should know first year property law.

  462. A man, I see evidence that the judges are threatening the bank attorney’s and are forcing them to commit crimes against US.



  463. As always Neil, your words and thoughts contain sensitive and meaningful wisdom. Thank you for all you do and for being a conduit for intelligence and wisdom to proceed. Sincerely and Respectfully, Dr. Jim


  464. It is my humble opinion that: this is a historic fight, not one for the faint of heart. The fight here is about retention of our Constitution, our sovereignty, where the government, not shyly, is taking that out of the equation, every day with fear mongering, so the government will save us.

    There is a blatant disregard for “persons” rights and the “rule of law”, civil law particularly. These atrocities, which is what they are, are being done against our will, based on the fact OUR government has sold our people as “slaves” of the corporate government. Every time we sign something, even a driver’s license we have made ourselves bound to a contract of the state or government, rendering us somewhat helpless in our pursuit to defend our Constitutional rights as citizens, which is greater than any judge or lawyer.

    Do most of you know the Constitution is NOT required reading for a JD, it is discretionary? Most lawyers know little about it, to our detriment.

    Having spent a great deal of money on lawyers, and I do not think they are all scoundrels, but most of them cannot even complete a somewhat sophisticated bankruptcy schedule. They are complacent and find the time required for a good defense is costly and time consuming for them and the courts, hence you find plea-bargains, which are rarely in the bests interests of the client.

    Most low-level judges are too unsophisticated for this venue. They understand little about Constitutional rights,. sovereignty and due process. Under the Constitution we are ALL being deprived of our Fifth Amendment rights, every time we are asked to admit defaults, in the courtroom. At no time, even with a blue-ink note (where did it arrive from 2-3 years down the road and has it been verified for its authenticity, who gave it you?) has the the documentation been proven to be factual, accurate and LEGAL, under that definition. You are being asked to incriminate yourself from the moment they question you, without any other factors being considered.

    Then you have the fraud, in the inducement, much of which belongs in the criminal law venue, which is out of the jurisdiction of the District Courts and the judge is out of his/her authority. As a matter of opinion here; if these documents were to be used in a criminal trial they would not be admitted into evidence and the case would be over, at least until they got their paperwork together.

    Then the contract…oh my, we have no contract, no consideration is present in their affidavits, exhibits and evidence. In order to present a compelling argument and defense, which is what we have all been reduced too, show me the accounting ledgers, checks, wires, etc…they can’t, they don’t exist (at least not in the way we think). Sure we all made an contract with someone, who? What did I get for my signature on that note? Nothing, as you are bound to the contract, even though it is unenforceable due to the “hidden” “not disclosed” terms of the contract, only they know about, which supposedly, bind us to 2 1/2 times the value of the original note, principle and interest, which was converted to “security instruments” (which altered the note value and changed the lien process and losses they claim in the courts), where the note/promise to pay has been sold over and over to make money on. They, the banks (maybe banks) have gotten very, very rich on this Ponzi Scheme and have no losses from you. The truth is: the money they claim to have lent you, is on its face; created by debt, not money, federal reserve notes…take heed, read and the truth is out there.

    How you state all of this, bring it before the court, is my issue…people who spend every day in courts, i.e. lawyers know procedure, I don’t and it is where I get kicked in the ass. Even you lawyers on this blog, know exactly where I am going with this and it is not a fabrication, nor is it cluttering up the court and making your jobs harder. The truth is self-evident, not the fabricated version we currently have running through the court system, by the banks and their lawyers. Liars, all of them.

    The lawyers doing the right thing, here, I don’t include you, however, may of them are paid prostitutes who have sold the country and its citizens out, for a steady paycheck! IMHO…

  465. These are not my opinions Donna…..THE LAW IS THE LAW FOR EVERYONE. If you know what the law says regarding CRIMINAL LAW., Property, Trusts Laws, Securities and the U.S. CONSTITUTION, than you know these crooks are BREAKING ALL OF THE LAWS OF THIS LAND WITH IMPUNITY……..

    The only bully pulpit I see are the liars here at this blog who are denying what these crooks are doing is highly criminal and illegal. Obviously there are nothing but barfly attorney’s perusing this site trying to destroy the country.




  466. I have never seen anything spread so fast so far. Naysayers are more than welcome to attack it, belittle it, berate it and otherwise scream against it in all caps. It is alive, it is growing and it is unstoppable. Learn about it and how to use it or white-knuckle into the old, dead paradigm. Your choice.

  467. I believe it is time for people to begin to file legal Commercial LIENS On the Judges, under the pretext of fraud, dereliction of duty, and a host of other charges that Neil and others are aware of.
    Someone NEEDS this process to begin.
    Judges have their own interests tied up into the stocks of Banks, Retirement Plans et al. Obvious conflict of interest.

    Enough is enough. Read more online…Filing Commercial Liens/Judges/Public Officials.

  468. To declare and believe that the problem can be resolved in court is naive and unrealistic. it is a worldwide financial scandal and it is getting worldwide solutions. As I keep saying, it didn’t happen in a vacuum, it didn’t appear overnight and it is only the culmination of decades of wrongdoing. Some of that alleged debt dates back 50, 60, 80 years.

    Debt forgiveness is happening everywhere. That is the only long-term solution and, apparently, i am not the only to believe it.

  469. Here is a manuscript written one year ago which is said to discuss post-foreclosure challenges:

  470. People spend a lot of time in formal education to get a license to practice law (I did say practice)
    Others, like me, are pulled into the rules with no training.
    To dismiss those of us pulled into the rules of the court by telling use we can not ” appoint an authorized representative” or to prevent the “unauthorized practice of law” is a monopoly.
    No one said it was illegal, you said it was unauthorized.
    Well who would authorize it? I see. No One.
    So as long as the table was slanted for those that spent a lot of years ‘practicing’, it’s okay to have them win.

    The system was never about equity and never about justice. It’s not about real law, it’s about practicing under some authority of a man who is as a God and can make you are break you, leave you with food, clothing, and shelter, or strip you of everything in your possession with the stroke of a pen and their signature.

    They act as a God, and they make rulings as a God, and sign documents as a God and they will change One’s Life with the stroke of a pen, as a God.

    There is no justice in that. A complaint should be well heard, because people have not chosen them to be their God, but have gone to that court to appeal to the One who acts as a God over their life to say, do not do this to me; do not let them take this from me.

    I don’t care how nice the judge is. It’s what he does that affects others that matters. He’s a nice guy dispossessing people from their homes because he wants them to spend money on someone who’s ‘practicing law and has first duty to the court’.

    Where’s the justice in that, when the homeowner had a ‘representative’ that was not representing the trust the state created, their authorized representative stood as an equal. One with the Creator and One who would witness what was done to an equal who asked for their help. One who would witness what was done in the name of justice; in a place where there is no ‘rule of law’, only practices.

    Neil, you center where you are aligned. Be sure you are where you want to be when the time comes to answer for what you’ve chosen to do.

    Trespass Unwanted, Life, Corporeal, People, Free and Independent State, Alive, In Being, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  471. I see my friends in Illinois have been hard at work protecting our residents. See article.. stop foreclosure fraud .com

  472. I was looking for an mail from my daughter and saw this. You are truly clueless and to put me in the same place as stripes shows your ignorance. You know nothing of my sanctions or that numerous state and federal judges disapproved of the sanctions and were against my disbarment. I suggest you apologize for something you know nothing about. Stripes is a jerk. I have thousands of cases that I have done and very successfully. I have made case law and worked tirelessly for those discriminated against in the workplace and whistleblowers. I doubt stripes has ever done anything for anyone but himself. If you want to learn about my disbarment and the sanctions which the trial judge who heard my case called “nothing short of a witch hunt”. Send me an email at and I will send you my short book. Perhaps you might learn something. Anyone else may ask for it as well. You are clueless .I go on this website occasionally and its people like you as well as stripes that make me sick to my stomach and I quit. But then again, that’s’ what you probably want so that I don’t inform people. I’ve been ahead of my time for 30 yyears and still am. I’m going back to dealing with grandchildren. I doubt I will hear from you because all you want to do is cast me in a bad light–right Buck–isn’t that your purpose. Plant a seed. What a jerk.

  473. In every disaffected person, unless he/she is patently unintelligible [code 1=”that” 2=”lawyers” 3=”use” 4=”with” 5=”frequency” 6=”to” 7=”discredit” 8=”anybody” 9=”who” 10=”is” 11=”pro” 12=”se” 13=”or” 14=”pissed” 15=”off” language=”word”][/code], there is usually some truth and/or rationale for their positiion. Sadly, if anybody has a right to be pissed it is me though I still write in a calm and logical fashion, citing controling law that judges are supposed to file as a ministerial duty. Moreover, nobody has more experience in court litigation, without ever being found guilty of a crime, than me. As for the vitriol of guys and gals like both Stripe and Gwen, let’s not forget that both of them have been sanctioned.
    In defense of Stripes, the truth is that treason is a crime for which there can be no pardon and the aristocracy of France was prosecuted for treason. Vincent Bugliosi, the famed prosecutor of Charles Manson has publcily offered to prosecute George II for war crimes and wrote an article titled “None Dare Call it Treason” for what the Rep majority of SOTA did in Bush v. Gore. Hundreds of law professors joined in his analysis including Prof. Dershowitz of Harvard Law, in his book Supreme Injustice. Fact is judges are usually just lazy lawyers who prefer corruption to working for their moolah. As the one lawyer said to the other [when passing a 7-11 holdup in progress]: “if only it was that easy’! I rest my case and retire to my chambers.

  474. Crooks like you guest, who lie and deceive mankind in order to steal, deserve the harshest punishment the law will allow….Treason means the death penalty…3 felonies means life in prison. I prefer the former.

  475. What it means to be free and independent in America…..



  476. Gwen,
    I have a lot of respect for you. But not all pro se litigants are off-base kooks who throw silver pieces at judges. Many are quite intelligent and gifted. A law school course or even a law degree does not make one an expert on the law, or even an expert on the specific aspect of the law one might have taken a class (or several classes) in. My undergraduate degree is in history, for example, but that doesn’t mean I know everything about history, even with regard to the historical subjects I studied in college.

    I wish you all the best and I appreciate your efforts in this fight. Lawyers lose these cases at least as often as pro se litigants, but no one here is asserting that we shouldn’t hire lawyers. Well, maybe I am, to a point. What I’m trying to say is, I agree that in an ideal world, lawyers would be able to win these cases without a great deal of effort. But the lawyers are losing, too. Lawyers make bad law, too. Not every lawyer is a dedicated fighter like you, Gwen. Not every lawyer will go to the mat for his/her client no matter the cost to the lawyer personally/professionally. In fact, I dare say most lawyers will not go to the mat–they will pull punches and sell out their clients in order to preserve their relationship with judges or opposing counsel, with whom they will have to deal for the remainder of their careers.

    And as far as excerpting cases being somehow not useful, I don’t follow you. That is how it is done, in every case I’ve ever read, including my own. One finds an instance of where a appellate court said something in one’s favor, and one uses that to bolster one’s point.

    One last thing–the law is not rocket science. It’s complex, but it’s also simple. Statutes say what they say, precedents say what they say. One need not be an attorney to understand the plain language of these things. One need not be an attorney to marshal these statutes and precedents into a coherent presentation of one’s argument. After all, as I mentioned earlier, even if a pro se litigant isn’t quite as coherent as maybe a judge would like him/her to be, there is a requirement that that judge must liberally construe that pro se litigant’s briefs as well as that pro se litigant’s claims for relief. The reason for that is that our system of law was not meant to be the exclusive domain of professional litigators. We are supposed to be able to do things for ourselves, including representing ourselves in court.

    And lest one think that I am a bitter pro se litigant who would as soon throw 30 pieces of silver at a judge as look at him, I will again say that the judge in my case said, in writing, that I would have won my quiet title claim if the bank had not produced an endorsed note. This endorsed note, by the way, appeared only near the end of the 2.5 years of litigation, after there were already two sworn affidavits from two defendants stating that the unendorsed note was true and correct. So I know very well that I was more than able to make my points, cite case and statutory law correctly. And the judge and opposing counsel knew that very well. The judge let the bank get away with a manufactured, “ta-da” endorsement. If he hadn’t, I would have won, according to the judge himself. That is the perspective from which I make my comments above (and below).

    I hope you feel better soon, Gwen and keep fighting. I know you will!

  477. I have an over whelming urge to slap the Sh*t out of Stripes. Lucky for Her …. Orange is not my color!


  479. I must leave this discourse to pursue actual results but, I posted the exact language of the Supremes in 1959 [Beacon case] to help clear the air or the conjecture about what most seem to agree upon though they fail to see the big picture. The 7th Amendment guarantees a right to jury trial in civil cases and makes no distinction or whether it be law or equity, a kinly distinction that our Constitution’s Bill of Rights sought to clarify. Just as kings dictated that nobody could sue them, the judges of today have effectively relied on kingly law [minamed as “common”] to give themselves immunity for what is tantamount to crime and they all protect each other. As for stomping on any lawyer that stands up, Gwen admits it by her disbarment. As for remedies for judicial corruption, there are laws but nobody to prosecute them since they do not like to be disbarred. Finally, the Magna Carta is the true Common Law [now 800 years old] extorted from King John at sword point and reinforced by Griffin v Illinois, in the 50s, when the right to counsel for criminal defense was first compelled in this country. To remind our less than tolerant friends at the Bar, it goes like this:
    “[N]o free man shall be … outlawed, or exiled, or anywise destroyed; but by the lawful judgment of his peers…” Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956) citing @ 17 the Magna Charta [sic].”