Borrower Beware: Don’t Payoff Without Tender of REAL Original Note

The Perils of Payoff

On the road again: I met a fellow on the Red Coach from Tallahassee to Fort Lauderdale who is pursuing a case that proves the central point of this blog: Whether you are selling, refinancing, Short-Selling, or otherwise paying off your supposed loan balance, the institution that receives the payoff (a) has no right to the money and (b) has no authority to execute a satisfaction of the note and mortgage even upon receipt of the money. And the reason is that in most cases they don’t have the note, which means it is still in circulation somewhere supporting as much as 42 times the face value of the note in hedges and derivatives. When confronted with a payoff of the loan, the institution is more than happy to take your money but will lie and cheat to avoid providing you with a real non-photo-shopped original note.

Unfortunately, most people are still taking it on FAITH that the note is indeed satisfied and that the mortgage is released and satisfied at the time of the payoff but they are very wrong if they don’t get the original note at closing, since THAT is what is presumptively the cash equivalent instrument that is traded in the secondary market, and since the mortgage usually is presumed to follow the note, that gives the actual owner of the note the opportunity to make a claim — something that is already happening and will occur with increasing frequency.

So whether you are buying property, selling property or paying off the “old” mortgage for any reason you are not only creating a title mess, you have no proof that the original note has been canceled. Which led me to suggest in a few articles that for those able to do it, call the bluff of the pretender lender. And for those investors looking to make an infinite return on their money, they should be helping homeowners do this in or out of court: OFFER TO PAY THE BALANCE IN FULL AS DEMANDED BY THE PRETENDER LENDER ON THREE CONDITIONS: (A) PRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AND THE RIGHT TO INSPECT IT FOR AUTHENTICITY (B) PRODUCTION OF PROOF OF PAYMENT AT ORIGINATION AND ALL TRANSFERS UPON WHICH THE PRETENDER LENDER RELIES FOR ITS AUTHORITY TO COLLECT THE MONEY AND (C) PROOF OF LOSS BY ACCESS TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE LOAN OR WHO HAVE A BACK-DOOR OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE LOAN THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF A DERIVATIVE OR CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP.

This is not for the feint of heart nor the people who don’t have access to actual funds that can be tendered in full payment. It is possible for the occasional real note to pop up and perhaps even sufficient proof that the Judge would rule it is sufficient to close the deal in which case you will have paid 100 cents on the dollars demanded in exchange for a loan valued at perhaps half that amount. But most of the time it will look like the following case described to me last night. I’ve changed facts (identities and figures) to protect the privacy of the individuals involved. But the foundation of the case is accurately described.

Owner Schwartenheimer has a mortgage claimed by Bank of America. It is for $3 million on a private residence in the State of Florida. He has a buyer at $2 million which leaves him $1 million short of the amount demanded by the “bank” claiming to own and service his mortgage. An estoppel letter is issued by BofA indicating the payoff amount and the dates that the estoppel letters is effective and may be relied upon.

The closing is in 5 weeks. And the Owner has elected to payoff the extra $1 million rather than attempt a short-sale. So the Bank is going to get full payment at closing — $2 million from the buyer and $1 million from the seller.

But the Owner’s daughter, an astute business woman who happens to be an avid reader of this blog intervenes with the demand that the original note be produced at closing. BofA assures her that the original note will be produced. At closing without the daughter in attendance, the father, as instructed by his daughter, demands to see a copy of the original note before he turns over the money to BofA. His buyer is there with the money and he has a bank check ready and payable to BofA for $1 million.

The curious answer from BofA is that they have the note but were unable to get it to the closing agent in time for the morning closing, but that it would be available for delivery at 4PM that afternoon. The proper thing would have been to wait until they produce the note. The Owner asks his lawyer, who is also a title agent, for advice on what to do. The lawyer thinks that the daughter is nuts and so is Neil Garfield with his livinglies conspiracy blog.

The lawyer advises the client to proceed with the closing under the belief that BofA obviously MUST have the original note or else they would not have issued an estoppel letter and signed the papers to satisfy and discharge the mortgage in recordable form. Whether that advice will further be the subject of a malpractice case against the lawyer is another matter to consider at a later time. And the repercussions of that could extend to all sorts of situations where a “mortgage” and “note” are involved —even to the far reaches of family law.

As you have no doubt guessed, at 4pm the Owner and his daughter show up at 4pm to get the original note and of course it is not there, despite having been informed that it WAS there. The daughter although not a lawyer, is far from amused. She writes a bristling letter to BofA demanding that either they produce the original note or give the money back — and she demands not only the $3 million paid at “closing” but all the interest and principal paid before that for a total demand of $5 million.

BofA immediately responds with apologies and assures her and her father that the note will be provided.

[A word of context here: if BofA wanted to take the position that the note was lost or destroyed they could have filed an appropriate action to reconstitute the note and mortgage. But they didn’t do that, for good reason — the mortgage loan was supporting $60 million in credit derivatives, insurance and credit default swaps upon which BofA had already been paid. If they admit they don’t have the note and they can’t account for where it was last seen, and when it disappeared in the manner required to re-establish the note with assurance to the court that the real original won’t show up at a later time in the hands of a different claimant, in that event they might be subject to claims from insurance companies and counter-parties of credit default swaps for repayment of $60 million they paid and which was received by BofA. [considerable over-simplification is being used here, but the point remains true].

So BofA and the owner (with the new owner in the background wringing his hands over whether he really received clear title and whether his title policy excluded claims from securitization) go back and forth until BofA counsel informs the owner he doesn’t need the original note because BofA has already signed the satisfaction.

The owner and daughter, unsatisfied with that response (as well they should be) file a lawsuit against BofA for return of all money ever paid to them, plus statutory interest. BofA defends the action with various motions to dismiss and has now delayed discovery 5 times.

Suddenly the senior partner of the prestigious law firm representing BofA calls the daughter and asks what she wants. She replies that she wants her money back and he says “well, without saying we agree to your demand, for settlement purposes what would you take to satisfy your demand for your money back.” He understands that even if they pay the father $5 million or more, they are still saving the client (a) the $60 million payback to insurers who already paid and (b) the prospect of facing a lot more of these lawsuits from people who have the money and the right fact pattern to prosecute the case.

The daughter wants to dig in her heals knowing she has BofA over a barrel.

The lawyer who represented the owner at closing is still clueless and believes the action filed by the father and daughter is totally without merit. His advice, perhaps self-serving, is that they demand nothing.

The daughter wants it all — if BofA can’t produce any evidence that they ever bought the loan, that they ever knew or anyone ever knew where the note was, then she wants all the payments, monthly or otherwise were made to BofA without BofA having any right or authority or even excuse to collect the money.

The father as previous and perhaps still owner of the property would be satisfied with the money paid at closing to BofA — $3 million. BofA’s attorneys are now in process of suggesting a modification to the claim filed by the father in court upon which they will settle — and from the looks of it, the settlement will be for the full amount paid at closing. Thus if the note is still in circulation, the father will have received the full value of it from BofA who accepted it under false pretenses. The case is not settled yet, but is looming on the horizon.

The moral of the story is that this is all about money. And if you can find a way to come up with actual cash you can make the same offer as the owner did above — and in my opinion achieve the same results. And if people pool their money and make the offer to refinance the property at the full value of the demand made by the pretender lender — whether in foreclosure or not — a bona fide actual offer can be made and cannot be ignored by either the court or the pretender lender.

For those with entrepreneurial spirit  this is a business plan that I wish to raise money for. Write to if you are interested in combining resources with other investors to execute this business plan.

In Summary: The refinance package signed by the present owner provides that if the payment is required to be made, they now owe the money to the hedge fund or whatever entity put up the money and provides modification terms acceptable to the owner — which means a net loss to the investor. But, if the usual case prevails, and the pretender lender is forced to back off, a quiet title action, plus refinance of the property at 1/3 of the amount demanded by the pretender lender results in a windfall note and mortgage to the source of refinancing without ever having paid the “prior note”.

These entrepreneurs, if I am right, will rarely have to pay an actual some of money to discharge the old note and mortgage while at the same time the owner gets the property free and clear except for a new mortgage to the investors for 1/3 of the original principal demanded plus a reasonable fixed interest rate with 40 year amortization, all of which can be sold into the secondary market. It is a virtually infinite return without putting very much money at risk and no risk of a total loss.

And for those without money — check the court file to see whether the original note has been tendered because most states, like Florida want the original note filed and out of circulation before they will allow a foreclosure sale even if it is determined that a foreclosure sale is proper in the circumstances. There is only one party that can submit a credit bid at auction — the party with the original note and proof of loss.


92 Responses

  1. Grace A.M. Liars-Lawyers R NoN-License N this USA…They R ONLY Members of the BAR/ A-BAR…don’t think; KNOWING is Knowledgeable with Wisdom; BLESS ALL!!!

  2. @ guest

    Sheriffs don’t give a crap about your, or about who they evict. They’re bribed either from the top, or on the side, or from both sides. Their single objective is to kick people out of homes, change locks and give new keys to thieves.
    All the eviction papers sheriffs have received in the past few years have been robo-signed. This has been proved by AGs, by courts, by media, etc.
    Sheriffs have duties to locate the lawyers who presented them those robo-signed papers and hang them for execution, but have you seen that happen once! No, because they’re all dirty.

    Several related recent posts on VeteransToday website are troubling, and speak much against all our “law-enforcement”, and especially sheriffs.
    For instance the below link shows that our top sheriffs are trained in Israel. Although the official reason provided is “training against terrorism”, it was argued on VT that, the undisclosed real reason is training in brutal eviction tactics of Americans from their homes, resulting in homelessness of millions, including tens of thousands of U.S. veterans.

  3. Really GUEST? Violence? For starters… the law says to serve in the name of the sheriffs dept, your statements are sworn to be legit. Same as in court. It is not the sheriffs job to verify the info, but they can nail them if someone objects …. Same as in court.

  4. @ Sunman, on February 27, 2013 at 12:33 comment:
    “So, what can you do if you have already lost your home to the fraud? I tryed the superior court….The judge basically laughed, and the bank proceeded to foreclose on me.”

    Sounds like the judge was bribed as a bank-lawyer routine.

    I wonder if a few dozen bribed judges, lawyers, or eviction sheriffs, were taken out around the country, by people like the late LAPD RAMBO, then would the bribed crooks think twice about selling out the American public for pennies on the dollar?

  5. Nice Patrick!

  6. @ET

    At closing, the borrower grants the lender a lien. Likewise, its the borrower who grants MERS its nominee status for successors and assigns, not the current MERS member. Without the borrower’s grant, MERS cannot be soley the nominee for the lender and its successor and assigns in the public record. Thus, the borrower grants and expects that MERS will always and forever remain the nominee for any successor and assign. Which makes any assignment of the mortgage out of MERS ultra vires to the borrower’s grant.

    As for an assignment from MERS to a named entity who happens to also be a MERS member – the purpose of such an assignment would be to remove the mortgage from the MERS system, no? Well, if the named assignee is a member of the club, it has agreed that MERS will act as its placeholder as a condition of membership. So the named assignee can’t accept the assignment from MERS because of a previous agreement.

    MERS is a closed system and the creators never anticipated MERS would need to assign the lien out of MERS name in order for a member to foreclose. Indeed, that defeats the benefit of membership. Therefore, there wasn’t any contemplation over exactly who the successor or assign was that would authorize such an assignment. So if the last endorser to blank is defunct years before the recorded assignment, who was it nominee for at the time of the assignment?

    The only way the mortgage recording escapes from the island of MERS is if the note is satisfied or if the debt is transferred to a non-mers member. Once granted, the borrower can’t rescind its grant but if “soley as nominee for the lender and its successor and assigns” doesn’t mean what is says in plain language, the borrower was duped and induced to make its grant based upon a fraud.

    If it is found that it can assign, somebody needs to answer the question over why MERS is able to assign a status greater than what is was granted. If it is merely a nominee or placeholder in the public record, its assignee can’t be more than that.


    Dennis Kelleher, an advocate for financial reform who leads a Washington-based non-profit Better Markets, argued that the real motive of the change is to enable Wall Street to continue its profitable, but reckless, gambling on derivatives.

    “As we said to Commissioner Wetjen and other commissioners in recent meetings, gutting the … rules will only help Wall Street’s biggest banks continue to control the marketplace and will defeat the purposes of financial reform,” Kelleher said in a written statement. “The law was passed because Wall Street caused the biggest financial collapse since the Great Crash of 1929 and has inflicted the worst economy on the U.S. since the Great Depression. Financial reform is supposed to prevent that from happening again. The CFTC must stand up to Wall Street, reject self-serving, profit-maximizing arguments, and protect the American people.”

  8. @ET

    “The borrower simply has no rights, merely an opaque obligation, kind of like….shut up and pay whomever we tell you to.”

    Perfect nutshell.

  9. Patrick, I’m having issues with a few of your thoughts and could use some think tank, such as where you say:

    Moreover, MERS cannot assign the mortgage to a named entity if that named entity is also a MERS member. The borrower grants that MERS will be the mortgagee solely as nominee for the lender and its successor and assigns. Therefore, it is the reasonable expectation of the borrower that MERS will forever remain the mortgagee of record until the note is satisfied or until the debt is transferred to a non-mers member. If this is not the case, then the borrower was fraudulently induced at the closing to make its grant.

    Interesting argument, I’m just not buying it, but would love to be educated to the contrary. On what grounds would you lay your premise that “MERS cannot assign the mortgage to a named entity if that named entity is also a MERS member.” What I did read in the standard clause you referenced i.e. “The borrower grants that MERS will be the mortgagee solely as nominee for the lender and its successor and assigns.” To me that does not disallow assigning to another MERS member, as in the MERS member being an “assigns” of the originating lender. What am I looking at wrong here?

    Now obviously or at least in my view, your assertion is contrary to common practice all over the states. The MERS artifice is, however, being abused by the opposite side of your opinion, meaning that any MERS member who decides to grant itself a mortgage may do so, just because they are a MERS member. At least that’s the legal paradigm where I come from, and I know that it prevails in many other jurisdictions as well.

    I’ve argued with many a lawyer about this distinction, specifically that MERS can only have an agency relationship with the originating lender….any other MERS member downstream gains no agency unless the original lender grants that agency in writing and assignment. And that is what is clearly being trampled time and again by courts allowing any MERS member to step in and assign to themselves, whether the original lender is defunct matters not to the judges, and this in my mind is clearly wrong and ass-backwards.

    I think this goes to the heart of the fraud that is securitization and MERS. The borrower simply has no rights, merely an opaque obligation, kind of like….shut up and pay whomever we tell you to. The only rights the mortgagor has is the right to rent from them when they’re done with us.

  10. @JG

    Bingo. Case in point. Taylor Bean Whitaker, a bankrupt and defunct entity, is the last record endorser of the note. MERS mortgage assignment to plaintiff is executed years after the TBW bankruptcy. Not withstanding that a bankrupt entity can’t endorse a note, from its bankruptcy, MERS is disqualified from being TBW’s nominee because TBW can no longer be the successor and assign of the lender. There is nobody left intact that can claim to authorize MERS to assign the mortgage based upon the record chain of endorsements.

    Moreover, MERS cannot assign the mortgage to a named entity if that named entity is also a MERS member. The borrower grants that MERS will be the mortgagee soley as nominee for the lender and its successor and assigns. Therefore, it is the reasonable expectation of the borrower that MERS will forever remain the mortgagee of record until the note is satisfied or until the debt is transferred to a non-mers member. If this is not the case, then the borrower was fraudulently induced at the closing to make its grant.

    Lastly, MERS is merely a nominee. It can’t assign a better status than what the borrower granted it because the assignee steps into the shoes of the assignor. Therefore, the only status MERS can assign is that of nominee, or placeholder, for the successor and assign of the lender. It was the borrower’s grant. MERS is the borrower’s bitch.

  11. How could they ever prove a loss when they got $60.4 trillion in U.S. taxpayer funded bailouts since 2008, backed by a $12 trillion dollar U.S. TAXPAYER INVESTMENT…? This is an outrage of epic proportions. The lights are on but nobodies home in this country.

  12. I should say the bank owners perps on Wall Street could make ALOT more money dividing these frauds among banks and chopping up the frauds in a million pieces….than a million more…between many banks ALL HIDDEN UNDER THE CLOAK OF MERS SECRECY….MERS IS WHERE THEY HID AND DUMPED THEIR FRAUD VIA THE TITLE COMPANIES…

    For example, on my title, not long after MERS dumped their fraud, and Chicago Title & Trust dumped their fraud public…in 2007….our nightmare began.

  13. If the Issuer of the credit never paid back the Original loan they borrowed in our names….BEFORE CONVERSION…they never performed on their contract. They must perform Acceptance and Consideration, the UCC STATUTORY LEGAL REQUIREMENTS before they convert those instruments into securities…. They never SECURITIZED these as evidenced by NO LEGAL TRUST AGREEMENTS…AKA THE LEGAL ASSIGNMENTS. The only logical reason they did not securitize these was their perps on Wall Street could make ALOT more money dividing up these frauds into a million pieces and overinsuring their fraud. This was how the bank owners destroyed the value of our property. Why the banks kept refinancing their fraud was to keep the Ponzi Scheme going and take on more investors in the refis all while equity stripping the people, they were debauching the property values. They were able to fraudulently inflate the property values by lending us our own equity at interest and tacking it back on the mortgage all while debauching the value of the properties….and it didn’t cost them a dime….!

  14. Over the course of time, people here have referred to trusts as empty or dissolved. I can readily understand how a trust might be empty if the transfers of the loans never actually took place (still I believe the trust has at least security interests in the loans if they paid for them, so that’s not technically empty). But I admit I don’t understand this
    “dissolved” at all. Anyone?

    Also, I posit that the assignment of the note in the “MERS” assgt of the coll interest to a trust is prima facie evidence the note has not been
    transferred previously (and when something is prima facie, it may be overcome, but only with credible evidence). If “MERS” has authority to assign a note, it’s news to us, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they haven’t been empowered and we just don’t know about it. Ordinarily,
    if you pay me for a note and I don’t deliver (and by way of the UCC I have a security interest in both the note and its coll instrument), I have a right to the delivery and end of the note and may sue to get it if necessary. I am no longer a holder because I have no right to payment on the note – you do. But you’re not a holder, either, because the note has not been transferred. And, in this condition, no one meets the def of Lender as articulated in the note. That’s the way I get this. Plus of course only a legit transferee may re-transfer to another. For instance, if i only have a security interest, that’s all I could transfer. I think.
    If I never became a holder myself, I can’t transfer.
    As to the prima facie evidence in a MERS assgt that the note has not been previously transferred, unlike a trust, between you and me no right to payment has been sold as a security and no trust law or contractual cut off date is a factor. So as between you and me, you simply demand that I fork over the note or sue me to get it. But with the trusts, securities were sold on the basis of the transfer having taken place. No, I can’t prove it by citing this and that, but it stands to reason that securities may not be issued on mere security interests, but I don’t know.
    Maybe they can be issued on the indentured party’s obligation to the
    secured party, which is also to say the indentured party is the
    primary obligor on the notes to the indentured party. I think, but again, don’t know. If that’s true, then as between you and me, I could just transfer the missing note to you and end my own obligation. Not so from what I gather with trust law and cut off dates in the act, but this appears to be just what is being done – notes are being transferred -because there IS a reason for the notes being included in these assignments.
    If the assignment of the note in the assgt of the dot is, as I believe it is, prima facie evidence the note is just now being transferred to a trust, WHAT have we got here?



  16. Millions of small business owners & THEIR BUSINESSES were liquidated by these TBTF CROOKS because of all of their criminal fraud and it was INTENTIONAL. This manufactured crisis had absolutely nothing to do with anything any of us did wrong.









  17. Guest, it has nothing to do with intimidation, that’s my point. I even had my AG threaten B of A’s office of the president over a QWR…it doesn’t phase them because there’s NO ONE ENFORCING. There are no regulators, no policing. You can kid yourself all day long if you think having a law firm write them in your stead is going to make a difference.

  18. I need to stop multi tasking for a moment. Sorry about my last statement, disregard it. What I was trying to say is they Respond Better to homeowners attorneys than homeowners.

  19. E. Tolle ….. Did you ever try hiring and attorney and having another atttorney send it? Works for Me!


  21. Not one of these Globalist crooks should be allowed to resign with one shred of dignity.

  22. There is a fake pity party for the EQUITY STRIPPING, WEALTH STEALING TBTF crooks by the TBTF crooks that has been going on for over 4 years now… the TBTF pity party for the pope that is going on right now on the TBTF networks and I’m not buying that one either.


  24. The $80 grand they stole from our home equity without our knowledge or consent had nothing to do with our small business credit line….the crooks stole that money to put in their pockets as a down payment on their fraud. We never borrowed any money from these crooks….they equity stripped our home and stole our equity without our knowledge or consent. This is the direct result of unregulated banks taking advantage of hard working Americans by committing massive Consumer Fraud and Deceptive business practices. CLEANING OUT MAIN STREET…. Pity party ha…! You show me when we were ever late on a payment before these crooks shut down our small business credit line……the answer is NEVER……! YOU ARE THE DEADBEAT EQUITY STRIPPING CROOKS AND SHEISTER SWINDLERS…!

  25. Guest channels Mary saying, “Send them (the mill firm) a letter, certified mail, return receipt request, demanding that counsel sign an affidavit stating they have examined all documents submitted to the court and there is NO fraud.”

    This is nothing short of high comedy, in my book. Great comedic value there, and you’d have to have access to some potent sensimilla to think it’d get you anywhere. And believe me, the law firm, from the janitor and receptionist all the way to the firm’s senior partner would pound knees and slap backs at the humor. QWR’s are routinely ignored by all the parties involved. Why? Why not? No one is regulating, enforcing, or giving a shit. Why bother when there’s no cop on the beat?

    Tell Mary that these firms work outside of the law, with built-in iron-clad protections. In my neck of the woods, all the criminals have to do is have whichever bank wants to steal the house execute and file a notice of pendency of proceeding naming Dewey, Stealem and Howe as foreclosure counsel. Then it’s all legal. Judges love it when the borrower cannot refute, at least in his/her courtroom. The bank has anointed.

    As to sneaking up behind these law firms doing the bank’s dirty-work, how does one counter the court’s cabal loving sentiment that, “attorneys acting within the scope of employment are “immune from liability to third persons for actions arising out of that professional relationship.” The judge, in my ruling went on to say, “….there is no scenario in which the nondiverse defendants could be liable for slander of title, unjust enrichment, outrageous tortious conduct, deceit or negligence.”This even though the law firm took it upon themselves to fabricate assignments that transferred my property to two separate entities on two separate occasions. Wouldn’t the lack of consideration possibly point towards one if not all of the above mentioned criminal acts, such as unjust enrichment? Not in his courtroom. The banks will not lose on his watch. Ain’t gonna’ happen.

    The judge went on arguing the bankster’s side, as if they needed more help than simply being under his cloak, when the he opined and ruled that my service to the bank was faulty, because, although my process server swore to sending the summons and complaint by “express mail”, there’s no indication that this is in fact the same as “first class” mail, so he conveniently took it upon himself to toss my service. End of litigation, at least in his courtroom. This service issue was never even brought up by opposing counsel. You have to admire criminality taken to such heights. It’s like the Olympics of Fraud. These old judges simply DO NOT CARE if their ruling is bogus. They might as well be snidely saying, “SO SUE ME!”

    I could go on all day and into the night. I won’t. Suffice it to say that without a doubt, all Mary’s arguments are moot, as the lowly borrower has/had no rights to the property whatsoever, save for the right to pay an exorbitant amount for thirty years before being unmercifully plundered. Forget about “normal” pathways, all such roads lead to the same place, broken down rental units owned by these same oligarchic entities now cloaked as landlords.


  27. Your business credit line was paid off with your refi along with your $80,000+ cash out. Sumbuddy forgot to close out that credit line after the refi and Sumbudddy like you found out and kept cashing out on it. When the bank realized the error … you were shut off! Quit Lying and trying to drum up yourself a pity paty…. You know dag gone well what you did!~! Move On!!

  28. Everybody had much debt when the TBTF crooks pulled small business credit lines out of no where, for no reason. They forced millions of small business owners out of business and millions lost their livelihoods over TBTF FRAUD.

    Remember this manufactured crisis was the biggest robbery and transfer of wealth from Main Street to TBTF IN HISTORY…..


    This was an evil plan by TBTF to wipeout the private sector businesses and steal our property under the guise of saving TBTF who transferred all of our stolen wealth overseas and cried broke…..AND BLAMED US FOR THEIR CRIMES AGAINST US…TBTF ARE SNEAKY, WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING….!

  29. The real story here is these bank/Wall Street crooks owe exponentially more than these properties were ever worth, stole more money, $60.4 trillion dollars in bailout money, backed by an original $12 trillion in property values, and pocketed that money too. This manufactured financial crisis and these fraudclosures are simply robbery and transfer of our remaining wealth to our enemies both foreign & domestic who don’t pay for anything, but invest in their own fraud. This is TBTF Bankster black ops.

    Read my comment below at 11:41 p.m. about these Globalists and their plan they hatched to destroy America by stealing all of our wealth and re-distributing it around the world. This phase of their evil plan is what the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 was all about. This massive transfer of wealth from the industriaized nations to poor nations around the globe was all about GLOBAL SOCIALISM, PEOPLE CONTROL and WORLD GOVERNMENT.

  30. Neil, ANONYMOUS said it all before…:

    “…People with much debt were targeted. Easy to put GSE loan in default — no one would appear to question. Subprime are loans in which only servicing rights transferred. They were not actual mortgages, because the debt was already charged off. Collection rights do not have to be funded. All you get is a servicer — there is no lender — there is no creditor. Of course, they needed someone to foreclose, and naming servicer largely does not work in court. So they started naming the trusts that pass through cash payments to security investors in collection rights. Problem is — these trusts were never the lender, never the creditor.

    You can ask johngault this —– if you are NOT in default, and tried to refinance, where would the payoff go?? Would it go to the trust??? Trust has to record this and report to SEC. Would it go to servicer??? Servicer is not a creditor/lender/mortgagee?? How will you get a proper cancellation of mortgage?? Trusts are largely dissolved, trustees have abandoned responsibility. How would you get a valid payoff from a refinance???”

  31. As usual, guest is the pot calling the kettle black….! I already discussed that State Tax bill with 2 attorneys who told me that is not an issue. That can be easily settled and is not relevant in the big picture.

  32. Don’t you lousy crooks dare try to shame me and my family by parading your criminal shame across this website. We did nothing illegal. You crooks are who owe the IRS a ton of money. You are lying crooks who don’t pay your bills. For 25 years we were never late with a bill or a mortgage payment and then you crooks came along and put us out of business and cross collateralized our home with our business without our knowledge or consent. You are scums of the earth….!

  33. That is an absolute lie guest. You are a lousy liar. We do not owe the IRS any money. The State tax bill is small and is left over from when they put us out of business and can be settled out of court. The State tax bill does not add up to a hill of beans let alone a foreclosures.

  34. In every instance, of quiet title the attorney’s disappear? They want quiet title so they don’t have to pay monetary damages and they should have to pay monetary damages. I have talked to many attorney’s who say they never even heard of a quiet title suit. The State AGs office told me there is fraud in every mortgage and for that these crooks should have to pay. No exceptions.

    The truth is, this has been a living nightmare for those of us who gave a darn to find out the truth about this evil plan. Those of us who took the time, and a lot of it, to fight these crooks and got to the bottom of their scheme deserve monetary compensation and a lot of it.

    The fact that we could not find a lawyer to represent us and fight this massive fraud is in itself, a crime.

    Now we are being told to hire lawyers to fight the fraud?

    What a bunch of shit head snakes in the grass…!

  35. Stripper…. I already told you… you can not be helped here! You have the IRS and the State on your carcuss for taxes. Not to mention the forceplaced homeowners ins. Your Dingy is sinking.

  36. I like Mary! …

  37. Get an attorney for what a loan modification and 40 yrs of slavery to their massive debt fraud? The courts should be dismissing these cases left & right with prejudice clear title plus monetary damages.

  38. Mary says ….. everyone else who has received a notice from law firm for ‘lenders” or servicer:

    Send them a letter, certified mail, return receipt request, demanding that counsel sign an affidavit stating they have examined all documents submitted to the court and there is NO fraud.

    Also, they have spoken/met with a specific individual person, at their client firm who has direct knowledge of the facts of your loan. Not a computer print-out. A real conversation with a real person. Of course, they’ll need to provide the name, title of the individual and verify they worked for the client. And the date, time and evidence the conversation(s) occurred.

    This is extremely important because if an attorney signs this affidavit and fraud is uncovered, they are directly implicated. The attorney could be sued for malpractice and lose their license. A signed affadavit is considered testimony before the court – if they lie on this form, it’s perjury.

    In every instance, the attorneys disappear. The legal actions end. The lender and their client go away.

    When this happens, file a Quiet Title Action. They will not show up, you will win by default and be mortgage-free.

  39. Mary says ……. you have the right to demand evidence to confirm the identity of your true creditor.

    Don’ t worry about teeing BOA off. They have a lot more to worry about than you do.

    Send Brian Moynihan at BOA the QWR ASAP.

    Question – who originated your loan? If it was Countrywide, you are foreclosure-proof.

    While you’re waiting for QWR gather all the docs associated with your property from the local registry of deeds. Follow all steps outlined in the post.

  40. If your loan was removed from the Mers System … Ask yourself Why? Then get an Attorney!

  41. Ask Yourself … How can a non mers member transfer/assign/sell anything in Mers name? Who (non-mers member without a no mers officer to sign and seal) is illeagaly using the Mers Seals and pretending to be Mers officers and forging docs? We already know DocX, LPS and the FC mills were forging Notary Seals. Right?

  42. I think I blew my cover… LPS is not talking to me anymore.

  43. Mers Members and Mers Non Members alike … must defend lawsuits filed against Mers. Makes you wonder why … huh?

  44. Tie together the FC Mill and the Title Co (possibly insurer to), then think the lil shop where rubber stampers are made to order….. without any verification. I had proven this 2 years ago! Most of the FC Mill attorneys represent and have ownership of those little title companies. It is my presumption …. they are protecting their own arises!

  45. The Mers assignment of note and mortgage was filed in 2011….. Way after the Mers consent order! Now think “Foreclosure Mill” Lawyers. Google the Mers officers name and see who who who who they are employed for! MERS stampers were like Notary Seals …… $25.00 each. Cheaper by the Dozen ……… Can I sell you One?

  46. Hi Zur,

    Let me send you the right info directly. Can you contact me at Won’t be until much later today though.

  47. We had enough BS from BOA to last us a lifetime, so after the property tax incident and lost payment (eventually applied to principal) I went to refi the loan at the CU into my name (pre-approved) but denied for our house. All Hell Broke Loose over the title Again. My issues have always been about the titles! It pissed me off it took til 2010 to put a halt to it. By then the damage had been done …. Those of us who remain mst all have court orders to clear our titles!

  48. In our case John, the broker loan (serviced by CW) was removed from Mers when we went to have the 08CW Lp released from title 3yrs later. Before the CW LP release was filed … MERS transferred the note and mortgage together .. to multiple parties (pre CW). When asked who the current holder of the note was who authorized Mers officer to act and file such BS …………….. they will NOT talk! It has been another 3yrs since then.

  49. Banksters, if challenged, may well try to allege that the current note holder may in fact order the assgt to itself because mers is merely holding the dot for them, just like it did with every other mers member along the way to them. So they’ll just say their own nominee, agent, pick one is now assigning the dot to the note owner because it wants to foreclose in its own name. This is c–p of course but even if courts were to (want to) buy it, even that assumes two facts not in evidence – that all the note’s assignee’s were mers’ members and that they were all successors or assigns of the original Lender.

  50. z- I think, and it’s late, that the successor or assign refers to that of the orig lender, so that would be the new note owner, as defined in the note (and possibly pursuant to any applicable provs of the ucc). No, they didn’t do any assgts of the coll instruments with their reliance on MERS as nom, ben, agent, wth, for the Lender, the note owner.
    MERS is allegedly to remain the nom ben for any new note owners.
    The dot says “any” in a word. The conflicting membership agreement says any mers’ member. If a homeowner wants to (strategy) and gets mem agreement admitted in the case (attachment to h.o. complaint? JN? ask lawyer), wouldn’t the bankster be more likely to be put to his proof because the “MERS’ assgt can only come at the behest of a mers member?

    So, who, what says the party allegedly authorizing this assgt is

    1) a successor or assign of the orig Lender as (A) req’d by the dot
    and (B) defined in the note as the Lender, and

    2) a mers’ member? The fact that the assignee may be a mers member is of no consequence whatsoever because the order for the assgt can’t come from the (alleged) current note owner (aka the assignEE).
    And I repeat my lay person contention that any assignment done by an agent must be executed as such, like I demonstrated the other day.

  51. JG,
    NOW we’re getting somewhere. Great question–who is a successor or assign of the original lender? I think of it like this: BoA is arguably a “successor” for Countrywide. I sued BoA in that capacity. OK, that’s simple enough.

    But the “assign” of the original lender? Why, assignments are the very thing the MERS was created to avoid! So now nobody does assignments, except when they want to foreclose. So there are no “assigns,” except the extremely dubious ones referred to in preliminary foreclosure docs.

  52. More proof we are no more than New World Order lab rats and that is why they use technology to spy on everthing we do..

  53. christine,
    I am very intrigued by the OPPT. Please explain the UCC/trust connection. Talk to me like I’m 3 yrs old. I’ve tried to read some of the stuff, but it seems to lead nowhere. And please don’t misunderstand–this is not an attempt at veiled disparagement of the OPPT. I have a feeling it is a good and valid thing, I just want to research and understand it for myself. So if you could, in the fewest possible words and most direct route you can take to explain it, tell me/us what it is and what it has to do with UCC, for starters.

  54. TBTF wears many disguises… CNBC said, don’t follow the money…..follow the investments…….


    Technological advances have helped the advancement of this Luciferian, totalitarian, one world rule. The Rio, or Earth Summit in Brazil in June 1992 provided an opportunity for the nations of the world to conform on much more than an environmental level; its connections to the NEW AGE MOVEMENT and MASONRY are well-established. Rio was not solely about clean air, clean water, and containment of acid rain. It was about the MASSIVE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH from the industrial countries to the poor countries, GLOBAL SOCIALISM, PEOPLE CONTROL, and WORLD GOVERNMENT.

    The environmental movement has clout that transcends all party affilliations. The Environmental Party has nearly 4 times the funding of the Democrats and Republicans combined. Twelve organizations constitute the base of the Environmental Party: Center for Marine Conservation, Clean Water Action Project, Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace U.S.A, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Conservancy, Public Interest Research Group, Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and World Wildlife Fund. It is only the people at the top who are aware of the true intent of its members’ movements.


  56. Taking the plain language of the dot, mers is the nominal ben for the orig lender, its successor and or assigns. But, neither MERS nor the orig lender sign that document to evidence their agreement. I don’t believe mers is anything for a succ or assign, but put that down a minute. Who IS a successor or assign of the original lender? I’ve said a million times that there is never any evidence all the folks in the chain of the notes ownership were mers members for mers to be nominee for, but put that down a minute, also. WHo qualifies as a successor or assign? I talked about potential successors the other day. what about an assign? Zurenarrh pointed out what the note says about who is the lender, the two conditions. WHO can meet them plus any rules of the UCC which might additionally define a “lender”, so as to be the boss of MERSon this score (lender) , which doesn’t mean I think a nominee has authority to assign interest, unless that right is given where we have never, ever seen it.
    That would be true of an agent, also, tho mers is no agent. Here is an interesting take from the Mitchell case:

    “MERS couldn’t even say it is the nominee of the current beneficial owners of the notes and deeds of trust because 1) it didn’t present any evidence of the identity of the current beneficial owners and 2) it didn’t present any evidence of its contract with the current beneficial owners. The Bankruptcy Court and this Court is left with no evidence that MERS has any connection with the current beneficial owner of the notes and deeds of trust. MERS’ evidence that it had a contractual relationship with the original lender is not evidence of a relationship with the current (unidentified) lender…………..”.

    jg: MERS may have had the right to foreclose (not assign) for the original Lender, but there is no evidence it may do anything for
    anyone else. And now, since the Consent Order, what is of the most importance is MERS’s relationship with the LAST, not the current note owner. It’s the last note owner who has the power to either execute an assignment of the dot or tell its agent to do so (assuming the last note owner himself got one and the guy before him and so on. Even take MERS as thee ben and no bifur,so no assgts were necessary – gag – still Last note owner, not current).

    Here is a discussion of the principals of agency in general (tho not necessarily as to real property, which I swear requires expressed, not implied, agency), from Mitchell:

    “Agency is a legal relationship created by an express or implied agreement or by operation of law whereby the agent is authorized to act for the principal, subject to the principal’s control. As in the formation of any contract, the consent of BOTH parties is necessary to establish an agency. ”

    jg: neither is evident in the MERS’ dot, being signed by only the borrower who can’t make anyone anyone else’s agent (or even

    “Agency is never to be presumed; it must be shown affirmatively. The party who asserts existence of an agency relationship has the burden of proving it. Karl Rove & Co. v. Thornburgh,39 F.3d 1273, 1296 (5th Cir. 1994).See also
    Hamm v. Arrowcreek Homeowners’Ass’n, 124 Nev. 28, 183 P.3d 895, 902 (Nev. 2008) (“The party asserting the agency relationship has the burden of proving the relationship by a preponderance of the evidence.”); Trump v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State of Nevada, 109 Nev. 687, 857 P.2d 740,745 (Nev. 1993)….
    (“The burden of proving an agency relationship rests on the party asserting that such a relationship exists.”);Gallinger v.
    Vaaler Ins., Inc.,12 F.3d 127, 129 (8th Cir. 1993) (“The burden of proof is upon the one asserting the existence of the agency.”) (applying North Dakota law); Bayless Christie, Manson& Woods v. Intern.,Inc., 2F.3d 347,352 (10th Cir. 1993)……… MERS can’t prove its agency for the unidentified current owner of the note”

    (jg: here at least the last owner of the note if not all before – sic)

    “by perception of its authority, that is, because people think it is an agent. See ltel Containers International Corp. v. Atlanttrafik Express Service Ltd., 909 F .2d 698 (2nd Cir.1990)….MERS can’t prove its agency for an unidentified current (jg: or any – sic) owner of the note by its own testimony.” In re CMGT,Inc., 402
    B.R.262,276 (BanK.N.D.I11. In 2009)”

  57. The Principles of the Declaration of Independence

    These first individuals recognized that the principles they were agreeing to were a matter of life or death. Over the generations, America has created many laws “on top” of these principles, causing them to become watered down. The result is where we are today; there is death all around us….death of the financial system, death of our freedoms, and a tremendous absence of truth within our society. Many of the laws that have been created have gradually brought us into self-service or special interests.

    America is the only country in the world that started out with these principles of freedom. We are the first country to have been set up where the Government is supposed to be ruled by the consent of the governed. The people are supposed to be in charge. It is for these principles that people flocked to this country over the generations, as we have been the last bastion of hope for many. So much has changed since our beginnings, yet it would appear that we are back to where we were before the Declaration of Independence of 1776. Our “governments” are attempting to exercise authority and enslave America again.

    So let us now revisit these principles. This is not a focus on any of the actions or behaviors that have occurred around them, (Jefferson owned slaves, women had no rights, etc.) it is a closer look at the principles as they were written. The beauty of these principles is that they need not apply only to one nation. The language in which they were written allows them to be applied to all of humanity. There is only one race on this planet and that is humankind. It matters not our location, creed or backgrounds, as we all share the same home – Earth – and we derive all our substance from the same Earth.

    The principles can be found specifically in the first and last paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.

    The last paragraph is where the power is truly expressed. Below is a breakdown line by line with some further clarification of the meaning behind each major point.

    When in the Course of human events, 1 it becomes necessary for one people 2 to dissolve the political bands 3 which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, 4 the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, 5 a decent respect 6 to the opinions of mankind 7 requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 8

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, 9 that all men are created equal, 10 that they are endowed by their Creator 11 with certain unalienable Rights, 12 that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 13 That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.14

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, 15 appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world 16 for the rectitude of our intentions, 17 do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People 18 of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. 19

    And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, 20 we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. 21

    1) (this includes every person on the planet)

    2) (does not define gender, color, religion or where you came from )

    3) (political bands include your family structure, from there all other political issues are founded and formed)

    4) (we are talking directly of source and creation)

    5) (the context of the men during the times in which they wrote this. They were under subject status as property to the crowns of Europe, and the crowns of Europe were subject property to the Vatican, the pope. This declaration was a poke in the eye of the pope and it made it stick it’s the only thing that ever did)

    6) (so we recognize everyone can stand under these principles and in order to have respect I must give it first)

    7) (everyone has an opinion of some sort, so we are addressing them with the same kind of respect that we demand)

    8) (we are telling the whole world that we are separate from them and heres why, we are giving you notice)

    9) (in other words any human can look within himself and agree or disagree)

    10) (doesn’t define who the creator is, doesn’t give a name or a religion it says created… neutral)

    11) ( Capital C is for any form you’d like to call it: God, Jesus, Buddha, etc.)

    12) (the word is Un-a-lien-able, not lien able)

    13) (the original text also included the words property)

    14) (who gives the power to the government????? We do! The governed)

    15) (we get together and discuss things in an open dialogue)

    16) (now they are referring to creation)

    17) (we are saying that we are speaking directly from creation because we have a personal
    relationship and we are obligated to our own integrity there personally and individually)

    18) (they spoke for everyone on the soil, they spoke in our authority, not their authority, they are not overpowering anyone, its not male its not female, or black, white, or French)

    19) (you are not a state, a state is a political body, they are saying that this independent political body now exists because we as a group declared it by our consent)

    20) (divine providence is my personal relationship with creation)

    21) (this is the ultimate way of standing up to the man)

  58. The more people get it, the faster it will change.

  59. The refis & loan mod keep the ponzi scheme going for the rich and give the illusion that the mortgage money people are paying is helping the economy but in reality, it is robbing US and destroying the economy further. All those payments are in reality, going in the pockets of our TBTF enemies both foreign & domestic and nearly all of our wealth is being stolen & is going overseas to the foreign investors who hate US. That is true for virtually every dime we are paying & spending. OBAMACARE is a microchip control freak mechanism of the TBTF rich that will destroy our remaining wealth & freedom. OBAMACARE will destroy our liberty. It is the installation of the microchip and a foreign totalitarian dictatorship called TBTF. It will be the end of our freedom, independence, liberty, National Sovereignty and our Constitutional Republic.

  60. Neil—manufactured false default…

    “Amazing. This is what I have been saying.— manufactured default — before default.”

    Connections to his 20** Freddie (which government has told him is in default). Wells Fargo was the servicer at the time of the 20** refinance (he did not know it was a Freddie loan he was refinancing). Payoff checks shows Wells diverts the check from Freddie (but, again, he would not have know since he did not know that it should have gone to Freddie). Wells adds a 3 digit number to his account number on the payoff check. He had been told that the 3 digits represent that the “loan” came from Washington Mutual. He never had any contact with WaMU — never had anything to do with them.

    Now he goes back and looks at his recorded Discharge — there is one recorded in his County. He notices an LPS number on it. It was LPS who prepared the DISCHARGE. In 20**, he would not have known who LPS was. He just checked the notary on the Discharge. Notary Journal was never turned in — even though the notary has not been licensed since 2005. And, LPS paid the bond for that notary.

    I am telling you — every single subprime loan was done this way. Loan goes to GSEs — but, when ready to refinance — it gets bumped out — reported as false default to GSEs. Refinance is not really a refinance — it is a modification of a false default debt. And, many new purchases also passed through GSEs as false default.

    I know I am 100% on this. But, those in power will do everything possible to stop it from being publicized — if this got out — heads at top would roll.

  61. When I told a bank attorney their title stinks, the bank attorney told me “we can foreclose on a cloudy title”…….That certainly sounds not only criminal but like high treason that in the U.S.A., a foreign entity, THE FED, can foreclose when they not only have no title but, they committed criminal fraud on my title now doesn’t it….?


  63. 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

  64. Guest,

    “Posted over 3 years ago. 59 helpful votes, 3 comments”

    Come on! That’s how old that thing is. Things have evolved a lot since. Be honest, will yea?

    What the hell is going on? We’re moving forward and things of the past come back to haunt?

  65. Mary says … and I agree…….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.

  66. The previous post was by Mary Malone.. you will see her comments at the bottom of the Link I Posted! A Must Read!

  67. says:

    The title industry is in on the scheme. The president of MERS is the former President of the American Land Title Association. Stewart Title one of America’s largest title firms is a charter member of MERS.

    MERS is the electronic property registration system that was created by 6 people in a room who made the decision to replace America’s land title recording system that was transparent and paper-based.

    We have drilled down into the details and it appears that there is an agreement between the title companies and the parties who fake securitized the loans to indemnify one another against legal action. The banks have agreed not to file claims for title defects if the title companies turn the other way and issue title examinations that are silent on the issues clouding title on the property.

    In NJ, we have very stringent statutes regarding title that are well settled law. Your states may be the same. This is where we need to attack the impact of fake securitization.

    In every loan transaction 2 title policies are issued – one for the homeowner, the other for the “lender.”

    The “lender” may have a sweetheart deal with the title companies not to sue – but homeowners don’t.

    If you conduct a review of the recorded documents in your chain of title and uncover defects then you should file a claim with your title company. We have learned the title industry has agreed not to pay these claims – so you will have to go to court. Do it.

    There are more of us than there are of them.

    Use the law and the courts to obtain real relief.

    If we don’t exercise our property rights we will surely lose them.



    Posted on 22nd February 2013 by mary malone in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

    MERS, mortgage fraud

    The cronies have effectively used propaganda and lies to convince Americans that naive and greedy homeowners crashed the global credit markets in 2008.

    They blamed the crash and current economic malaise on homeowners who bought too much house.

    This couldn’t be further from the truth.

    The fact of the matter is that the cronies crashed the global markets when they revealed that there are no mortgages to back the mortgage backed securities. They told Paulsen there was no there there. That’s why he panicked and tossed his cookies.

    They could have pulled an Iceland, told the truth, arrested the bad actors and instituted real safeguards to restore the capital markets and consumer confidence.

    But they chose to continue the lies and backstop the fraud on the taxpayer’s dime. The cronies covered up their partners’ crimes and orchestrated the bailout.

    They feasted on our pension money and left us with the tab.

    The bare naked truth is that tens of millions of mortgages were fake securitized. The cronies who fleeced Institutional Investors of $13 trillion clouded title on all the mortgages they originated and purportedly sold on the secondary market. They stole the pension money and now they’re stealing our houses.

    The fake securitization scheme will make your head hurt and your heart break. So I’m not going to travel down that rabbit hole.

    In the end, it all comes down to old fashioned title. Who holds the mortgage on your home? Will you have clear title at the end of the schedule? Do you have MERS in your chain of title? Was your loan ‘Assigned’ to another entity? If so, where is the evidence that substantiates those claims?

    We have abandoned our efforts to convince the mighty and powerful to do the right thing. So we’re not going to waste any more of our time trying to convince members of Congress, Governors, state Attorneys General or the DOJ to arrest the bad actors on Wall Street and K Street and end the fraud.

    We’re taking the fight to every local state courthouse and giving homeowners the tools to secure their homes and restore private property rights. This is a ground game and it is entirely winnable. It takes tenacity but once you learn to navigate the local state court system it’s entirely doable.

    We’re working with community organizers on the left to educate all homeowners about the fraud, how it affects their mortgages and how to use the state courts systems to get real relief. We’re restoring the rule of law one mortgage at a time.

    We’re getting results. Law firms are dropping foreclosure cases and homeowners who have been trying to get modifications are uncovering evidence that gives them real clout in negotiations.

    It’s time we turn the tables and use the laws they have flouted as a weapon to win back our economic freedom.

    We will win this war one house at a time.

    This is a crime scene, so the first step is to gather evidence about your loan. All homeowners, regardless of your payment status need to take the following steps:

    MERS look-up:

    Fannie Mae look-up:

    Freddie Mac look-up:

    Capture the screen grabs, save and print. File the record in a binder or folder specifically for your mortgage documents.

    Next step, send a Qualified Written Request Letter to your servicer. This is a way to gather evidence about your loan without going to court. The letter should be mailed to the CEO of your servicer. Contact customer service and ask for the name of the exec – could be the CEO – and the company address where the QWR letter should be sent. Be sure to send it certified mail, return receipt requested. Save the receipt and file it in your binder.

    The QWR letter is a feature of RESPA, which was strengthened in the Dodd-Frank bill. The servicer is required to respond to the QWR letter in 5 business days with a written acknowledgement. Within the next 25 days they are required to deliver a written response that includes documents such as the promissory note, mortgage, closing documents, appraisal, title policy, assignments of mortgage.

    If they do not answer within the 30 days or fail to provide you with evidence you’ve requested, the servicer will have to pay you $4,000 fine. You’ll have to go into Federal Court to file a complaint and get the judgement.

    Here’s a template for the QWR:


    Servicer Name


    Re: Client Name

    Loan Number:

    Property Address:

    Dear Madam or Sir:

    In accordance with RESPA and Section 131(f) of the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1641(f) (2), please provide me with the name, address, and Telephone number of the owner of the Promissory Note signed by me and secured by the deed of trust in my mortgage loan referenced above.

    By their signatures below, I authorize you to furnish me with the requested information, and any other information regarding my account and my mortgage loan.

    You should be advised that you must acknowledge receipt of this request within five (5) business days, and respond within thirty (30) business days, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Section 2605(e) (1)(A) as amended effective July 16, 2010 by the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act and Reg. X Section 3500.21(e)(1).

    Thanking you in advance, I am

    Very truly yours,

    Homeowner name

    cc: Law firm for servicer if there has been any correspondence

    If they respond, carefully verify all information they have provided. If they provide you with the name of the investor of your loan, check it against the results of your MERS, Fannie and Freddie look-ups. If they provide the name of the trust, go to and look-up the prospectus for that trust. The report is called a 424B. Read it and look for the closing and cut-off dates of the trust. Did your loan close within the window, or after? What parties are listed in the deal? Is your loan listed in the Pool Servicing Agreement that is contained within the Prospectus? You can spot it by reviewing all loans listed – according to principal and interest rate by state.

    Find the name of the Trustee. The Trustee contact info is located in the PSA. Call the 800 telephone number provided. The recording will tell you to send an email providing your loan number, address and contact info. Write and email to the Trustee and confirm they are in fact your true creditor. Tell them the Trust was named as investor by the servicer. You’d like evidence that the mortgage was properly securitized, which includes all assignments of mortgage (there should be 4), along with the original Promissory Note.

    In several weeks, the Trustee should send you an email response to your request. We’ve sent three of these requests so far, and each time the Trustee has told us that they are NOT the investor, and the homeowner should contact the servicer.

    If this occurs with your loan, print out all docs, save them in your binder. You can present this document as evidence that you have a wild deed in a Quiet Title Action.

    Next step is to gather all your loan documents recorded in the county registry. Ask the Register or County Clerk to print out all pages and certify them as true copies.

    Be sure to determine if there is an Assignment of Mortgage in your chain of title. Examine the wording closely. Did they assign only the mortgage, or the mortgage and the note. If just the mortgage is assigned, that means the chain of title has been broken. Everything that occurred after that assignment is a nullity.

    Was the mortgage assigned by a company that s no longer in business? Did the originator declare bankruptcy? If so, did the bankruptcy or demise of the firm occur before or safer the assignment? We’ve found a number of assignments where the originator – Accredited, New Century – was in bankruptcy months and years before the date of the assignment. In a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, companies repudiate all their executory contracts, which includes MERS. So, if you have an assignment of mortgage that features a bankrupt originator dated after they filed chapter 11, you could get the assignment declared invalid by a judge. Which of course means the mortgage was never properly assigned to another party. Your mortgage may be a defective instrument and invalid.

    Back to the documents from the registry.

    Compare the documents from the registry to those you received in the QWR response. Are they the same, or are there notable differences? Record the notations on a document, attach it to the docs and file in your binder.

    Examine the signatures on all documents and start googling. Type in signers name, along with keywords like their title, MERS, name of lender, robo-signer. Chances are you will find their signatures on a number of other documents recorded in registries around the country. Carefully examine the signatures – are there notable differences? Is the signer an employee of the company they are purportedly signing for? You can check their Linkedin profiles to verify employment. If their title is Assistant Secretary, MERS, drill down and expand your search. Many times these signers have various titles from different companies. This is important because if you can find evidence they are not who they say they are and don’t work for the company they claim to, you have a fatal defect in the chain of title.

    Be sure to examine all ‘Discharges of Mortgages’ in your chain too. We’ve found robo-signers on a number of the discharges. Real estate attorneys tell us this means that the debt has been satisfied, but the lien has not been extinguished. So, you could challenge the current mortgage and file a claim in state court arguing that the current mortgage is no longer in first position.

    Lots here that can keep you busy for awhile – at least the next thirty days.

    If this sounds too daunting, just take a deep breath and take the first steps of performing the look-ups and sending the QWR letter.

    Once you get a response, leave me a message on TBP and I’ll help you make sense of it all.

    Remember, this fight is about restoring our property rights and the rule of law.

  69. Love it!

    “Prozess gegen die “feinen” Herren…” Trial of the most “refined” men… Take their wealth away and see what’s left of their refinement. Honestly, I’m dreaming of the day Jamie boy and his pals have to do an honest day’s work. It doesn’t have to be a long day. Just honest.

    What a quandary! They really wouldn’t know where to start!

  70. thanks neil. i agree java it’s way past time for them to put up or shut up.

  71. We need this German Judge in the USA , she put 5 bankers for
    10 years away .

  72. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: attorney malpractice, hedge fund, investment opportunity, investors, production of original note, proof of loss, proof of payment, real original note, title defects Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  73. Low hanging fruit. Aren’t Corzine, Mazilo and Dimon still out? I guess they’re right: it’s not so much what you know as it is whom you know…

    New Stream Hedge Fund Executives Charged with Criminal Fraud

    2013-02-27 —

    Today at 1pm in Hartford, Conn. federal court executives of Ridgefield-based hedge fund New Stream Capital were indicted on 19 counts of conspiracy, securities fraud and wire fraud. Tom Carson, DOJ pressman, confirmed the arrest of David Bryson and his co-founder Bart Gutekunst along with his CFO Richard Pereira last week. The case has been unsealed today. I first reported in 2009 the hedge fund was being investigated for investor fraud by the FBI at Hedge Fund Implode and continued to report on the fund’s bankruptcy and investor lawsuits for DealFlow Media and Forbes over the last two years.

  74. And this is why we don’t seem to get out of our mess. There is a quality to the imbecility of religious morons that is quite repulsive and half of congress caught the Gawd damn bug! Right up the alley of the shill… O boy! Are people in for a huge surprise!!! Funny that this was actually posted on a foreclosure/economic site. I guess they infer from that kind of mental illness the same thing I do.

    TV Preacher Pat Robertson Says Thrift Store Clothes Possessed By Demons
    February 27, 2013 By Steve Dibert Leave a Comment
    Pat Robertson Issues Warning To Consumers

    Steve Dibert, MFI-Miami

    Okay, if you have ever needed more proof that televangelist Pat Robertson has gone off the deep end, well here it is.

    On Monday’s installment of the 700 Club, Robertson like he does on most of his shows, responds to viewer mail that doesn’t exactly come from the most intelligent people.

    One of his ardent viewers, “Carrie” wrote him a concerned letter because of something her mother told her. She writes:

    “I buy a lot of clothes and other items at Goodwill and other secondhand shops. Recently my mom told me that I need to pray over the items, bind familiar spirits and bless the items before I bring them into the house. Is my mother correct? Can demons attach themselves to material items?”

    The good old Reverend then tells “Carrie” a tale he heard in the Philippines about a Thai witch and a ring by saying,

    “…a witch who had prayed over a particular ring and asked for a spirit to come into it, and this Philippine girl was so attached to this ring, she had to buy it and all hell broke loose because she finally recognized what it was.”

    It sounds like Robertson lifted the story from the Lord of the Rings.

  75. This is not a bad ruling: Masto had ample latitude to go after the big banks but decided to participate in the infamous settlement (after having made all kinds of threatening noises against the big players… quite self-serving, indeed) and go after the low hanging fruits instead. It backfired on her. That’s what will happen more and more: judges will start looking more closely at witch hunts. My take on it.

    Nevada judge tosses ‘robosigning’ case
    Masto accused of prosecutorial misconduct
    Feb 27, 2013 |

    LAS VEGAS — A Nevada judge has gutted a marquee criminal complaint filed in 2011 against two mortgage lending company employees, ruling that state prosecutors improperly presented information to a grand jury to obtain an indictment in what they called a massive mortgage fraud “robosigning” scheme.

    A lawyer for defendant Gary Randall Trafford on Tuesday hailed Clark County District Judge Carolyn Ellsworth’s ruling as “extraordinary” and accused Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and her deputies of prosecutorial misconduct.

    The prosecutor heading the case was facing a foreclosure himself at the time, and a key witness in the case committed suicide in 2011, said John Heuston, an attorney for Trafford.

    “This case was announced as a groundbreaking robosigning case,” Heuston said. “The judge found there was no robosigning whatsoever.”

  76. Neil ,

    This is perfect , just as it was when you first brought it up years ago … Can you give an approx. timeline of money flows and base/standard expenses that will have to be covered by fees.. I may have someone that can bankroll some of this..

    Just use my e:mail on file… PLEASE

  77. A really good analysis of how countries pull out of economic crises such as this one… Remarkably, more and more articles talk about “reparation”, “debt cancellation”, “debt forgiveness”.

    Nothing ever happens in a vacuum: this is in the works. I wouldn’t rush too fast into paying anything…

    German economic miracle: thanks to debt relief?

    Highly indebted, without access to capital, viewed suspiciously by creditors – that was Germany in 1953. Half the country’s debts were canceled 60 years ago this week – the foundation of the “economic miracle.”

    Many Germans are still proud of the so-called “economic miracle.” Post-war growth was extraordinary – the new Federal Republic’s economic output doubled between 1953 and 1963 alone. Generations of schoolchildren have since be taught that the Germans are simply unbelievably hardworking people who were supported by US money after the war.

    “That is a very regrettable part of the suppression of history in this country,” says Joachim Kaiser of, an alliance that campaigns for the cancellation of debts in the developing world. He believes that the Germans have forgotten that they were hopelessly in debt after World War II, not unlike Greece today.
    Municipal workers march during a protest against austerity measures in front of the Greek Parliament building in Athens, Greece, 09 November 2012. Greek lawmakers on 08 November began debating next year’s budget, hours after parliament passed a new round of austerity measures that are a precondition for the country to receive its next round of international aid. EPA/FOTIS PLEGAS G. The parallels with Greece today are hard to overlook

    It was only with the London Debt Agreement of 1953 that the German economy was given room to breathe again, says historian Ursula Rombeck-Jaschinski of Stuttgart University: “One could even argue that the economic miracle would have been impossible without the debt agreement.”

    30 billion Deutschmarks

    In those dark days, Germany owed money to around 70 countries, with the debts partly dating from before the war, partly from the short period afterwards. Altogether, the debts were worth around 30 billion Deutschmarks. Budget cuts and laborious repayments were not an option for the West Germans – on the contrary – the economy desperately needed more cash to finance the country’s reconstruction and growth.

    That much was clear to the banker Hermann-Josef Abs, who led the German delegation in London in 1953 – his mission: to make the creditors of today into the financers and investors of tomorrow.

    The negotiations, which began in the summer of 1952, were tortuous. Would the creditors write off their money? Could the Germans be trusted? “There was even a moment when the negotiations almost broke down,” says Rombeck-Jaschinski. “The Germans had made the foreign creditors an offer that, from the point of view of the finance ministry, was the most that was possible. The creditors basically considered the offer an insult.”

  78. From Matt Weidner’ blog. Moving on…

    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?

  79. Settle the Debt then QT.

  80. The second moral of the story is NO clear title!

    Why ANYONE would buy or sell ANYTHING is beyond me.
    Myself, KNOWING this, stays in limbo until lawful paperwork
    is done of REAL LIVE PROOF OF ownership that is created by what I have to do. As to the county recorders, it’s no different then having the credit bureau having to fix wrong information.

    We paid people to be responsible or they don’t get our business.
    That’s why now, they will have no jobs in the near future.
    Ignorence IS not bliss!

  81. 🙂

  82. I love this! It’s the same principle as the “Strike Debt” campaign but it is very specifically targeted to one person.

  83. So, what can you do if you have already lost your home to the fraud?
    I tryed the superior court….The judge basically laughed,and the bank proceededto foreclose on me.

  84. Neil this idea was in play by Fidelity National Land Trust. They were sucessfull in over 70 Qt’s till Pam Blondie found out and crippled them with an injuction. They would fund you a chattel mortgage for half of the actual value of the property with zero interest. They made a couple of millions and amased over 300 properties all over the US. Problem with them was that they weren’t bona fide purchasers of the property, as people would really not want to aign over they’re property to complete strangers.

  85. Tendering a Debt-Instrument against payment, in order to AVOID the debt, has always been the law, by UCC, Federal and states, however, it has been ignored by bribed judges and law-enforcement. It’s that simple. &
    Karen you’re right, plus some additional reasons.

  86. In September 2008 GMAC Mortgage tried to sell my home. They claimed they had a short sale offer of $585,000, which was less than the amount of the alleged debt. I offered them $615,000 in cash. They refused the deal and lost all the paperwork.

    I’m still in my home, still fighting. Last payment accepted by them was November 2007. They don’t want or need your money. They need your home for two reasons imo:
    (1) Clean up the paperwork mess, and
    (2) Increase their book value.

  87. “And the reason is that in most cases they don’t have the note, which means it is still in circulation somewhere supporting as much as 42 times the face value of the note in hedges and derivatives.”

    True. Hence my JDB pressing to resolve a $22,000 HEL for $1,500… but I haven’t heard anything since demanding a commitment that they will return the note. Still have my $1,500. And they won’t do anything about it: they can’t.

  88. Wow

  89. Fyi

  90. I posted this idea over 6 months ago. To my mind its the perfect move in this chess match.
    Call their their damn BLUFF and it takes the judge worried about his pension out of the equation.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: