Insurance, Credit Default Swaps, Guarantees: Third Party Payments Mitigate Damages to “Lender”

If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services.
The selection of an attorney is an important decision  and should only be made after you have interviewed licensed attorneys familiar with investment banking, securities, property law, consumer law, mortgages, foreclosures, and collection procedures. This site is dedicated to providing those services directly or indirectly through attorneys seeking guidance or assistance in representing consumers and homeowners. We are available to any lawyer seeking assistance anywhere in the country, U.S. possessions and territories. Neil Garfield is a licensed member of the Florida Bar and is qualified to appear as an expert witness or litigator in in several states including the district of Columbia. The information on this blog is general information and should NEVER be considered to be advice on one specific case. Consultation with a licensed attorney is required in this highly complex field.

Editor’s Analysis: The topic of conversation (argument) in court is changing to an inquiry of what is the real transaction, who were the parties and did they pay anything that gives them the right to claim they suffered financial damages as a result of the “breach” by the borrower. And the corollary to that is what constitutes mitigation of those damages.

If the mortgage bond derives its value solely from underlying mortgage loans, then the risk of loss derives solely from those same underlying mortgages. And if those losses are mitigated through third party payments, then the benefit should flow to both the investors who were the source of funds and the borrowers balance must be correspondingly and proportionately adjusted. Otherwise the creditor ends up in a position better than if the debtor had paid off the debt.

If your Aunt Sally pays off your mortgage loan and the bank sues you anyway  claiming they didn’t get any payment from YOU, the case will be a loser for the bank and a clear winner for you because of the defense of PAYMENT. The rules regarding damages and mitigation of damages boil down to this — the alleged injured party should not be placed in a position where he/she/it is better off than if the contract (promissory) note had been fully performed.

If the “creditor” is the investor lender, and the only way the borrower received the money was through intermediaries, then those intermediaries are not entitled to claim part of the money that the investor advanced, nor part of the money that was intended for the “creditor” to offset a financial loss. Those intermediaries are agents. And the transaction,  while involving numerous intermediaries and their affiliates, is a single contemporaneous transaction between the investor lender and the homeowner borrower.

This is the essence of the “Single transaction doctrine” and the “step transaction doctrine.” What the banks have been successful at doing, thus far, is to focus the court’s attention on the individual steps of the transaction in which a borrower eventually received money or value in exchange for his promise to pay (promissory note) and the collateral he used to guarantee payment (mortgage or deed of trust). This is evasive logic. As soon as you have penetrated the fog with the single transaction rule where the investor lenders are identified as the creditor and the homeowner borrower is identified as the debtor, the argument of the would-be forecloser collapses under its own weight.

Having established a straight line between the investor lenders and the homeowner borrowers, and identified all the other parties as intermediary agents of the the real parties in interest, the case for  damages become much clearer. The intermediary agents cannot foreclose or enforce the debt except for the benefit of an identified creditor which we know is the group of investor lenders whose money was used to fund the tier 2 yield spread premium, other dubious fees and profits, and then applied to funding loans by wire transfer to closing agents.

The intermediaries cannot claim the house because they are not part of that transaction as a real party in interest. They may have duties to each other as it relates to handling of the money as it passes through various conduits, but their principal duty is to make sure the transaction between the creditor and debtor is completed.

The intermediaries who supported the sale of fake mortgage bonds from an empty REMIC trust cannot claim the benefits of insurance, guarantees or the proceeds of hedge contracts like credit default swaps. For the first time since the mess began, judges are starting to ask whether the payments from the third parties has relevance to the debt of the borrower. To use the example above, are the third parties who made the payments the equivalent of Aunt Sally or are they somehow going to be allowed to claim those proceeds themselves?

The difference is huge. If the third parties who made those payments are the equivalent of Aunt Sally, then the mortgage is paid off to the extent that actual cash payments were received by the intermediary agents. Aunt Sally might have a claim against the borrower or it might have been a gift, but in all events the original basis for the transaction has been reduced or eliminated by the receipt of those payments.

If Aunt Sally sues the borrower, it would  be for contribution or restitution, unsecured, unless Aunt sally actually bought the loan and received an assignment along with a receipt for her funds. If there was another basis on which Aunt Sally made the payment besides a gift, then the money should still be credited to the benefit of the investor lenders who have received what they thought was a bond payable but in reality was still the note payable.

In no event are the intermediary agents to receive those loss mitigation payments when they had no loss. And to the extent that payments were received, they should be used to reduce the receivable of the investor lender and of course that would reduce the payable owed from the homeowner borrower to the investor lender. To do otherwise would be to allow the “creditor” to end up in a much better position than if the homeowner had simply paid off the loan as per the promissory note or faked mortgage bond.

None of this takes away from the fact that the REMIC trust was not source the funds used to pay for the mortgage origination or transfer. That goes to the issue of the perfection of the mortgage lien and not to the issue of how much is owed.

Now Judges are starting to ask the right question: what authority exists for application of the third party payments to mitigate damages? If such authority exists and the would-be foreclosures used a false formula to determine the principal balance due, and the interest payable on that false balance then the notice of delinquency, notice of default, and foreclosure proceedings, including the sale and redemption period would all be incorrect and probably void because they demanded too much from the borrower after having received the third party payments.

If such authority does not exist, then the windfall to the banks will continue unabated — they get the fees and tier 2 yield spread premium profits upfront, they get the payment servicing fees, they get to sell the loan multiple times without any credit to the investor lender, but most of all they get the loss mitigation payments from insurance, hedge, guarantee and bailouts for a third party loss — the investor lenders. This is highly inequitable. The party with the loss gets nothing while a party who already has made a profit on the transaction, makes more profit.

If we start with the proposition that the creditor should not be better off than if the contract had been performed, and we recognize that the intermediary investment bank, master servicer, trustee of the empty REMIC trust, subservicer, aggregator, and others did in fact receive money to mitigate the loss on those certificates and thus on the loans supposedly backing the mortgage bonds, then the only equitable and sensible conclusion would be to credit or allocate those payments to the investor lender up to the amount they advanced.

With the creditor satisfied or partially satisfied the mortgage loan, regardless of whether it is secured or not, is also satisfied or partially satisfied.

So the question is whether mitigation payments are part of the transaction between the investor lender and the homeowners borrower. While this specific application of insurance payments etc has never been addressed we find plenty of support in the case law, statutes and even the notes and bonds themselves that show that such third party mitigation payments are part of the transaction and the expectancy of the investor lender and therefore will affect the borrower’s balance owed on the debt, regardless of whether it is secured or unsecured.

Starting with the DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES, we can assume that if there is such a duty, and there is, then successfully doing so must be applicable to the loan or contract and is so treated in awarding damages without abridgement. Keep in mind that the third party contract for mitigation payments actually refer to the borrowers. Those contracts expressly waive any right of the payor of the mitigation loss coverage to go after the homeowner borrower.

To allow all these undisclosed parties to receive compensation arising out of the initial loan transaction and not owe it to someone is absurd. TILA says they owe all the money they made to the borrower. Contract law says the payments should first be applied to the investor lender and then as a natural consequence, the amount owed to the lender is reduced and so is the amount due from the homeowner borrower.

See the following:

Pricing and Mitigation of Counterparty Credit Exposures, Agostino Capponi. Purdue University – School of Industrial Engineering. January 31, 2013. Handbook of Systemic Risk, edited by J.-P. Fouque and J.Langsam. Cambridge University Press, 2012

  • “We analyze the market price of counterparty risk and develop an arbitrage-free pricing valuation framework, inclusive of collateral mitigation. We show that the adjustment is given by the sum of option payoff terms, depending on the netted exposure, i.e. the difference between the on-default exposure and the pre-default collateral account. We specialize our analysis to Interest Rates Swaps (IRS) and Credit Default Swaps (CDS) as underlying portfolio, and perform a numerical study to illustrate the impact of default correlation, collateral margining frequency, and collateral re-hypothecation on the resulting adjustment. We also discuss problems of current research interest in the counterparty risk community.” pdf4article631

Whether this language  makes sense to you or not, it is English and it does say something clearly — it is all about risk. And the risk of the investor lender was to have protected by Triple A rating, insurance, and credit default swaps, as well as guarantees and provisions of the pooling and servicing agreement, for the REMIC trust. Now here is the tricky part — the banks must not be allowed to say on the one hand that the securitization documents are real even if there was no money trail or consideration to support them on the one hand then say that they are not real for purposes of receiving loss mitigation payments, which they want to keep even if it leaves the real creditor with a net loss.

To put it simply — either the parties to the underwriting of the bond to investors and the loan to homeowners were part of the the transaction (loan from investor to homeowner) or they were not. I fail to see any logic or support that they were not.

And the simple rule of measure of how these parties fit together is found under the single transaction doctrine. If the step transaction under scrutiny would not have occurred but for the principal transaction alleged, then it is a single transaction.

The banks would argue they were trading in credit default swaps and other exotic securities regardless of what lender fit with which borrower. But that is defeated by the fact that it was the banks who sold to mortgage bonds, it was the banks who set up the Master Servicer, it was the banks who purchased the insurance and credit default swaps and it was the underwriting investment bank that promised that insurance and credit default swaps would be used to counter the risk. And it is inescapable that the only risk applicable to the principal transaction between investor lender and homeowner borrower was the risk of non payment by the borrower. These third party payments represent the proceeds of protection from that risk.

Would the insurers have entered into the contract without the underlying loans? No. Would the counterparties have entered into the contract without the underlying loans? No.

So the answer, Judge is that it is an inescapable conclusion that third party loss mitigation payments must be applied, by definition, to the loss. The loss was suffered not by the banks but by the investors whose money they took. The loss mitigation payments must then be applied against the risk of loss on the money advanced by those investors. And the benefit of that payment or allocation is that the real creditor is satisfied and the real borrower receives some benefit from those payments in the way of a reduction of the his payable to the investor.

It is either as I have outlined above or the money — all of it — goes to the borrower, to the exclusion of the investor under the requirements of TILA and RESPA. While the shadow banking system is said to be over $1.2 quadrillion,  we must apply the same standards to ourselves and our cases as we do to the opposing side. Only actual payments received by the participants in the overall obscured investor lender transaction with the homeowner borrower.

Hence discovery must include those third parties and review of their contracts for the court to determine the applicability of third party payments that were actually received in relation to either the subject loan, the subject mortgage bond, or the subject REMIC pool claiming ownership of the subject loan.

The inequality between the rich and not-so-rich comes not from policy but bad arithmetic.

As the subprime mortgage market fell apart in late 2007 and early 2008, many financial products, particularly mortgage-backed securities, were downgraded.  The price of credit default swaps on these products increased.  Pursuant to their collateral agreements, many protection buyers were able to insist on additional collateral protection.  In some cases, the collateral demanded represented a significant portion of the counterparty’s assets.  Unsurprisingly, counterparties have carefully evaluated, and in some cases challenged, protection buyers’ right to such additional collateral amounts.  This tension has generated several recent lawsuits:

• CDO Plus Master Fund Ltd. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 07-11078 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2007) (dispute over demand     for collateral on $10,000,000 protection on collateralized debt obligations).

• VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd. v. Citibank, N.A., 08 1563 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2008) (same).

• UBS AG v. Paramax Capital Int’l, No. 07604233 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 26, 2007) (dispute over demand for $33 million additional capital from hedge fund for protection on collateralized debt obligations).

Given that the collateral disputes erupting in the courts so far likely represent only a small fraction of the stressed counterparties, and given recent developments, an increase in counterparty bankruptcy appears probable.

79 Responses

  1. Re The Credit Default Swap Argument paid off the mortgage loans…I think that this argument needs to be reconsidered.

    There is nothing in the PSAs that says that CDS will act as mortgage loss insurance, insurance that will reduce the losses on mortgage loans and will thus be applied thereto.

    The CDS were only applicable to the NIM certificates held by the deal principals (“DPs”), and were not to cover certificate losses by investors. Think of this as a loaded side bet made by the DPs.

    If there were any mortgage loan insurance policies in effect, then those insurers would have been subrogated, and they would be the ones initiating foreclosure proceedings. But to the best of my knowledge, no mortgage insurer has ever been a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure case.

    I say that this was a “loaded side bet” because the DPs got to determine when a default occurred and when CDS insurers had to pay off. The CDS insurers had no subrogation rights because there was nothing to subrogate. These CDS were strictly “naked,” requiring no collateral or rights to subrogation.

    Apparently, that is why the monoline insurers have been suing the DPs for fraud and getting settlements: they knew that their portfolios were misrated and were primed for failure…so they bought the CDS.


  3. You’re welcome, Deb and Louise.
    It’s frustrating to me that Neil—as brilliant as he is—continues to try to spin that the “securities investors” are somehow the creditors…it is a complete disservice to the truth.

  4. What the Financial system is really hiding behind the curtain of Gold/Oil/Drugs and E technology ……A massive Global interwoven secret and open Paedophilia and Satanism ring.

    A cult of the most evil minds full of filth the world has to offer. To expose the truth about all of the fraud leads you down the path to the darkside of the most hideous and disgusting Acts by Top Secret Government Imposters who are not our Government. They are AKA the Synagogue of Satan. What they really want is everyone to join them in their evil cult of human sacrifice, sex addiction, drugs that lead to depression, suffering, death and despair. No one knowingly signed that contract. It doesn’t matter who these Politicians, Banks, Oil, Drug & Technology Companies say they are, they are an Evil Cult of Satanists who are Paedophiles, Torturers, and control freak murderer’s. Anyone who knows this and chooses to cooperate with this Talmudic group of evil doers are asking for a lifetime of classicly conditioned, social engineered suffering. They have used the Art of Deception and the Act of Deceit to make everyone believe this sick, evil crap is all normal. They have seduced the masses into being their brainwashed robots they Control by Investing in their mass produced horror show.

    They want everyone joining their evil cult of consumerism ….. They want all of us consuming all of the evil crap they are producing and want everyone to be participating in and subservient to their evil. They have hidden the cures and the corrections for everything so they can control everyone and keep everyone locked down in fear of them. This Secret Society all begins and ends with the Khazars of Russia….the Russian Oligarchs and Plutocrats are what is being hidden behind the curtain….they are the Unsecured Boogeyman…the Shadow Government Spooks…..Insiders from the Catholic Church Warned many years ago….When they tell you everything they are doing is to insure your Peace and Security…there will be NO SECURITY.

    Paedophilia And Satanism…….–the-fabric-of-the-web

  5. @Carie: Thanks for the info about creditors vs. investors. It is an important distinction.

  6. Hank Paulson eliminated the amounts investment banks could leverage..

  7. If the link is broken you can google it… is a great read..

  8. An eclectic mix of Dark Shadows & a bottle of rum….. Daily Kos: Christopher Cox, head of SEC, hand picked by Dick Cheney, drops Haliburton Suit in Houston..

  9. You can learn how to “create an assignment” out of thin air at……

  10. Well lookee here …. some cooked up electronic fraud & treason AKA treatises….

  11. Check out the Latham Watkins LLP Global Lawfirm who Christopher Cox worked for and its many notable attorney’s, alumni, clients, cases and connections to a lot of Politicians like Dick Cheney and Bank/Corps like Deutsche/Enron/Comcast…..they defended the Church of Scientology ….. MGM in Hollywood …government cases like the Oklahoma City Bombing …and Federal Agencies like Homeland Security….the SEC… A bit of a conflict of interest to say the least…..

    Note they have offices in the U.S. as well as London, Moscow and Hong Kong…

  12. Here is a bit of info about Charles Christopher Cox…..

  13. Criminal Investigations of these bank hedge funds are sorely needed by States Attorney Preet Bharara. Every State has Securities Laws.

  14. Also, in 1995, while being a defendant in a securities related Federal RICO action, Christopher Cox, (Senator at the time) pushed through legislation known as Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Although its alleged intentions were to eliminate “frivolous” securities-related lawsuits, its net effect served to eliminate the ability of any public company or Investor from filing any RICO lawsuits.

    Cox legalized (illegal) Naked Short Selling. This legalized (Illegal) Naked Short Selling was no different than the crash of 1929, this was just electronic counterfeiting as opposed to paper.

    The truth is these bank hedge funds were not only racketeering in Naked Shorts…worthless derivatives…a derivative is an asset whose value depends on another underlying asset. They were racketeering and counterfeiting SECURITIES FRAUDS….

    For starters…arrest the CEOs & CFOs & CIOs of the bank hedge funds …then they will be singing like canaries in a coal mine….ahem…Mr. Senator ….

  15. That article at the link I posted below displays bias. Hank Paulson is no one to talk…both parties made out like bandits because of the Deregulation under Clinton with the Gramm Leach Bliley Act and the Commodities Futures and Modernization Act under Clinton to cover up for their robbery of us. The uptick rule was removed by the SEC in July 2007 after lobbying for its removal by none other than GEORGE SOROS, that allowed the naked short selling. Though deregulation began in the 70’s under Nixon who allowed the SEC to police itself, all of the MBS Fraud began under Reagan.


  16. Blame Ronald Reagan For The Current Economic Crisis…

  17. Deregulation began under Reagan. Deregulation does not mean disregard the Law….otherwise 1500 bankers would not have went to jail for the S&L scandal. Deregulation meant nothing to us because we did not know what the Laws were.

  18. Please do your homework before you seek legal advice. That was the best piece of advice I received from a clerk at the Recorder’s office….She told me you better have your i’s dotted and your t’s crossed BEFORE you go and see an attorney.

  19. Legal Aid….? I would not trust any agency or it’s agents that are working for these Imposters. They are working to clean up the crime scene of these Imposters who are not our Government because nothing they do is Legal…Moral or Ethical. That could only mean one thing, they are Imposters. OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION/BILL OF RIGHTS IS BEING IGNORED….and being replaced with fixes for fraud such as….ILLINOIS MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE LAW…..THE UNFAIR FORECLOSURE ACT….LOAN MODS & REFIS OF MASSIVE SECURITIES FRAUDS….FRAUDCLOSURES ….SHORT SALES….DEED IN LIEU…..CASH FOR KEYS …..FORCED BANKRUPTCY AND OTHER ILLEGAL SCAMS…


    These Imposters are satanists…the black hand…..they are the epitome of evil.

  20. The current creditor is…. We The People. That is what they are trying to Conceal. The reason, NO SECURITY EXISTS. These are Securities Frauds. The Servicers duties are limited to what is in the Prospectus. The Servicers are hiding the Origination Fraud for the Issuer of the Original Credit Slips. The servicers are agents of the Issuer of the Credit and cannot be a trustee. A Trustee cannot be an agent of the Issuer of the Credit. Only the Trustee, agent of the Treasury, the Title company can bring a fc and only if there is 20% direction by the Shareholders. There were no trusts, or trustees. If the Bank/Servicer is claiming to be the Shareholder and the Trustee ….that is felonious. The trustee cannot also be a party to the transaction even if the Contract was never honored by the Issuer of the Credit because that Contract was Deceptive & Misrepresented…..Fraudulently Induced. There are a lot of crimes here, but the first place Issue is, these foreclosures are Felonies by Imposters without the Security. There is no Legal Correction for NO SECURITY.

    This is a massive crime scene.

    They did what they wanted with no regard for any Laws. Glass-Steagall was a cover-up for massive Securities Frauds they had already been committing since 1982….

  21. Legal Aid Societies are a very good source of info and they do an excellent job of recapitulating trends. Here is a round table to which not only legal aid staff but also magistrates participate to discuss the aftermath of Schwartzwald.

    If you’re in suit, google those organizations in your own state. You never know what info they hold that can help your case.

  22. carie,
    i personally thank you for sharing
    thank you

  23. @Louse

    Sorry—one last add on to first post you asked me about (this is also from ANON—as Christine said—ANON is the finance wiz—certainly not me!):

    “…Deregulation prevented public disclosure of identity of current creditor — for which borrowers were entitled to by federal law.
    And, GSEs purchased the false MBS securities (which were actually only collection rights to default debt) and derived derivatives, thereby — purchasing the false securities/derivatives to their OWN default debt…”

  24. @Louise

    A little bit more from ANON:

    “…The bonds are junk because they were derived from JUNK loans. That is, loans already charged-off by the GSEs. Subprime refinances were not valid mortgages – they were mods of classified default/non-compliant debt, which is why the subprime “bonds” were junk. Borrowers are only considered as in default with GSEs, not the servicer and/or “investor/debt buyer,” because the servicer advanced payment to GSE and refinanced the GSE default loan (the JUNK).
    …hedge funds were not duped. Anyone who actually read the prospectus to the subprime REMICs would understand that the “loans” being securitized were high risk with highly questionable compliance. Hedge funds are considered sophisticated investors – it is not good enough to say you did not read the prospectus. Further, the mezzanine tranches to the subprime trusts were sold FIRST to the hedge funds. These mezzanine tranches provided the credit enhancement to the higher tranches, which the banks retained themselves. By the nature of the structure of the REMIC itself, the mezzanine tranches were considered high risk. It is through these tranches that the collection rights (not loans) are swapped out of the trusts. Thus, since the mezzanine tranches required little capital for investment, these tranches provided the hedge funds, and other distressed debt buyers, to make a nice profit by acquiring collection rights, dirt cheap, for a property they counted on eventually acquiring.

    Hedge funds are not stupid, they know a bargain when they see one.”

  25. Jan,

    All points well taken. I did not put any blame on anyone though. I only emphasized that, even in the face of something apparently as cut-and-dry as the Schwartzwald case, judges may still shine up a different light on why, even if Borosh had pursued more actively, it still may not have flown.

    Again, all points you made are perfectly valid. And it still makes sense not only to read the winning cases but also the losing ones, if anything to learn what not to do.

  26. @Louise

    More from ANONYMOUS:

    “…First, servicer only acquires collection rights on behalf of the investor/current creditor – servicer is not the creditor. A servicer cannot acquire any interest when they are acting as a servicer for another. Second, any refinance that was conducted under the guise of a mortgage refinance when, in fact, in was just a modification of a (false) prior default, with the prior mortgage never validly discharged, is not a mortgage refinance at all. And, therefore, the note fails to fall under the UCC as no negotiable note actually exists. This was the root cause that exploded the financial crisis. Notes were not notes at all — and foreign investors knew it — but, US has refused to investigate. It is why investor lawsuits are settling, but homeowners got nothing more than a bogus 49 state Attorney General settlement — all without investigation. (Settlements do not divulge the fraud).

    Yes, correct, the role that servicers actually occupy is — concealed. Servicers will not disclose WHO they are actually servicing for and this is from the onset of the fictitious refinance to the fraudulent foreclosure in question. Deregulation has allowed servicers to publicly withhold any information that discloses the actual creditor. In fact, disclosure would disclose that the note in question is not a valid UCC instrument but, actually, a modification of the PRIOR mortgage/note. Courts run scared. All they need to hear is the name of bank and they accept this falsity. It does not matter what false capacity that bank is appearing in — including as trustee to a fraudulent trust that holds false and invalid mortgage loans, notes (and UCC instruments). . The Court hears “bank” in name, especially with “NA” attached, and they believe it is valid. This is simply not so. Court does not given the opportunity to hear the evidence that the subprime refinance was orchestrated under fraud, and that no valid UCC instrument exists, and that the “Bank”, “NA”, and/or servicer, is NOT the creditor. Further, under federal law, which preempts state law when there is conflict, the CURRENT creditor must be identified. Servicers are not the creditor if assignment is executed for the ministerial purpose of administering a foreclosure action. No legal rights transferred under this scenario.

    Time for attorneys to wake up. Start digging at records, and pursue records disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act as to the GSEs. This may take a federal action to enforce. But, would clearly win on this as it involves the borrowers’ right to the those records.

    When Neil finally understands that this is about homeowner victims, and not “investors”, we may finally get somewhere. Until Neil realizes this, we will remain without media help. Neil’s allegiance is not on the same page. And, any help to homeowners is bogus — unless the truth is told. Help without the truth is simply a continuation of the fraud. Modify??? Not without disclosure of ALL records. To do so without disclosure – is to continue the fraud.

    Fraud upon the court. No Statute of Limitations…”

  27. The banks never lent any money…..they printed money for themselves and their criminal friends in our names & never paid it back. SECURITIES FRAUD….Then they overissued investments in SECURITIES FRAUD….IT WAS A PAY TO PLAY SCAM. However, we were the only ones paying and they were the only ones playing.

  28. That’s just not so Jan…The assignment is the Security…it does not follow the note around. The Assignment joins the note and the mortgage and without the assignment, the note & the mortgage are a nullity. The Note, the Assignment and the Mortgage stay together as one instrument and if they are separated, the former and the latter are a nullity. The reason there are no legal assignments is, the Issuer of the Credit could hide their Default, and Overissue Investments via Wall Street & …..Commit Securities Fraud to gain unjust enrichment.

  29. @Louise

    A creditor is the entity that LENT you the money.
    “Collection rights” only is what was transferred in the subprime…not “funded” loans…so a securities investor is not a creditor because they lent nothing. Even the TILA Federal Reserve opinion stated specifically: “The REMICS and securities investors are NOT CREDITORS”…I’m not making it up.

  30. @Louise

    A creditor is the entity that LENT you the money. “Collection rights” is what was transferred in the subprime…not “funded” loans…so a securities investor is not a crediotr because they ,ent nothing. Even the TILA Federal Reserve opinion stated specifically “The REMICS and securities investors are NOT CREDITORS”…I’m not making it up.

  31. Satanism – 101…

  32. To Christine:
    Further to your comments on IndyMac v Borosh (Ohio App.), there are other parts of the analysis that you are not focusing on. Borosh stands for the proposition that a defaulted party that cannot establish a valid reason for delay in attempting to challenge (and rectify) the default shall not be heard. The whole purpose of a party moving for “default” is to close the door on the defaulted party from later attempting to assert claims or defenses. Borosh did nothing for three years, then comes back into court and expects the court to entertain objections to Judgment. That is a hopeless proposition.

    The other issue in play is that of Plaintiff amendment. Everybody focused on the “mortgage” assignment date, yet that is but a security instrument, which follows the Note around. There was no focus on the Note itself: who made it, who held it, who had the right to enforce it. Hard to tell without seeing the Note (and the transfers on it), but knowing that it was IndyMac Bank, we can make some assumptions, that are more likely accurate than not.

    First, remember who IndyMac Bank is: it is not a “Bank” in any conventional sense. It is the “charter” of a failed bank that was sold to some vulture-fund schemers, real ugly lying pond scum, that hide in Greenwich, CT, a suburb of NYC. The vultures were desperate for a real Federal Bank Charter, and bought up this one from the OCC so that they could go play as a “bank.” Given that IndyMac’s owners have no morals, you may presume that whatever they show up in Court with, is dubious. It is likely that there are serious defects in the so-called “Note,” which may well be a manufactured one, not the original, and with manufactured Indorsements on it. But the so-called “Note” gets a free pass because the homeowners do not show up in Court and do not challenge its legitimacy.

    Further, the “Note” likely does not describe IndyMac Bank as the party with the right to enforce. Yet, if nobody challenges it, the Court simply assumes the right under the “entity in possession of the Note” concept. The Court can be flat-out wrong, lied to by IndyMac, deceived, flummoxed, and told a tall tale by the “attorneys,” but remember, court is an adversarial forum, so you have to get on deck to fight back or it goes to the other guy. And Borosh was nowhere to be found.

    That gets me to the final point: Courts are not there to “do Justice,” a fuzzy concept bandied about on this Forum, that might exist in theory but does not in practice. The Courts are there to resolve controversies. The Court puts the dispute to bed. Mr. Borosh sat there like a deer in the headlights: never moved when the IndyMac truck came down the road. IndyMac puts the controversy in play; Borosh does not respond. IndyMac “wins” by default, simply because that specific court chose not to further investigate IndyMac’s (likely false) claims under some microscope “sua sponte,” which does happen [I have seen that in NY], but not typically.

    Was the Court “wrong” in awarding Judgment (and affirming Judgment) to the pond scum? Probably. But you place an expectation on the Court to do something it is not geared up to do. The Court in theory can, but in practice will not, attempt to enforce or even examine rights or defenses that the parties choose not to advance. You don’t show up, you lose. And that is the lesson of Borosh.

  33. Stayinmyhomeblog ….? Like people are begging…please don’t rob me. Wake up people….NOTHING these crooks are doing is legal.

  34. Attorney Garfield You are doing a wonderful work to use the training and experience you have acquired on Wall Street and knowledge of law that is pertinent to understanding the fraud perpetrated by the banks on the nations to help train attorneys to handle the foreclosure cases. I, among so many, want to thank you. I am certain that you are undertaking a tremendous task in establishing a law firm and associations with attorneys to help victims of this foreclosure fraud get competent help. However, it is discouraging to try over and over to reach someone through your customer service line, and even at your office, to provide us with the names of attorneys who we might contact for representation in these matters. I have been trying for over two weeks to reach someone from whom I could get the names of such attorneys in the Miami area, all to no avail. What must I do to get names of attorneys in the Miami area who might handle a foreclosure matter. I would sincerely appreciate some assistance as soon as possible. I am an attorney, retired, but find your work to be commendable. I pray for many blessings upon your life for the concern you have shown in light of the high level officials who know of the details of this situation and refuse to do anything about it. Blessings and favor in abundance, Elmira T. Conley, FL Bar #367087

  35. Theistic Satanism….

  36. Objecting to Ex Parte Orders Substituting Party Plaintiffs

    Posted on March 27th, 2013 by Mark Stopa

    I just had a hearing where a judge who is new to the foreclosure bench (having just transferred in January, 2013) was surprised to see my firm’s objection to a foreclosure plaintiff’s ex parte motion to substitute party plaintiff. The judge wasn’t critical, but sincerely wanted to understand the basis of our position, apparently not having seen this argument previously.

    Really? Has the foreclosure defense industry rolled over on plaintiffs’ ex parte motions to substitute party plaintiff? Is nobody opposing these motions? How can a judge who sincerely cares and wants to follow the law not have heard any homeowners or their counsel argue this issue previously? After all, there are many reasons to object to ex parte orders substituting party plaintiffs in foreclosure cases.

    Take these arguments. Steal them. Use them in your foreclosure cases. I don’t want to be the only one making these arguments – I want the judges before whom I appear to be familiar with these arguments because homeowners throughout Florida raise them.

    Like most arguments in foreclosure cases, I don’t expect these arguments to work every time or with every judge. But I truly believe there are legitimate reasons to object to ex parte motions to substitute party plaintiff, and I’d love to see more consumers arguing such.

    Mark Stopa

    And here are the objections, spelled out in the Suntrust v. Williams case. Pretty good piece of lawyering.

  37. Hedge Fund Billionaire Steve Cohen’s $155 million Picasso is not his First multimillion dollar piece…

  38. There is no wonder the hatred is building. Too many don’t even know who the real culprits are & what they have done…just wait…!

  39. Who in the hell needs a $60 million dollars house…? GTFOH…

  40. Speak for yourself Christine….you certainly do not speak for our Constitutional Republic..Too much of a lousy, stinking coward to look at what all of your lies have caused.

    You and your comrades are a toxic mold that need to be eradicated….

  41. Nope. So many morons I’m willing to put up with.

  42. Take a look at what these liars & crooks like Christine & co. have caused America…it is a disgrace….

  43. It won’t be so hilarious when the people find out who really did this…..I can’t wait to see the live broadcast.

  44. E Trolle and all of its comrades are being revealed…. I won’t have to pay to see their day of reckoning for all of the LIES THEY’VE TOLD… will be happening in real time. There is a storm coming your way.

    CNBC reporting Billionaire hedgefund manager Steve Cohens new $60 million dollar resort style mansion…. These are the very scam artists & scoundrels who helped the commies rob all of our wealth….Want to know where all of your stolen wealth is hidden….?


    Sue the hedgefund managers for SECURITIES FRAUD….


  45. “Go to Craigslist Chicago rants & raves and see what these Imposters have caused.”

    The list of the imbecile’s sources gets longer by the day but… more and more pitiful as well. CNN, CBS, St. Kudlow (fallen from grace a couple of days ago… go figure), her teenaged kids and their friends, and now, Craiglist rants and raves.


  46. This garbage is your garbage and the garbage of your comrades and you don’t want to read it Christine….?


    Forget what the judges have ruled…none of these cases should have even been allowed because of massive SECURITIES FRAUD & DERIVATIVES FRAUD by these Imposters and Felons.

    This is the biggest hoax in history…

    Who are the uneducated blaming for this….? Go to Craigslist Chicago rants & raves and see what these Imposters have caused. This nation has regressed 50 years in its thinking.

    This is a disgrace.

  47. Last I read, that was just the legal tab for JP Morgan Chase… Did someone misprint something?

    Big Banks Face $100 Billion Legal Tab (And That’s If They’re Lucky)

    The Huffington Post | By Mark Gongloff Posted: 03/27/2013 1:24 pm EDT | Updated: 03/28/2013 2:02 am EDT

  48. We already know from the OCC & Federal Reserve Bank release from Sep 2012 that 800,000 modification application should have been granted a modification but were instead foreclosed. So who were those 800,000?

    Next on Nov 7, 2012 the day after the election it was magically release the Independent Audit of the FHA result were release and it said that the FHA had a loan lost of $70 billion and HUD Sec Donovan later testified about the FHA short fall of $16 billion. The average FHA loan balance is around $100,000, so we got 700,000 loans that were all fixed rate and fixed term, plus they were all 100% full income documented underwritten loans, where the debt ratio of the loans housing ratio was to be around the 28% of the gross monthly income.

    So we know from the OCC matrix from last year that of the 4.2 million loan that around 20% of the 4.2 million portfolio was government insured loans and of that 20% there were 86% of those government loans in a Ginnie Mae pool. Now Ginnie Mae held that 86% but was not even sign up for the HAMP program so you have got around 800,000 FHA, VA & USDA loan that were not actual process because Ginnie Mae was holding onto the blank Notes, but these borrowers where kept from even know that Ginnie Mae was holding on to the Note and it was Ginnie Mae the servicers were telling the borrowers they had to contact, however the trick was the servicers would not tell the borrowers it was Ginnie Mae who was suppose to be the investor.

    Ginnie Mae is that example of this fraud because it really only involves the lenders turned “issuers” and Ginnie Mae and that it. You don’t have to chase down other parties.

  49. Which one of those banks will be first to be dismantled? Chase? B of A? Anyone care to bet?

    JPMorgan Chase Faces Full-Court Press of Federal Investigations

    2013-03-28 —

    “All told, at least eight federal agencies are investigating the bank, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Federal prosecutors and the F.B.I. in New York are also examining potential wrongdoing at JPMorgan. ”


    Fannie/Freddie to Homeowners: Do Nothing and Help Will Arrive
    posted by Katie Porter

    Housing Wire is reporting that Federal Housing Finance Agency, the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has launched a new loan modification program. The program is a major departure from HAMP and HARP (thankfully!). It puts mortgage servicers in charge of delivering relief, instead of requiring homeowners to run down, chase, and exhaust themselves contacting their mortgage company.

    The basic details available so far are that the program will start this July 1 and end August 2015. It will be open to Fannie/Freddie homeowners who are 90 days or more delinquent on their mortgages. Homeowners will not have to submit proof of financial hardship or undergo extensive underwriting to be qualified for modifications.

    This “Streamlined Modification Initiative” needs a better name, better branding, and at least so far, better publicity. But overall, I am very encouraged that FHFA is adopting this kind of program. It’s what I call a “push program,” requiring the servicers to deliver relief. We’ve seen at least two servicers roll out similar push programs as part of the National Mortgage Settlement. Bank of America sent letters to over 100,000 homeowners stating that if the borrower literally did nothing that their second mortgage would be forgiven and released, and the debt reported to credit bureaus paid in full. Guess what, 99% of homeowners who got this letter got the relief. Similarly, JPMorgan Chase rolled out a Settlement “refinance” program that was actually a simple, no-doc, interest rate reduction for the life of the loan. Their consumer response rate was multiples of other institutions that required full documentation for their Settlement refinance programs. Both programs are innovative and leverage the servicers’ resources, while reducing the onus on everyday families.

    Programs like those seen in the National Mortgage Settlement are a far cry from the dozens and dozens of forms, submitted over months, required of FHFA’s HAMP program. Banks are good at selling financial products, and that is essentially the role banks are put in by asking them to design and initiate loan modifications, rather than requiring them to collect onerous paperwork and follow thousands–literally thousands–of pages of HAMP guidance.

    I’ll be watching how this new program goes, and I hope policymakers and advocates are too. I’m a little unsure how enthusiastic FHHA and Fannie/Freddie are about their own program based on this comment from Mr. DeMarco: “We will still encourage such borrowers to provide documentation to support other modification options that would likely result in additional borrower savings.” I think it’s right that more borrower savings can be useful but the biggest problem with the loan modification process for Fannie/Freddie loans that I’ve seen in prior years, and now in my work as California Monitor, is that Fannie/Freddie borrowers can’t get a modification at all because of lost documents, dual tracking, and similar consumer harms–not that the HAMP payment reduction isn’t big enough to make the loan affordable.

    I encourage Fannie/Freddie homeowners in trouble on their mortgages to open their mail from their banks, even if they would be reluctant to chase a traditional, paperwork-laden modification. Mixed in with those credit card offers from the same bank that is sending you foreclosure notices might be a real opportunity to save your home.

  51. Reading cases lost by homeowners is as important, if not more, than reading those that fly. Why? Because all of them articulate exactly why judges rule as they do. Might be morally wrong but in every case, there is a reasoning behind the decision that people should understand.

    Screaming bloody murder ain’t gonna help anyone. Studying will.

    Read very carefully how Schwartzwald has been interpreted here: whereas the original decision stated that a party commencing an action MUST establish an interest in the note PRIOR to filing suit, this appeals court added a nuance in that, although the action was commenced before showing an interest, the bank/trustee amended it PRIOR to the defendant’s first responsive pleading.

    That’s why getting an attorney is so important.

    Court of Appeals of Ohio
    No. 98520

    IndyMac filed its complaint for foreclosure on February 25, 2008. It
    concedes that the Mortgage Electronic Recording System, Inc. (MERS) held the mortgage on that date and that a transfer of the mortgage from MERS to IndyMac was not executed until February 26, 2008 and not recorded until February 28, 2008.

    A party that fails to establish an interest in a note or mortgage at the time it files suit has no standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
    Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald , 134 Ohio St.3d 1, 2012-Ohio-5017, 979 N.E.2d 1214, ¶ 28. What is more, a party who lacks standing at the time of commencement cannot cure this defect “after commencement of the action by obtaining an interest in the subject of the litigation and substituting itself as the real party in interest.”
    at ¶ 39.

    Schwartzwald does not apply to this case, however, because IndyMac
    amended its complaint as a matter of right under Civ.R. 15(A) on March 10, 2008, before the Boroshes filed a responsive pleading. Attached to the amended complaint was the assignment of the mortgage.

  52. E. ToLLe,

    I don’t know about you but I keep promising myself that I will not waste one more minute of my time reading that garbage and yet… I do. Worse even, I address it just as you do when something really, really appears too outrageous to let go unanswered!

    I have reservations about freedom of speech and because that insanity is being imposed on people who don’t want to be subjected to it (in violation with their own freedom, mind you), I await the day she’ll have pissed so much the wrong people that she simply disappears to never be heard from again.



  55. Pretty cock sure of yourself aren’t you E Trolle…….? I don’t shy from controversy and there would be nothing illegal done be me if I entered that into evidence and no legal basis for the judge to eject me. The bailiff & all of the Cops may in fact like their own copy of that communist manifesto.



    And feel your butt skipping across the courthouse parking lot after the bailiff tosses you from the courtroom. I’d pay dearly to see that, I truly would……

  57. The “investors” were never “invested” in Securities. They were “invested” in SECURITIES FRAUDS…..& ILLEGALLY INSURED ON THEIR OWN MANUFACTURED RISK…Therefore the “investors” in the Securities Fraud are in fact “creditors” and owe We The People a Quadrillion dollars plus $60.4 trillion in payments plus clear title to everything.

  58. The Securities were never created. Stop lying.

    What also indeed is, in substance, a loan, especially a foreign loan? A loan is -an issue of government bills of exchange containing a percentage obligation commensurate to the sum of the loan capital. If the loan bears a charge of 5%, then in twenty years the State vainly pays away in interest a sum equal to the loan borrowed, in fourty years it is paying a double sum, in sixty years – treble, and all the while the debt remains unpaid debt.

    #32……So long as the loans were internal the GOYIM only shuffled their money from the pockets of the poor, to those of the rich, but when we bought up the necessary person in order to transfer loans into the external sphere, all the wealth of the States flowed into our cash-boxes and all of the GOYIM began to pay us the tribute of subjects….

  60. @Carie: You state: “The securities investors are NOT “creditors”…EVER.” Is there a quick and easy way for you to explain why you have made the above statement? I would like to understand, and I am sure if I don’t get it, there are some more out there who do not either. Thanks for your enlightenment.

  61. The structuring of this ponzi scheme was intentional. Many financial experts agree….what were labeled subprime were not enough risk to cause so much damage. The risk by subprime was in fact considered a healthy amount of risk. They were covering up for the quadrillion dollars they stole so they created a few victims to blame it on. They were ALL LIARS LOANS….

  62. They were all subprime carie…they were all junk stocks & bonds. Set ups to fail.

  63. I’m talking about the subprime only, stripes.

  64. Their fraud began in 1982 under Reagan/Bush….the fake repeal of Glass Steagall was a cover up for what they had already been doing for nearly 2 decades.

  65. After the repeal of Glass-Steagall, de-regulation then went into effect, around 1999-2000.
    At that time, the GSE’s (Fannie/Freddie) put the existing NOTES into a FALSE DEFAULT/CHARGE OFF, so that new (fake) “notes” could be put into the newly created MERS system of NON-FUNDING, and be easily traded on Wall Street…along with all the derivatives.

    The securities investors are NOT “creditors”…EVER.

  66. Nothing they are doing is Constitutional or Legal Charles. They are Felons and Imposters.

  67. If the Link is blocked…..Google search …. THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION…….None of what they are doing is Legal.

  68. Let go with a Ginnie Mae pool where there is no risk of the “investors” losing a dime of there principal investment because the principal investment is 100% guaranteed by the Federal Government.

    So if is alleged that the lender turned issuer take advance of the sale of the MBS, however why and what amount is advance 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% of the amount that was lent to the borrowers?

    So the advance is for the issuer to now turn around and originated other home mortgage loans while the “investors” sit back and make money without taking any risk what so ever. However the servicer in my case received $429,095 when there was only a $202,400 balance, which had the loan balance been paid off as in any normal government amortized loan the interest would stop as the lender was receiving that by the rule of 78 the interest is front loaded. So the balance owe would be paid off and the contract ends.

    So now what occurred actual is that the Note is relinquish in a blank form to Ginnie Mae without pay, but has been endorsed in blank and Ginnie Mae is in physical possession of the blank Note whether that they have the Notes on Ginnie Mae’s soil or in the hands of some servicers/trust/master servicer of whatever they are calling themselves but are acting as the custodian of records is an extension of Ginnie Mae and not a separate corporation acting independently.

    Now let get to Ginnie Mae and MERS, where it known by law Ginnie is not a home mortgage lender but is a member who is also a shareholder as the servicer is also a shareholder of MERS. How does MERS who is only this registry that act as the beneficiary for its shareholder, but is suppose to be acting as the corporation. Does the decision that MERS makes comes from its shareholder at the shareholder meeting? How is MERS actual separated from those its hired to perform these various actions. MERS cannot act for Ginnie Mae as either are lenders but Ginnie Mae is in possession of these blank Notes it does not pay for.

    I received a letter from Ginnie Mae do to my complaining, and one thing is for certain is the staff does not have a clue as to the procedures in states as to what constitutes ownership and right to file a lien, and if a lien is recorded when it becomes invalid.

    At what point when Washington Mutual (WaMu) was seized and declared a “failed bank” did the fake relationship that was already present where the bank was after the loans were pooled, it acted as a servicer for Ginnie Mae who is not a lender is there any pooling agreement with a non lender? then starting in Jul 31, 2006 Wells Fargo come to some servicing agreement with WaMu to service the loan when in fact WaMu does not possess the Notes but Ginnie does!

    How do you have this financial arrangement when there nothing between the home borrowers and Ginnie Mae but a Note that is forever blank and does not mention Ginnie Mae in any capacity? You got a joke that occurred and a court system that been blind to basic common sense as to who is listed on the Note as the owner. How was it possible to record titles without viewing the contract/Notes? If the Notes were present at the time of the request it would have been seen that Ginnie Mae is listed no where on the document and in fact the document is blank of a owner!

    So we got a transaction where there is suppose to be an advance amount of monies to the lender turned issuer and the insurer in Ginnie Mae who not invested a single dime claiming ownership because they are guarantying the securities, but cannot under the law sell the underlying collateral, because they are not a lender!

  69. Laura Shields of Home Appeal, LLC should be tarred and feathered…and thrown in a cell to rot:

    How does a house worth more than $200,000 get sold for a mere $5,000? Pure deception, says the family of an 88-year-old woman who, they claim, was swindled while she lay sick in a nursing-home bed. Mabel Bobo (pictured above left with her daughter) owned her Charlotte, N.C., home for 56 years and raised three kids there. But when her loan became delinquent, the home in the Charlotte’s Dilworth neighborhood fell into foreclosure and was put up for auction last June. It garnered bids as high as $48,358, but one investor snapped it up for just a tenth of that — allegedly through shady means, WCNC-TV in Charlotte reported.

    Bobo, who suffers from dementia, had to move into a nursing home nearby when she could no longer care for herself. She says that she had no idea that her home was even foreclosed on. But while she was at the nursing home, she said that she began receiving frequent “surprise visits” from a woman named Laura Shields, who represents Home Appeal, LLC.

    During the visits, Bobo was allegedly asked by Shields to sign over the deed to her small home at 515 Ideal Way. Despite Bobo’s lack of understanding and discomfort — she said that she told Shields to “leave her alone” — family members said that Bobo was essentially forced to sign the paperwork in order to get Shields to stop visiting her. “[Shields] came to someone who is almost 90 years old and shoved a piece of paper in front of them,” Bobo’s daughter, Patricia Rader, told WCNC. “[It happened] repeatedly until she was so tired of seeing them, she signed it to get rid of them.”

    When WCNC presented the signed deed and asked Bobo if it was her signature on the paper, she answered: “Yes, but I don’t remember signing it.” Shields’ lawyers explain that Bobo was paid $5,000 for the house when she signed the deed in her bed in the nursing home, and that they have an undated check stub to prove it. But according to the family, Bobo does not have any more bank accounts and her family “never received a dime.” Bobo’s family is currently fighting a legal battle to get the home back, saying that Bobo wasn’t in “any mental condition” to sign the house away.

  70. These entities are Imposters and Felons. We The People do not owe any loyalty, money or property to the Synagogue of Satan, the Babylonian Talmud or The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion…

  71. What i find remarkable is that, in case of a car accident with bodily injury, if your medical bills have been paid by a third party, you cannot collect them in your damages. The third party may assert subrogation rights against the responsible party for the reimbursement of the bills paid but only one party can recover. It’s called the “collateral source” rule and everybody understands it and double indemnity is simply not legally allowed.

    Why is it so difficult to apply it to mortgage loans? There are multiple collateral sources that have paid toward the satisfaction of the debt and lenders/banks are almost never out one penny. Why isn’t that looked upon as being a similar situation? As soon as an insurer has paid anything to anyone, he should be the only party allowed to go after the homeowner.

  72. There is no way to Securitize a Quadrillion Dollars in Securities and Derivatives Fraud louise. These Imposters have stolen another $60.4 trillion more dollars in payments and 20+ million properties from US they were not owed since 2008….. backed by $12 trillion dollars in our initial stakeholder investment. Therefore this is outright robbery by imposters and nothing more.

  73. These entities are NOT OUR GOVERNMENT E Tolle…..They are IMPOSTERS…..THE SAME ENTITIES WHO ARE FRAUDCLOSING ON WE THE PEOPLE…. Everything they are doing is Immoral, Unethical, Unconstitutional and Illegal.

  74. These criminal Imposter Felons are in fact, sueing themselves for their own Default and subsequent Securities Fraud/Derivatives Fraud crimes they committed in our names without our knowledge or consent.

    Fraudclosure is a cover-up for the crimes of the crooked bank shareholders/bondholder/investors who have stolen a quadrillion dollars from us plus $60.4 trillion dollars in payments and 20 + million properties since 2008…. all under the BIG LIE of money owed.

    There is no money or property owed because these crooks DO NOT LEND ANYTHING OF VALUE….That ploy was used to commit a quadrillion dollars in SECURITIES & DERIVATIVES FRAUD….and not one American is Safe, Secure or has Peace in their Persons, Papers, Effects or Properties as a result.

    The Life, Liberty and Property of We The People are in Peril because we have been hijacked by Imposters who are not our Government and our not our fellow Americans. These are complete Strangers in every sense of the word and they wear many clever disguises.

    You will know these Imposters by all of their open & secret Immoral, Unconstitutional and Illegal Acts against our Constitutional Republic.

  75. Neil’s post today relates a facet of this crime spree that convinces me beyond a shadow of a doubt that our government is 100% complicit in throwing the entire populace under the bus in order to save their true constituents, the financial sector, and that nothing short of hitting the streets en masses will change that fact. How else could hundreds of billions of taxpayer’s dollars go to satisfying AIG and other obligations on the investor side, without the same accounting applying to the borrower side of the equation? It’s very simple math at the core.

    This preferential accounting scheme alone is enough to warrant tossing every single representative in government who continues to this day in turning deaf ears and blind eyes to the plight of ordinary citizens. What further evidence is needed to see that they have no desire for equality and fairness? I’m convinced that the only thing that will change their collective mind is the sight of ropes being strung from lamp posts.

  76. All of us who own a home purchased after 1995 and allegedly securitized owe far less than what we are paying at the present time. In fact, I am sure that the banks and other derivatives owe us money. They probably owe us lots of money, because they sold those notes multiple times and have multiple insurance contracts (misrepresentation and fraud) (and other sophisticated hedges against loss) to mitigate their loss. It is going to be interesting to see if the maze of sales, insurance, payments, etc. can be untangled so that we can really see how much money went into whose pockets and how much left the homeowners’ and creditors’ pockets.

  77. Gleaming from this post and previous posts, I’d like to test my logic for my particular case. Bond was $2,2B (2/3 backed by Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac and 1/3 non conforming loans backed by Ambac, which is in Bankruptcy 11). Ambac has posted on their web site that the original $772M insured amount for the non conforming loans currently has a Net Par exposure of only $44M. Assuming Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and CDS kept 2/3 of the bond whole (and thus no loss) – the entire bond is only exposed by $44M (which represents only 2% of the original $2.2B). Does that mean that 98% of my principal should have been reduced, and at best I should only owe 2% of my original Note (if that’s valid).

    Comments please

  78. “Credit Enhancement” is also another form of a Swap

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: