“Settlement” Checks Are Bouncing

WHY YOU SHOULD SIGN UP FOR MEMBERSHIP AND SEND A DONATION. GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND SIGN UP FOR BOTH: Every morning I read the recent cases, news articles and other blogs with an eye toward developing strategies and tactics that will get at the truth of the mortgage disaster. It takes hours and the staff that was required to be hired had to be paid. The free information and forms (see left side column of this blog) are supported by membership dues voluntarily paid by people supporting our efforts and who participate and ask questions of me and other experts twice per month. We need your support to broaden our investigation and efforts and to maintain the ability to provide you with analysis required to understand how the banks operated during this era of “securitization.” Please take a moment and sign up as a member and make a donation: MEMBERSHIP AND DONATION
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 Note: Adding insult to injury the checks being sent out for the so-called settlement that replaces the foreclosure review required by the federal reserve and the OCC are bouncing causing homeowners to be charged for the bounced check. The banks of course say it is all a big mistake that they forgot to transfer funds. That is probably true.

But it is equally true that these paltry settlement checks are in no way equal to the damage that was caused by the illegal foreclosures which were surfacing during the time that the review process was taking place. The OCC says that we are not allowed to look at that review process or the results because of privacy issues. I say that under the freedom of information act we are entitled to see everything and I’m betting on Elizabeth Warren to get that material and make it public.

It appears that the general context and status of these illegal foreclosures is that they are left standing as though they were legal and that the perpetrators are being let off the hook for a mere payment of $1000 on an average mortgage of $200,000.

It is important to remember that the settlement does not preclude homeowners from filing whatever claims they have even if they have accepted the check. It is also quite clear that the OCC is walking in lockstep with the banking lobby in an effort to protect the megabanks from extinction.

Several practitioners have asked me how to get past the judge who thinks the case is quite simple, to wit: the borrower accepted a loan  and failed to pay it back in the manner specified by the promissory note and therefore borrower’s  contractual  consent to the sale of the home should be enforced. My answer is that there is an issue that needs to be introduced early, repeatedly and emphatically. The issue boils down to whether or not the court is going to decide the case on the actual facts or on faulty presumptions.

The faulty presumption is that the possessor of the note is deemed to be the holder of the note and therefore the holder in due course. That is not what the Uniform Commercial Code says. If it said that than any Courier carrying promissory notes endorsed in blank could collect on those notes to the detriment of both the borrower and the lender. The difference between a possessor of the note and a holder of the note is that the holder of the note acquired the note by virtue of a monetary transaction in which the new entity in the chain paid a sum of money to the last holder of the note. The Uniform Commercial Code specifically requires that in order for an instrument to be construed as a negotiable instrument the transaction requires consideration and consideration consists of payment. Payment means that money actually changed hands. Thus you have a party in possession of the note with proof that they paid for ownership of the note.

The Uniform Commercial Code is quite clear that the transaction must take place in the context of value received by the assignor from the assignee.

The other question  that I have heard from both judges and attorneys relates to the so-called open endorsements. First, there is no transfer of ownership without consideration as I have detailed above. Second, open endorsements are specifically prohibited in the body of the pooling and servicing agreement upon which the forecloser  relies for authority to proceed with the notice of default and the notice of sale or the filing of a judicial action seeking foreclosure.

I have heard a judge say that it doesn’t make any difference to him what details were involved in the transaction as long as the original note shows that it was endorsed in blank or otherwise constituted an open endorsement. Those judges are ignoring the requirements for consideration or value in order to treat the note as a negotiable instrument and thus apply the presumptions set forth in the Uniform Commercial Code.

They are also ignoring the fact that the pooling and servicing agreement specifically prohibits the open endorsement, which is no surprise since an open endorsement would not protect the investors whose money was used to fund the alleged mortgage loan. In fact it could fairly be said that the open endorsement or endorsement in blank produces a unique result, to wit: the only party who could not accept the note and claim ownership of the loan is the party that is doing exactly that. They can’t say that their authority comes from the pooling and servicing agreement but that the prohibition against open endorsements does not apply. Either the pooling and servicing agreement means something or it doesn’t.

But the key issue is actually the money and the money trail. Neither the trust nor any other party is entitled to a presumption of the status of a holder without alleging and proving that they paid for the note and attaching the relevant documents showing the sale of the note from the former holder of the note (if in fact they were actually a former holder of the note), giving the date, identifying the parties and showing the amount paid.  Alleging that they are the holder of the note is a legal conclusion and not a short and plain statement of ultimate facts upon which relief could be granted. The short and plain statement of ultimate facts should be that on a certain date they paid a certain amount of money to a certain party who all owned the loan and that therefore they are a holder entitled to enforce the note and mortgage.

A failure to state that they were in fact damaged or to allege facts from which the trier of fact could conclude that they were damaged is a fatal defect in pleading and is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any time including on appeal —  unless of course in the trial court the borrower admitted that the party seeking foreclosure was in fact the holder of the note.

If you follow these simple steps,  the attorneys for the bank will fight tooth and nail for presumptions rather than facts.  The reason is simple. They have no evidence of payment for the origination or transfer of the loan and therefore the presumption they wish to raise as a holder of the note is rebutted.
So you might want to ask the judge a question that goes something like this: “Judge, do you want to decide this case on the actual facts or do you want to decide this case on the basis of faulty presumptions that are contrary to the facts.

Foreclosure Review Report Shows That the OCC Continues to Bury Wall Street’s Bodies

Foreclosure-abuse settlement checks bounce

Independent Foreclosure Review Fiasco: OCC and Fed Decided Not to Find Harm

Jeffrey Sachs Calls Out Wall Street Criminality and Pathological Greed

125 Responses

  1. The Synagogue Of Satan have no regard for our Life, Liberty or Property. That is why they destroyed the Securities. They believe they are better than everyone else. They have a serious God complex and believe we should all suffer and that is the only way to our salvation and that gives them everlasting life by sacrificing all of us & making us suffer gives them power. They are control freak serial killers who hijacked everything by stealing and investing. They have the cures for everything.

  2. Senator E. Warren’s office is accepting “letters” from IFR victims. Just
    send a statement of what happened w/mtg, no more than 2 pages. Include your contact info. Send a copy of your check or include the amt. you received.
    On the envelope – The first line in your return address section should be:
    INDEPENDENT FORECLOSURE REVIEW VICTIM, then your return address follow under that line.
    Mail your letters to:

    Elizabeth Warren
    Senator for Massachusetts
    2400 JFK Federal Building
    15 New Sudbury Street
    Boston, MA. 02203

  3. When you know who these people really are the Rosemary’s Baby comparison is not far fetched at all. The synagogue of satan always warns us in subtle and deceptive ways about what they are planning. That way they feel no guilt, though they really don’t have any conscience, they pretehd to. They can’t hide it any longer, the media can’t cover it up, these politicians are imposters.

  4. I would really like to know why Obama has such hatred for the American people. All of the hate, poverty, strife, and oppression came from the banksters, not all of us. The movie Obama 2012 painted the hatred as a hatred for colonialism ….rule by monarchs. So Obama’s idea of a better world, “hope & change” is totalitarianism…? This was always an evil plan to create totalitarianism that all began with colonialism and I believe Obama is secretly one of the very monarchs he claims to hate. They simply hate everyone. I don’t believe his story for a minute. He is part of this same bloodline and that is what they are covering up and why they won’t tell us where he really came from. No random assed person becomes President of the U.S.A….I believe his story is more along the lines of rosemary’s baby. He fits the description.

  5. In Illinois it’s the “link card.” It is a disgrace what Obama & his cohorts & minions have caused by bailing out the banksters to the tune of $60.4 trillion dollars of our wealth since 2008. People are using the link card to supplement their lousy incomes so they can pay rent to these thieves. People are fighting for a lousy $15 buck an hour wage increase. It is all communist bullshit. The people are brainwashed by these corporate fascist imposters & are acting like imbeciles. The american people have been reduced to a communist slave mentality begging for the corrupt traitor politicians for everyone to make the same amount of money while the politicians and the banksters rob the Treasury Dept and live like royalty and dole crumbs out to the peasants they created.

    If I could ask Obama and this gang we call Congress & the Senate one question it would be….. Why do you people hate this country and the American people so much that you allowed these foreigners to destroy our peace & security?

    They are all filthy rich scumbags who got rich off of our backs. Goddamned imposters & traitors every last one of them.

  6. Chase makes money everytime someone gets on food stamps. Max Keiser said a while back Chase doles out the food stamps to the peasants they create. Chase collects property taxes in Cook County, Illinois as well. It is all complete bullshit. They all need to be hung.

  7. from article I just linked:

    “…increasing food-stamp enrollment has become a means of economic growth, bringing almost $6 billion each year into the state…”

    And that’s just Florida…

  8. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-florida-a-food-stamp-recruiter-deals-with-wrenching-choices/2013/04/23/b3d6b41c-a3a4-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html

    “…The program grew during the economic collapse because 10 million more Americans dropped into poverty…”

    Yup—makin’ money off the poor that they created. Create the crisis—create the “solution”…it’s the American way.

  9. This is a letter I felt compelled to write to the letter of the editor of our local newspaper. The payouts that are being paid to affected homeowners is a straight up joke! Some are getting as little as $300. Amazing that the banks were able to police themselves throughout this whole process. This letter will demonstrate, another way, that the banks are getting away with crimes that would have ended us, the average American, in prison.

    This is an apology to our neighbors, our neighborhood and our city. We apologize for how our home has deteriorated and how, it may seem that we have been neglectful of our home. We have lived in our home and in this beautiful city, for almost nineteen years; and for many years we were very involved in trying to better our community and in some ways are still involved today, although, as you will see, we have been busy in other avenues of bettering, hopefully, our country when this is all said and done.
    In 2004, after a very destructive year in our lives (the death of our son-in-law and grandson, the loss of a job and a son serving his country in Iraq); we were forced to refinance our home and unfortunately for us, had dealt with a loan company that, within six months after our “closing”, would receive a Cease and Desist letter from the State of Michigan for illegal practices. We would learn this fact after the bank tried to illegally foreclose on our home in 2006. We discovered that the involved lender had blatantly forged my husband and my signatures to the mortgage document, notarized that document and recorded it as legal tender at the Lapeer County Register of Deeds.
    We spent the next six years, fighting the bank, over a crime that, had we committed, would have sent us straight to jail, paying restitution and suffering the consequences that go along with that type of decision. We not only had to fight the bank; we had to fight the very court (bankruptcy) that we reported this crime to. The trustee hired an attorney that jumped on the bandwagon to win an avoidance of the forged mortgage, only for that same attorney to turn around, after we won (in July 2007), and attempt to sell the avoided mortgage back to the defendants for $30,000, without notifying us or our attorney; an action which would have allowed the guilty defendants to retain their interest in our property and continue with their illegal foreclosure. We were forced to pay the trustee’s attorney over $12,000 for his “services”.
    This erroneous decision by the bankruptcy court, before determining whether the bank had a legal right to an equitable mortgage, caused us to appeal the resale of our voided mortgage to the US District Court. This courts determination was that the bankruptcy court had not determined whether the bank had a legal right to have an equitable mortgage, based on the forgery, and sent it back to the lower court for a determination. The bankruptcy court, upon the receipt of this remand, immediately determined that the defendants were eligible for the equitable mortgage and, again, we were forced to appeal to the US District Court. The final determination deemed that the bank did not have the legal right to have an equitable mortgage. This action caused the bank to file an appeal to the US 6th Circuit Court, where, finally, in January of 2012 the higher court denied the equitable mortgage.
    Most would consider this a big win, however, if this was a big win, I wouldn’t be sitting here, almost seven years later, feeling compelled to write this letter of regret. The entire time that we were embroiled in this fight, we were continually told that we were not to make any repairs to the home (after all it might go back to the bank). The bank (six years after the avoidance of the mortgage and a year-and-a-half after the circuit court’s decision) still have their names on our deed and have placed forced insurance upon our home that has been billed to us on our ever growing “escrow” that we weren’t entitled to when we actually had a mortgage…and the coup de grâce, the bank is reporting that we are over 80-months delinquent on our non-existent “mortgage”.
    We have had to hire another law firm to straighten out this mess and after speaking with our lawyer, this will be another long, drawn out affair. We have attempted to file a claim against the insurance, however, it is likely the bank will rescind the insurance based on a “mutual mistake of fact” (the original servicer, midway through the appeals process sold the non-existent mortgage to another servicer)…so, in other words, oops, sorry we didn’t tell you that the mortgage we sold you had no validity, no hard feelings.
    We have contacted every agency that we can think of to try and get help with our situation, only to be told that because our credit is shot we, most likely, would not be able to get any help if there was any help available in the first place.
    There is no quick fix for us. We decided to stand up against a crime that was committed against us and this is the consequences of an average American going toe to toe with the banks. They will chew you up and spit you out without any regard for the laws that govern us, the “average” Americans. So, therefore, I feel compelled to apologize to my neighbors and community and let you know that this is not what we want and every day we make strides to overcome what the last ten years has done to our lives. I will not apologize for fighting a crime or standing on principle, but I know that my decisions now have consequences for my neighbors and neighborhood. I hope that this will at least give our neighbors answers to the why “it is what it is”.
    Sheryl L. Sutter

  10. I was reading an article on 4closurefraud about the mortgage settlement checks. They were supposed to be much larger checks and include “permanent loan mods.” They were supposed to modify fraud? What about those like my brother in law who were wrongfully evicted? Where do they go for justice & a redress of grievances? They should not need to hire an attorney to get back what was stolen.

  11. Wells Fargo v. Bohatkas
    Wells Fargo filed foreclosure action and attached a note payable to Option One. The Bohatkas filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the Wells Fargo lacked standing as the note was payable to a different entity. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Wells Fargo produced an allonge. Counsel for the Bohatkas urged the trial court to examine the original note and mortgage and determine whether the allonge had ever been “affixed” to the note. The trial court determined that nothing had ever been “affixed” to the note and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The trial court stated:
    This is my ruling; Motion to Dismiss granted. Nothing was attached. There is no endorsement. There is no allonge, and there cannot be any allonge affixed before filing, so dismissal is with prejudice. I also suspect that this document [the allonge] was created to defeat the defendants’ motion. I want to preserve the originals by a separate order … please draft a separate order that the original documents will remain in the court file and will not be removed without my authorization by anyone. I reserve the right to send them to the attorney general for investigation of this activity by plaintiff and its counsel.
    Wells Fargo appealed. The 1st DCA affirms the dismissal, however, it held the dismissal should be without prejudice because Wells Fargo produced evidence at the hearing from which it could amend the complaint.
    The 1st DCA goes into a lengthy discussion on allonges and the fact that case law in Florida is lacking on the subject

  12. JG, ….. The issuer must complete the FC and take Title and Possession first for HUD BEFORE it can file a claim with FNMA. No FC deed…. No Claim. That is why BOA had to have the fc deeds ( that CW filed) fc’ed in CW name. That is why they denied payments on CW loan mods and believe it or not … reinstatements to. BOA could have never got the title with a CW Lp, they were desperate to get the titles and collect the taxpayer INS from FNHA… OR FACE REPAYMENT OF THE CDS collected by CW. Buttwipes!!

  13. iwmynpv – you went a tad fast for me (i’m pretty unsophisticated on that stuff), but I think you basically said it’s a subsidiary which takes out and bens from the cds and or its a subsidiary which does things which allow accounting shananigans by the banks? But still, that doesn’t tell anyone if a company which is a licensed, regulated insurance co. could deal in “bets”,
    dereg or not: the insurance industry was not deregulated. If AIG dealt in “side bets” which would be an activity not approved by its license, did we really not only condone those acts, but bail them out under tbtf? Or, is the truth that the party taking insurance had an insurable interest?

  14. Correct error re: the signs to watch for…. there would be increased fratricidal and intrafratricidal incidents…

  15. Why is a servicer issuing a 1099 in its name? I can think of no theory or factual basis for servicers to issue 1099’s. I can readily see why the banksters would want the 1099’s issued by the servicers (so as not to expose facts), but see no right for them to do so. Let’s see….. GNMA says it doesn’t cover investors (unless the Issuer is insolvent); the issuer must make and keep the investors whole including repurchasing the (allegedly defaulted) loans, and then the issuer may ben from the fha ins or VA guarantee. If the issuers follow what appears to be a mandatory (tweaked, tweaked) contractual agreement / oblilgation between the issuers and GNMA, seems to me that could form the basis for issuers to issue 1099’s.
    But, then,fha or va covers any loss, so what is there for issuers to issue a 1099 on and if there is something to issue a 1099 on (i dont’ see it), how does that make the servicer the party to issue a 1099? Even if the servicer were literally the agent of the issuer, the 1099 still could not issue in the servicer’s name. FNMA guarantees the investors, so I could see how FNMA could issue a 1099 when and if it suffers a loss by repurchase. Is FNMA issuing any 11099’s?

    But IS debt which has been paid by a third party (here fha or va) “forgiven”? Maybe to the IRS, but again, because of the corresponding write-off by the 1099 issuer which to my knowledge accompanies the issuance of a 1099, I’m just not sure. If I were related to the person who paid my debt for me, do I get a 1099? Like if Aunt Mary paid off my loan? What’s the difference if it’s my auntie or proceeds pursuant to some contract? The question for me here is do I get a 1099 when there is no corresponding loss to my obligee, since as far as I know, a loss (expense) and a 1099 go hand in hand? Anyone who has worked at a job and gotten a car allowance knows he gets a 1099. That 1099 has a corresponding expense to the employer.
    I guess the question of whether a 1099 for debt forgiveness may issue without a corresponding loss is one for a tax accountant, but I can’t help thinking not.
    But the real issue I’m trying to explore is who the heck is issuing 1099’s and I haven’t found a path to the servicer being that guy. Let’s say that a 1099 for debt forgiveness may issue without a corresponding loss to anyone (??). Why are servicers issuing 1099’s?
    Foreclosures are being done in the trusts’ names and credit bids are being done in the trusts’ names (that I know of). Are the trusts legal structures of the kind that may issue 1099’s and if so, why aren’t the 1099’s coming from the trusts when the trusts are f/c’ing and using credit bids and are allegedly the real parties in interest? Is this just more of the ruse (and is it a ‘tell’?) or is there some legit reason a servicer may issue a 1099 in its own name?
    Seems to me that issuing a 1099 when one has no right to do so is tax
    fraud and fraud on the borrower. Add that to the list?

  16. Some of the signs would be the ramping up of wars & rumors of wars would have world powers taking sides, financial collapses, earth changes would cause extremely volatile weather, there would be calamities of all sorts, people would become licentious, liars, haters of anything good, the youth would not honor or respect their parents, increases in infratacide, infantacide, and a general falling away of the faith, toward the end of the world the antichrist would overthrow the pope and usurp his See, the mark of the beast would be fraudulently induced (OBAMACARE), there would be a new blood on the doorpost, a mark of the cross on the forehead of all who deplore and disapprove of filth, China & Russia would try & cause a world wide revolution, and immorality would be propagandized.

  17. @JG That is the ‘slight of hand” being played out. CDS and synthetic swaps accrue to the balance sheet as trading profits, yet they are carried by the SPE (subsidiary) of NA as the hedge allowing them to skirt reserve requirements and actual tier one CAMEL.

    Apparently, simple gimmicks by auditors ( held for sale) / (held to maturity) allow these mutts to write down losses, that are not losses at all.

    The borrower funded the the premiums to purchase the swaps through rate (YSP). If i paid for the swap, I should benefit form the trigger event as well. The Master Servicers will be cleaning many of these pools up soon, and with the termination, the pools will die along with the crimes.

    Most financial institutions are turning to the next industry,upon which they will fleece us common average folk. Energy, energy energy.

    For those of you who purchased Rite Aid at 1.08 – 1.19 per share. We hae sold most of the position at $2.15. The trailing positions were liquidated $2.42 and no further ideas will be provided.

    No long or short positions in RAD. This information is free and you should consult a financial advisor.

    We are working on something real unique in the next couple weeks and if you would like for us to share it with you for free – to make your own investment decisions – please post to this page.

  18. I see this ongoing war as a test and we are all being used as test subjects. We are being tested in every aspect of our lives. Our spirits, bodies and minds are being put to the ultimate test. To the non believers they will say this is humanity at its worst. To the believers it is a spiritual war and the biggest test in history of our faith. I believe it is the latter and the whole of humanity are being tested and we are all being used as test subjects in this spiritual war. The malefactor wants us to hate God and turn his way or deny God exists and blame each other.

    My Grandma told me long ago that the devil made a bet with God that in 100 years he could turn everyone evil and make them turn against God. When the devil knew he was running out of time and his time left was short he would ramp up his efforts. We were warned what the signs would be near the end of that bet.

    I find it interesting there was never, to my recollection, a movie made on that subject matter. Out of the many movies made about the devil, not one was made about the biggest and most significant bet in human history.

    I also find it interesting WW I began on July 28, 1914 and we are nearing the completion of 100 years of ongoing wars.

  19. indentured; n. 1. A contract binding one party into the service of another for a specified term. Often used in the plural. 2. a.) A deed or legal contract executed between two or more parties. b.) An official or authenticated inventory list or voucher.

    The contracts were destroyed and never executed therefore, the deeds could not be transferred. Nothing the Issuer did can be authenticated so, no, none of the above definitions apply.

  20. @JG

    Re. the 1099—-as I posted here before, mine states that my servicer ( IndyMac) was the “Lender”. (ha)

    Yet my servicer (IndyMac) told me in writing that the MBS trust “owns” the loan. (ha)

    Yet the foreclosure mill (Aztec) tells me in writing that the Trustee of the MBS (Deutsche) was my current “creditor/lender”. (Yet the Fed Reserve Opinion from 2009 states that an MBS Trustee and/or securities investors are and cannot ever be a creditor).

    And, best of all—the foreclosure mill also “informed” me that my original creditor/lender was a “database”…MERS.

    Oh what a tangled web they weave…and are still weaving.

  21. carie – I can believe that, unike mortgage loans which were sold to others or are indentured to others, credit card debt may be insured in one form or another and that the insurer would have rights of subrogation as to the debt. Subrogation, you’ll recall, was not available to the AIG’s because of the mtg loan sale (or indenture) to others (the trust / investors). If cc debt were not sold or indentured prior to default, an insurer – by any name – could contractually own the cc debt and its ‘collection right’, i.e., would be subrogated. But the orig, insured owner of the cc debt imo could not write off the cc debt , only any amts not covered by the insurance (by any name). As far as I know, no one is legally allowed double recovery by (1) the remedy of a write-off and (2) another remedy of taking money for that loss from a third party.
    A question remaining for me is if the contracts with (an) AIG were purely bets related to interests of others, or if AIG, a regulated insurance company (is it not?), should have limited its coverage to insuring only owners of interests. In other words, did AIG take the bet of the guy accross the street on my home and under charter (or whatever) within its regulated structure as an insurance company, should AIG have done this if it did? If I got it right, and AIG is a regulated insurer, AIG should not have taken side bets. The other side of that question is did the insured party (here the bankster) have a legal interest sufficient to insure.
    And I still point to the IRS’ position on debt forgiveness as a reason to believe the IRS knows the party issuing the 1099 should not be the party issuing a 1099 ( but then, I don’t actually know who is issuing these 1099’s. The trusts? Seems to me since it’s the trust which is now allegedly foreclosing (gag), it should be the party issuing a 1099). And or it’s because the IRS is ignoring the tax ramifications to investors who have received monies which were and are not entitled to preferential treatment. Tax forgiveness all around. Swell, but it’s yet allowing and condoning all manner of evils with homeowners being the big losers.

    If the banksters actually own the loans and were made whole by CDS’s etc., I’m hard pressed to see – maybe because I’m not a tax accountant – how any 1099 should issue to the homeowner:
    When a homeowner has to declare debt forgiveness by way of a 1099 he received, seems to me there is a corresponding (expense) write-off to the party issuing the 1099, and any one who was made whole by CDS etc is not also entitled to another benefit by way of a write-off and the issuance of a 1099. imo

  22. Carpenter v Longan … without the legal assignment the former & the latter are a nullity. If the Security was never created by the Issuer of the original bill of credit before they sold the rights, transferred or assigned our names to another bank, the notes & the mortgages cease to exist. The Issuer lost any legal rights to ever collect money or property from us upon the Origination Fraud. There is no legal “fix” for that. These are our Securities, not their casino chips.

  23. The Treasury Dept., We The People, funded the “loans” Charles. I am mainly talking about the Origination Fraud. The fact the Security was never created as the law requires. That is easy to prove. Funding investments in Securities Fraud is not funding a loan.

  24. stripes I think the problem with you argument that the loans started out as fraud with the larger bank such as the four big banks is that they are trillion dollar asset corporation, and so by saying to a judge that they did not have the funds to fund a certain loan or a series of loans would be hard to prove, especially when the loan are sold so soon after the closing.

    I don’t think that funding something and knowing that in a short time you can sell that item for a profit is criminal, because that how business is done from a supplier to retail to consumer, instead of direct sells from maker to user.

    Arguments are better made without the first part of the transaction which is the borrower did borrower monies to pay the builder or seller of the property. There is monies changing hand in exchange for the actual property. Even with refinances you had to have a older debts removed with deeds of re-conveyance so I not sure were its being said that refinances were done and these issues not taken care of. But also at the closing if there is a current lien it paid at the time of the closing and is why you a current payment from the soon to be lender.

    It to hard and mostly misunderstood by some with abound funding. But saying this by no means do I not see that a lender is floating funds so that the Fed can inject funds into the housing market at no risk to them on the taxpayer dime, but they manage to cover there tracks in doing so.

    The real issue is what happen after the borrower closing their closed end contract and the securitization of the Notes is the big issue, because what is done is it makes the invalid and clouds the title with is also not valid ad in the case of Ginnie Mae cannot be placed on a title because they have absolutely no financial interest in the blank Notes!

  25. The real estate closing attorney’s should have insisted that everyone put their deeds in trusts and screwed these greedy banksters.

  26. The real problem is, the debt these banksters have created by monetizing everything is so massive it can never be repaid. They are now in fact, monetizing Securities Fraud. That is the definition of insanity. They probably monetized the settlement checks and are gambling on every aspect of that transaction. The military men are probably gambled on and insured.

    The banksters are gambling junkies. They are like rabid monetizing animals and the issuance of credit is just a coverup for monetizing things that have no value. They overissue investments in things that don’t exist then the peddle credit to cover up their fraud. Everything is the opposite of what it appears.

    I honestly believe they destroyed the value of the buildings before they were even built by overissuing investments in the land by way of the PROPERTY INDEX NUMBERS (PIN; #’s). Look at the skyhigh property tax and utility bills. There is no other logical explanation for it.

    Banksters and their financial weapons of mass destruction are more dangerous than standing armies.

  27. I agree Trespass we were the Issuer of money that created the bill of credit, the mortgages and the notes/checks were issued by us. What they created was fraud and it was intentional. The cover up of fraud proves intent and that makes what they did criminal. By “they” I mean anyone who knew there was fraud and intended to conceal it by any means makes this criminal.

    The State AG’s office told me “intent to harm” is hard to prove regarding the loan mod fiasco. That person who told me that was in fact, aiding & abetting a crime because the “loans” were fraudulent to begin with and fraudulently induced and meant to fail. The entire loan mod fiasco was an attempt to cover up a lot of fraud but mainly, the Origination Fraud from way back at our original purchase. Way before any refis were done or cross collats or “second” liens. Even refis are in fact covering up for a bad deal we were given by these morons. They keep refinancing the fraud to keep the scam going.

    We were pitifully uneducated from the start. That should never have been allowed by these lowlife politicians. Look at what they have allowed to happen to our kids with the college loans. The kids are not thinking about when the time comes to start making good on their end of the contract, they are signing up for the college experience and graduating with mountains of debt & in many cases, their Grandparents homes are on the line because their parents are up to their eyeballs in bankster debt fraud.

    The bankster deception is everywhere in our daily lives. The banksters are monetizing junkies. They monetize crap that does not even exist and they hand us the bill. It needs to stop.

  28. So 1,082 US Troops foreclosed in violation of SCRA, with the average mortgage balance $100,000 and average VA Guaranty Fund insurance payout (Taxpayer money) is 10% of the balance. So $10,000 x 1,082 is $10.82 million x 3 for treble damage is $32.46 million for just this small amount of homeowners illegally foreclosed that We the People are entitled too.

    Now there were $70 billion in FHA loan losses, and as Ginnie Mae is not a lender and does not have the ability to modify loans because they are not a lender and did not purchase the debt, caused as many as 700,000 FHA loans and another 100,000 VA & FHA loans to be denied HAMP modifications.

    Look at the IFR settlement under modifications denied and there were a total of 872,546 and are getting between $6,000 to $1,000 because they were denied a modification? So if the HAMP review process was working in reviewing the files for a modification why would you hand out between $6,000 to $1,000?

    However you got 1,929,177 in the other areas like modification request received but not decision or the borrowers were just not engaged by the servicers or all others, and these group are getting between $800 and $300 dollars for no action by the servicers at all, because the servicer either failed to process the request or the servicer did not reach out to the borrower for a modification.

    So you got a class were everyone of your denial through the proper channel and alleged to be underwritten and are determine to not qualified for the program and are denied get as much as $6,000, and another class where the homeowner requested a HAMP review but for what ever reason until today the file was not process and underwritten they get from $800 to $300?

    Just saying that the Government insured loans could not be foreclosed and the $6,000 sound like a payout for Ginnie Mae’s FRAUD!

  29. Stripes,
    “intent to harm is hard to prove” (?) AG said that huh?
    Well I’m laughing out loud.
    They left huge bread crumbs. Just pick one mortgage in the settlement, hey pick a bankruptcy and see how hard it is to prove that they planned to ignore the law, because they had no regard for the legal system. They lumped the trustee of a deed of trust in the same boat as a trustee over a bankruptcy and how important were either? Not important,, so they railroaded over both and took the home.

    How about the military system? No regard and railroaded over them to.

    So intent is easy to prove when one ‘should know the law’ they are attempting to enforce and they ‘choose of their free will’ to do things to slant a decision in their favor in violation of the very law they are attempting to enforce.

    Intent means knowing there are supposed to be two sides to every coin, and an equitable chance either will show up if the coin was tossed, but by intent doing things to make sure your side of the coin it always on top.

    Loaded dice is easy to show intent in gambling, but no one can see intent in the theft of people’s homes? That was a statement indicating the incompetence of one who said they were competent to be the AG for the people.

    I went to the closing by myself. My first home, I was there alone signing the documents. No representation, the only one in the room I knew was the mortgage lady I dealt with over and over throughout the years. We had a business relationship. She was there. When I signed the promise to pay, she took it out of the room and I kept signing documents. If it weren’t for the refi to drop from 8.5% to 6.5% for 7 years I would not have known that was ‘procedure’. If it weren’t for the refi to lock in 8% at the 6 year mark, I would not have known that each time the note was signed it was taken out of the room and I kept signing.

    The mortgage lady may not have known why, as she was not a banker, just someone who brokered the transaction, but someone knew enough to ‘get that document out of the room’ before I signed the DEED that placed the lien on my home’.

    If you want to know the truth as I see it, we are the Creator and Creditor of the money and the bank facilitated our Creation. Money does not come into existence until we desire it for something we need like shelter. We sign a document, it didn’t have to be a promise to pay it back, that’s what they gave us to facilitate what they were supposed to do. They created the entry and we had a credit and they had a liability to give it to us. Then they gave it to us and used the document that created it as a means to want our creation as their own. So they tricked us into a promise that they know the Creator would not want to break His word, as it is written so shall it be done. So we were abiding by our promise to pay. In their greed, they created entities they could not control. Under MERs they moved mortgages faster than the paperwork to keep the DEED and Note together. It is through their incompetence they ‘lost’ the right to title.
    They bifurcated the paperwork and so they decided to ‘steal’ the homes to create new obligations to put the paperwork back together.
    Modifications was a way to ‘under coercion’ get you to create the new paperwork, but without the background standing they knew they needed for future home sales, they offered the mod but had no intention of allowing it to be permanent. People 18 months after a mod are told it’s rejected.

    The intent is to steal the home and have both paperwork together again with the name of a bank that is still in existence, with a trustee that is not a substitute used to steal the home.

    Intent is there.

    Black’s Law 5th Edition
    To shut out, to bar, to destroy an equity of redemption. Anderson v. Barr, 178 Okl. 508, 62 P.2d 1242, 1246. A termination of all rights of the mortgagor or his grantee in the property covered by the mortgage. The process by which a mortgagor oof real or personal property, or other owner of property subject to a lien, is deprived of his interest therein. Procedure by which mortgaged property is sold on default of mortgagor in satisfaction of mortgage debt.
    …..In common usage, refers to enforcement of lien, trust deed, or mortgage in any method provided by law.

    Statutory foreclosure.
    The term is sometimes applied to foreclosure by execution of a power of sale contained in the mortgage, without recourse to the courts, as it must conform to the provisions of the statute regulating such sales.

    Strict foreclosure.
    A decree of strict foreclosure of a mortgage finds the amount due under the mortgage, orders its payment within a certain limited time, and provides that, in default of such payment, the debtors’s right and equity of redemption shall be forever barred and foreclosed; its effect is to vest the title of the property absolutely in the mortgagee, on default in payment, without any sale of the property.

    Basic truth here, and a case is as strong as it’s weakest link, is the word mortgagor.

    If the one who took the home does not have the standing as the mortgagor in all legal rights of that standing, then they were the wrong ‘person’ taking the home. They lacked standing to foreclose, I don’t care how much they paid the law firm to lie and the notary to notarize their lie (not the notary’s fault…only there to verify who is signing the document….would be their fault for validating documents signed by different people claiming to be the same people, but that’s it for the notary).

    There is intent and it’s provable.

    In my opinion, If the banks really, really did create the bookkeeping entry, used the promise to pay entry/liability they owe us as money to buy government securities (government dept rose in the trillions and trillions around that time) passed it among each other to use and buy more government securities, then turned around and took the property when the debt was already paid hundreds of times over, there is no immunity because the crime is overt and with intent.

    If by my desire, $10 is created as a credit for bookkeeping entry and NOT given to me as it’s supposed to occur for the transaction, and I am ‘tricked’ into paying you $10, it seems you have unjust enrichment of $20. If you also tricked me into giving you a lien to the property and you take the property, that’s further unjust enrichment. If you use the property that was created once, but you took it and sold it to another, you create a full cycle of unjust enrichment over again, by bookkeeping entry, the promise to pay, and the purchase of government securities. Throw in the mix of protections you had in insurance and other accounting, and I’d say each home has turned into a great profit to you and a greater loss to any relying on it as their primary shelter.

    You do not care if a bank declares it’s insolvent. They only reason they declare that, is they have an obligation to another bank or undead person (another corporation) and their obligation to a corporation does not override nor supersede their obligation to the living. We aren’t equal. The living are the superior Creator. The living are the superior Creditor. The bank is the Debtor.

    The Debtor DOES NOT control the Creditor.

    Banks are debtors. Bankers hold our assets and carry the liability for paying it out to us on demand.
    Although the money was created out of thin air, they are not God, we are as Gods in that by our signature the money is Created. Otherwise, they’d be typing in digits in their computer all day long.

    They are facilitators for what we need as Creditors.

    The Debtor DOES NOT control the Creditor.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  30. how do you fool a nation of wrongfully foreclosed people, as always – you lie to them. history repeats itself, the people believe the lies, or rather they want to, because they fear the alternative. the thing is and i think of a truth spoken by plato-
    “the punishments which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men “

  31. Correct error..What type of reassurance will this “offer” bring? How can anybody possibly trust them? My brother in law came over last night with his $3000.00 settlement offer wondering if he should cash it in. The letter said he could still file a lawsuit. I found that curious. What is the settlement offer really about? I told him it would probably be o.k. but I am not sure because I really don’t trust these people. Who can you trust when the attorney’s in this town are helping to cover this mess up…..? His story is one of the worst, he was evicted by the homeowners ass. without a day in court in a judicial state. I am not sure who actually foreclosed, I think it was Wells Fargo Servicing. After the eviction, the title was transferred to a realtor and he was wiped clean from the property title as if he never owned it. I told him I would go see an attorney with him when he is ready to pursue his case but, we all know how that goes. There is no human decency or compassion in this. This is all about the theft. I told him he should move back in a long time ago but now there is someone living there. Maybe he should call the County Sheriffs office who carried out someones order and evicted him without a day in court. Maybe the State’s Attorney’s office should do something because what they did to him was criminal at many levels. I don’t see why he should have to pay an attorney in his case because this was all done illegally.

    This settlement really settles nothing. This is still a giant unresolved mess.

  32. Trespass Unwanted ….I agree with you. They don’t deserve another dime from us. I told their attorney’s that to their faces. You are not getting another dime from me. There will be no settlement because that is not the contract I agreed to. They tell you they may sell “the loan to another bank.” It is what they don’t tell you that is criminal by its deception. Any act of fraud in a legal contract, destroys the legal contract so what makes these contracts legal? That is the question. Where in these so called contracts did it say they would be defaulting on and overissuing investments in our peace & security?

    I would never have agreed to that.

    The real estate closing attorney’s we hired knew what these foreign banksters were doing and I can prove it. They could not tell us THE TRUTH out of fear of “something” they knew. They knew who these psychopaths were & what they were capable of doing to them is precisely what they have done to all of us or worse. This is far worse than anyone could imagine They are lurking in every aspect of our lives because of Securities and Investment Fraud the likes of which are unprecedented.

    These crooks had the balls to secretly monetize all of us & everything we own. That is criminal because they intended to harm us by those deceptions.

    The State AGs office told me ….”intent to harm is hard to prove.” Well…..these entities never owned anything they were buying back, investing in selling, or trading investments in.

    This fraud really began with the monetizing of the birth certificates … Who agreed to foreign banks monetizing our birth certicates ..? Is that what Obama’s birth certificate is really telling us is that we are all being used by the banksters? Is that what born in the U.S.A. means….born to be used & abused & kicked to the curb when they are done using us? I for one, never agreed to be a test subject for these control freaks?

    As far as the settlement offer for wrong doing, what are people really accepting? Are they saying please accept this check for the pain & suffering we caused you for the hell we intended to put you through? They say the recipients can still sue for what? The property loss? The loss of dignity? Where are these attorney’s willing to sue these crooks for stealing our property? So what reinsurance is there that they will ever get justice ..? I see this is yet another attempt to sweep their crimes under the rug.

    SECURITIES FRAUD IS ILLEGAL….. Glass Steagall and Deregulation did not make Securities Fraud or Deceptive Practices legal. There is no law in equity for an illegitimate contract.

    So what are they really buying from us this time? Are they buying time and trying to keep the false peace & security long enough until they can manufacture some scenario to openly declare Martial Law to seize all property and make Securities Fraud a non issue?

    The banksters are diabolical & maniacal and will stop at nothing to completely control us.

  33. johngault., on April 19, 2013 at 10:52 pm said:

    carie or anyone – I still do not understand how collection rights remain on a charged off debt…

    Here you go, JG:

    “Sale of collection rights is achieved by derivatives and by direct contract with third party. Johngault is correct that a charged-off account cannot be sold. However, the right to collect the debt is assigned/sold by derivatives/contracts. (note — derivatives are not securities — they are contracts). When an account is charged off — the bank reports the loss to the IRS as a tax write off. Derivatives for credit enhancement are contracts by which a “credit enhancer” is paid a premium to “wait in the wings” until charge-off on accounts, then they pay the creditor a certain sum for assignment/sale of the right to collect the debt. Usually, the sum is low, especially on credit card debt. However, other insurance was involved with mortgages. Loan is reported in default, insurance collected, loan charged off, and assignment/sale of collection rights occurs without any cost to “purchaser” as insurance already paid out. No one was told this when they signed for subprime loan. Perhaps, “assignment” of debt is better word to use. But, this is a big trick in debt collection. Yes, charged off accounts cannot be sold — but, the right to collect can be assigned/sold through derivatives and third party contracts. Big mistake to think that you do not owe charged-off account — you do, but it is 100% not likely to the bank/GSE that charges-off. It is to some unknown party that is protected by non-disclosure and by deregulation. “

  34. E. ToLLe, on April 20, 2013 at 12:13 pm said:

    Carie, if you have contact with Anonymous, can you ask her about something I remember her saying way back when she used to post here, and I never got an answer from her as to where she got this quote exactly:

    “Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”

    Here is her answer, E.Tolle (although she didn’t really say where she got the quote):

    “Mortgages were never properly discharged by subprime refinance. Notes to subprime mortgages were simply restructuring of charged-off debt, with invalid transfer of mortgage. Inspector General aware. IF prior mortgage not cancelled, satisfied, discharged, then we have “notes” for subprime mortgage without a valid mortgage. Of course, cannot have a valid mortgage if prior mortgage (prior to refinance) is not validly discharged. We have a huge title problem. As a result, subprime refinances were nothing more than restructuring of invalid debt. No different from credit card debt — unsecured, and subject to BK. “

  35. neidermeyer

    I just figured out what excerpt.
    Yes intentional.

    Trespass Unwanted.

  36. neidermeyer

    Give me a clue, put a part of the words even if you have to skip words so I’d know what is being scrambled.

    Trespass Unwanted.

  37. Hi gwen caranchini

    I don’t know legal things, but you were a trial lawyer so maybe some of this makes sense.
    Get the demand that you sign the document in writing from the one who is issuing the demand. Otherwise, their statements are hearsay and as you said, you’d be swearing an oath when you sign.
    You never swear unless it’s the truth. That’s why the system goes so heavily after people who perjure themselves.

    Unless the one telling you to sign is sitting in your home and threatening you in some manner to sign, or they are holding you against your will and making you sign, there is no way you can “in good conscience” sign something and then turn around and place the burden on the words of someone you spoke with.

    No one will recognize you saying you sat at home and hurried up and signed documents because someone who is your equal told you, you had to. No one is going to believe that right now.

    All of this is final settlement.
    They would not enter into agreements unless there is some culpability for what they’ve done to us.

    As I said, their hold harmless agreements are between them and their businesses. Their private contracts are not enforceable on the People.

    The wheels of justice turns slowly. I’m beginning to think this chaos is because the old is being recognized for what it is.

    What is your Will.
    It’s all about what you want now.

    An emergency on their part is not an emergency on your part.
    Remember you are being placed in this situation under Coercion.
    Would it help if you pass the paperwork as an exhibit in your TRO case?

    My final comment, which I still don’t know legal things.
    A signature indicates an agreement between the parties.
    We have seen the power of our signature to create money, create contracts that are unconscionable, and in your case if you do not protect your ‘life energy transferred in your signature’, you’ll be agreeing to something that ‘you’ will deal with and whoever gave you verbal instructions will go on and not look back.

    Someone is trying to cya. (cover their a$)
    They need your help. Will you help them at the expense of your rights?

    I know nothing. If I think I know something I know nothing. I do not give legal advice because I don’t know legal things.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  38. @ Trespass Unwanted ,

    That is very strange ,, and not an accident … The same excerpt is scrambled on the .PDF , Kindle and .TXT versions…

  39. This is Gwen Caranchini and I have a real problem with these DOJ settlements. I had a loan mod and BAC when it took over from Wilshire said it would not honor the loan mod and sent more paperwork. They refused to take payments. They refused to let me esccrow. I filed a QT/DC action in Mo state court. They then sent a preforeclosure letter–i filed for a tro and got it temporarily until they came to the judge and said “she’s not in foreclosure”. It was vacated but the judge did not dismiss the foreclosure tro action. In any event after 3 plus years in litigation with the BANA defs and MERS which was removed to Fed Ct (WDist of Mo) and multiple attempts to settle I get an email from BOA counsel saying they weret sendning me a DOJ package by usmail, pdf, overnite mail and fed ex. She wanted me to let her know when I got them! I wrote her and said the problem was the paperwork makes me swear under oath I am in foreclosure and I am not. There is also the issue that they get the paperwork back and my finances are not a subject of the lawsuit. Finally, I believe that taking any money when you are in a lawsuit is an “accord and satisfaction” under the law. I am a former trial lawyer who does not currently practice in state/fed courts but does administrative work. I checked with other lawyers. They agreed IT COULD BE FOUND LYING BY TURNING IT IN, IT WAIVES MY PRIVILEGE ON MY FINANCES TO THE DEFENDANTS AND FINALLY IT IS AN ACCORD AND SATISFACTON which means it is a settlement and I could not pursue other remedies. SO BEWARE. I wrote the def counsel and asked them to say that it was not a waiver of my financial privilege, it was not an accord and satisfaction and I would not be guilty of lying. THEY REFUSED!. I strongly disagree with whoever authored this comment. Its flat out WRONG..

  40. Thanks. It’s impossible to fight IndyMac in California. Nobody wins with them. Oh, maybe you can stay in your home for a while and prolong the inevitable—if you have $80,000 lying around…we didn’t have that.

  41. 10,000 BC would be a long time ago. A long, long time ago as we would consider time relative to what we are told is NOW.

    In the movie a wise man spoke to a young man. He had a problem to solve, and the wise man could see his direction was becoming single focused. There were other people around him who through story telling were aware of a prophecy and the things occurring around this young man was fulfilling the prophecy.

    He ended up in danger and took a route different from the average man. That route ended up being something that was part of his fulfillment of a prophecy he was NOT aware of.

    The problem he had, in a totally different realm of land, was fulfilling another part of a prophecy for the people in that land. Two pieces of the same puzzle, neither knowing the part they play, but both being true to who they are, the entire time.

    A notable quote from the film remind me of how those of us here, are many pieces to a fulfilling prophecy and we are totally unaware of our part in it.

    For what it’s worth. Thank you for doing your part the way you do it, and not according to the ‘will’ of one who is equal. We each have circumstances that placed us together, and I’ll be the first to say, every decision we make is ‘the decision’ to make for what we experience. There was no cookie cutter way of setting up this elaborate scheme and there was no cookie cutter way that judges denied us of our right to property, and no cookie cutter way to file a complain, no cookie cutter way to be part of their review process, no cookie cutter way to receive their ‘settlement’ from their private agreement, nothing is ‘standardized’ here.

    We are uniquely discovering the remedy and I’m glad this is part of my experience.

    The notable quote from the movie, from a very wise man in my opinion.
    Tic’Tic: A good man draws a circle around himself and cares for those within. His woman, his children.

    Tic’Tic: Other men draw a larger circle and bring within their brothers and sisters.

    Tic’Tic: But some men have a great destiny. They must draw around themselves a circle that includes many, many more.

    Tic’Tic: Your father was one of those men. You must decide for yourself whether you are, as well.

    I chose to NOT give my wealth to anyone who was not assigned my mortgage because I asked if they were going to honor the agreement I had with the named beneficiary on the document.

    I had uninterrupted occupation of the home for over 10 years. They can ledger the account all day long and that amount listed as my promise to pay is satisfied, and was satisfied in full with the money that was created by my signature, to the party named on the note.

    What I was promised in return did not surface.
    They took the money and ran, so I was robbed.
    For my consideration, I should have the home, but someone else got into the mix and used the system in the most unsound ways and robbed me.
    Ignorance of the law is not bliss. That does flow to those who cause harm by their decisions.

    I chose to use the checks and balances of the system without fighting. I’m not at war with anyone, but I know how to state my claim of right. Being ignored does not mean to hire someone to fight or to represent me in a fight. I can stand on my own right.

    If I have standing, why do I need someone to represent me and use my standing? It doesn’t make sense. I’m competent. I can do it. I did it.

    End result was discrimination a writ of possession that led to dispossession.

    I stood for everyone who would walk in there like me and stand on their own.

    My circle is big. It includes One. All of us, One. All is equal and endowed by the Creator. I stood, under Oath, where they called religion into their courtroom, and the words of the Creator were spoken from my mouth that the claim was false and the sale was fraudulent.

    If I am One, and everyone equal as I were in that courtroom, the result would have been the same. The truth was the same, but the result would have been the same. A writ of possession to any sheriff to put their hands on me and my possessions and remove us from the property. A dispossession.

    I will NEVER NOT be who I AM.
    I will always bring Truth to the situation, and I will not have a need to fight because Truth carries it’s own power.

    Truth requires no defense.
    Truth is.
    A is A.

    What we witness now is a result of Truth.
    No one in banking would recognize 4.2 million unless there was truth behind recognizing them.

    4.2 million are not in their homes, and the only documents calling the home lost are the foreclosure review form and main stream media.

    The settlement check doesn’t mention the word.

    It’s quick to state ‘an agreement’ ‘this agreement’ ‘the agreement’, but when it comes to using the word ‘foreclosure’ it says ‘your foreclosure’.
    from the check an exact statement
    Regulators determined your payment amount based on the stage of your foreclosure process and other considerations related to your foreclosure.
    My comment with the info on the check can be found here:

    What has happened to us is Not Our Will, Our Will be Done.

    Rights in Life and Fight for Rights are not part of our Destiny. We have a more Divine path, by Divine Right (Jure Divino)

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  42. The victims of this fraudclosure scam who were hit first did not have a chance to figure out what these scammers did. It takes at least 2 years of constant research, almost 24/7 to grasp this. Hang in there carie. My sister has been fighting a Chase eviction for almost 2 years.

  43. Once again, Christine, your true character is laid bare for all the world (or at least the people here) to see. Full of deceit.

  44. Fair use. checks were being reported as received starting around April 15, 2013 ($) Two days later 50,000+ were cashed.

    Even a cash strapped former homeowner knows better. 4,200,000 mailed, and so we begin to see how many people accepted the (I call private) agreement reached by federal bank regulatory agencies and 13 mortgage servicers.

    My opinion, 4,149,999 or fewer people didn’t even bother since more than 50,000 did.
    Press Release

    Release Date: April 17, 2013
    For immediate release

    The paying agent for checks being sent to borrowers under the Independent Foreclosure Review has assured the Federal Reserve Board that early problems with some checks have been corrected and that funds are available to cash all checks.

    Some early recipients of checks informed the Federal Reserve’s consumer helpline on Tuesday that they were told their checks could not be cashed. Members of the Board staff contacted the paying agent, Rust Consulting, Inc., and the paying bank, The Huntington National Bank. Rust subsequently corrected problems that led to some checks being rejected.

    The Board will continue to monitor the payments closely and encourages borrowers who have concerns or experience difficulties cashing their checks to call Rust at 1-888-952-9105.

    As previously announced, on April 12, payments began to 4.2 million borrowers following an agreement reached by federal bank regulatory agencies and 13 mortgage servicers. More than 50,000 people have already cashed or deposited checks.

    For media inquiries, call 202-452-2955

  45. Oooops they did it again. They can intercept anything they want. This is war on We The People and they are not going to make anything easy on us. These are pittances anyway and not justice in any way.

  46. Carie,

    In the old days, when it was way too cold to go to the outhouse, people would use a chamber pot. in certain countries, that pot would have a eye painted on the bottom, to assure that they don’t do anything “sinful”; hence the name “chamber pot” given to those with a spying streak. Later on, those same kind of people were called “Eye of Moscow”.

    Being a chamber pot is not something to be particularly proud of and, in fact, can hurt you in the long run. I don’t know what your morbid fascination is with what I do or don’t do and I won’t comment on a lot you accuse me of doing: I don’t owe you one bit of an explanation for anything. Suffice to remind you that 18 months ago, after insulting many here who questioned your constant posts of the same Anonymous things (without ever adding anything of your own), you still managed to lose your house after failing to lift one little finger to save, let alone use any of the theories you berated people for not believing and adhering to.

    Don’t you think you ought to grow up? You fascination if flattering but really, I don’t need it. Not from someone I had to kick from my contact list for being such a nasty pest. That what you do. Time to leave me alone, no?

  47. What I am trying to understand is the settlement’s section no# 3 were the servicer initiated or foreclosed on borrowers who were not in default. Now my argument to the IFR was that I was never behind because I never owe this servicer in Wells Fargo as the loan was placed into a Ginnie Mae pool by WaMu years before Wells started servicing the loan, And it was a fact through the blank Note and the letter I received from Wells that they were not the debt holder, plus a letter from the originating bank as to the date of sale to WaMu.

    Now for over 2yrs with this unchanged same complaint of ownership and the now servicer and Ginnie Mae not being legally able to collect a payment because they were not due one, because of the transfer of the blank Note relinquish too Ginnie Mae post the home loan closing. I even put in my IFR review request, the UCC 3 argument and state & federal law that were violated, plus key documentation as in the Note after the foreclosure still showing it in blank form, that was sent to the OCC 1.5years after the foreclosure.

    So that bring me to the 679 people receiving something under this provision but of that number only 62 file for a review. So based on the 62 request how after over 2yrs ending in Dec 31, 2010 and in theory Mar 2009 we got a category that the lender is settling to pay 679 people who were never in default but 617 never applied for a IFR review and 45 of the 53 foreclosed did not complain to the IFR by requesting a review?

    Part of this post is trying to understand how you get to 612 people who for over 2yrs where not in default and not complaining of not being in default, are determine now to not be in default. But if after at least 2yrs from the foreclosure and the other actions still pending and the 37 rescinded foreclosures, so how does the account of these accounts get found as the people are not complaining so how does it come to light?

    I say it should be “No Standing” instead of accounting catching an error only after the halt of the IFR. I see my situation and why the argument because it shows a great corruption, but I don’t see this category base on an accounting error by the bank and in some case as much as a 4yr ordeal? However are payments in cancel checks or bank statements, not able to quickly clear up a case of payments claiming to have been paid or not paid.

    Thinking out loud!

  48. […] Filed under: CDO, Eviction, foreclosure, GARFIELD GWALTNEY KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: considerataion, for value received, holder in due course. UCC, holders of note, illegal foreclosures, possessors of note, settlement, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, wrongnful foreclosures Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  49. I wonder if this is still a UCC 3-109 item; it explains endorsements, I haven’t verified the details, it’s something I located recently.

    Checks may be payable to Bearer or to Order. The way a check is made payable will affect who must negotiate/indorse it. If it is made payable to bearer, that means the holder of the item can negotiate it (e.g., cash it or deposit it.) Examples of items payable to bearer include items on which the payee line is blank, items that are made payable to cash, items that say they are payable to “bearer”, or items that do not indicate they are payable to an identified person. If an item is payable to order, that means it is payable to an identified person and the identified person must indorse the item or deposit it into his account.

    If the payee simply signs his name to the back of a check, that is called a blank indorsement and the check then becomes bearer paper, which means that the person who is the holder of it can negotiate it. If a check is made payable to Sally and she wants to give it to Joe, she can either apply a blank indorsement, just signing her name, and give it to him, or she can indorse it “Pay to the order of Joe” and sign it. Either way, Joe becomes entitled to negotiate it. In the first example he would simply become the bearer or a check that, at that point, would be bearer paper; in the second example, he would become the new payee by virtue of the indorsement and would need to affix his own endorsement.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  50. damn it, e.tolle! I was just doing a fairly decent job of forcing myself
    to actually read all of article 9 (fw ever the heck that’ll be worth because well, i’m a lay person mostly limited to spelling UCC) and then you go throw out something which looks pretty titillating since it’s full of case law – might be a large project to get all that is there to get. I d/l’d his doc in pdf. Maybe you’d like to take it on? If we can’t get a consortium of lawyers, I guess we’re it. ( I got cut from one group because I’m a mere plebe.) Shoot me an email from a known (to me) email address and Ill tell you what I think may help.

  51. Right of Self Determination…yes!

    Trespass Unwanted

  52. The section of page 4 in Modern Money Mechanics that the book missing on the archive website.

    What Limits the Amount of Money Banks Can Create?

    If deposit money can be created so easily, what is to prevent banks from making too much – more than sufficient to keep the nation’s productive resources fully employed without price inflation? Like its predecessor, the modern bank must keep available, to make payment on demand, a considerable amount of currency and funds on deposit with the central bank. The bank must be prepared to convert deposit money into currency for those depositors who request currency. It must make remittance on checks written by depositors and presented for payment by other banks (settle adverse clearings). Finally, it must maintain legally required reserves, in the form of vault cash and/or balances at its Federal Reserve Bank, equal to a prescribed percentage of its deposits.

    The public’s demand for currency varies greatly, but generally follows a seasonal pattern that is quite predictable. The effects on bank funds of these variations in the amount of currency held by the public usually are offset by the central bank, which replaces the reserves absorbed by currency withdrawals from banks. (Just how this is done will be explained later.) For all banks taken together, there is no net drain of funds through clearings. A check drawn on one bank normally will be deposited to the credit of another account, if not in the same bank, then in some other bank.

    These operating needs influence the minimum amount of reserves an individual bank will hold voluntarily. However, as long as this minimum amount is less than what is legally required, operating needs are of relatively minor importance as a restraint on aggregate deposit expansion in the banking system. Such expansion cannot continue beyond the point where the amount of reserves that all banks have is just sufficient to satisfy legal requirements under our “fractional reserve” system. For example, if reserves of 20 percent were required, deposits could expand only until they were five times as large as reserves. Reserves of $10 million could support deposits of $50 million. The lower the percentage requirement, the greater the deposit expansion that can be supported by each additional reserve dollar. Thus, the legal reserve ratio together with the dollar amount of bank reserves are the factors that set the upper limit to money creation.

    What Are Bank Reserves?

    Currency held in bank vaults may be counted as legal reserves as well as deposits (reserve balances) at the Federal Reserve Banks. Both are equally acceptable in satisfaction of reserve requirements. A bank can always obtain reserve balances by sending currency to its Reserve Bank and can obtain currency by drawing on its reserve balance. Because either can be used to support a much larger volume of deposit liabilities of banks, currency in circulation and reserve balances together are often referred to as “high-powered money” or the “monetary base.” Reserve balances and vault cash in banks, however, are not counted as part of the money stock held by the public.

    For individual banks, reserve accounts also serve as working balances.(2) Banks may increase the balances in their reserve accounts by depositing checks and proceeds from electronic funds transfers as well as currency. Or they may draw down these balances by writing checks on them or by authorizing a debit to them in payment for currency, customers’ checks, or other funds transfers.

    Although reserve accounts are used as working balances, each bank must maintain, on the average for the relevant reserve maintenance period, reserve balances at their Reserve Bank and vault cash which together are equal to its required reserves, as determined by the amount of its deposits in the reserve computation period.

    Where Do Bank Reserves Come From?

    Increases or decreases in bank reserves can result from a number of factors discussed later in this booklet. From the standpoint of money creation, however, the essential point is that the reserves of banks are, for the most part, liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks, and net changes in them are largely determined by actions of the Federal Reserve System. Thus, the Federal Reserve, through its ability to vary both the total volume of reserves and the required ratio of reserves to deposit liabilities, influences banks’ decisions with respect to their assets and deposits. One of the major responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System is to provide the total amount of reserves consistent with the monetary needs of the economy at reasonably stable prices. Such actions take into consideration, of course, any changes in the pace at which money is being used and changes in the public’s demand for cash balances.

    The reader should be mindful that deposits and reserves tend to expand simultaneously and that the Federal Reserve’s control often is exerted through the market place as individual banks find it either cheaper or more expensive to obtain their required reserves, depending on the willingness of the Fed to support the current rate of credit and deposit expansion.

    While an individual bank can obtain reserves by bidding them away from other banks, this cannot be done by the banking system as a whole. Except for reserves borrowed temporarily from the Federal Reserve’s discount window, as is shown later, the supply of reserves in the banking system is controlled by the Federal Reserve.

    Moreover, a given increase in bank reserves is not necessarily accompanied by an expansion in money equal to the theoretical potential based on the required ratio of reserves to deposits. What happens to the quantity of money will vary, depending upon the reactions of the banks and the public. A number of slippages may occur. What amount of reserves will be drained into the public’s currency holdings? To what extent will the increase in total reserves remain unused as excess reserves? How much will be absorbed by deposits or other liabilities not defined as money but against which banks might also have to hold reserves? How sensitive are the banks to policy actions of the central bank? The significance of these questions will be discussed later in this booklet. The answers indicate why changes in the money supply may be different than expected or may respond to policy action only after considerable time has elapsed.

    In the succeeding pages, the effects of various transactions on the quantity of money are described and illustrated. The basic working tool is the “T” account, which provides a simple means of tracing, step by step, the effects of these transactions on both the asset and liability sides of bank balance sheets. Changes in asset items are entered on the left half of the “T” and changes in liabilities on the right half. For any one transaction, of course, there must be at least two entries in order to maintain the equality of assets and liabilities.

    1 In order to describe the money-creation process as simply as possible, the term “bank” used in this booklet should be understood to encompass all depository institutions. Since the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, all depository institutions have been permitted to offer interest bearing transaction accounts to certain customers. Transaction accounts (interest bearing as well as demand deposits on which payment of interest is still legally prohibited) at all depository institutions are subject to the reserve requirements set by the Federal Reserve. Thus all such institutions, not just commercial banks, have the potential for creating money.

    2 Part of an individual bank’s reserve account may represent its reserve balance used to meet its reserve requirements while another part may be its required clearing balance on which earnings credits are generated to pay for Federal Reserve Bank services.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  53. PERSON = “any entity that has the moral right of self-determination.”

    Describes who I AM.

  54. A is A.

  55. “Person” means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency or instrumentality, public corporation or any other legal or commercial entity.

    Doesn’t describe who I AM.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  56. In the meantime, the financial institutions or successors/assignees rush to foreclose, obtain a default judgment and then sit on the deed, avoiding responsibility for maintaining the property while reaping the financial benefits of interest running on a judgment. The financial institutions know the law charges the one with title (still the homeowner) with maintaining the property.

    There is no doubt every decision made by a financial institution in the foreclosure process is driven by money. And the legal work which flows from winning the financial institution’s favor is highly lucrative. There is nothing improper or wrong with financial institutions or law firms making a profit-to the contrary, they should be rewarded for sound business and legal practices. However, unchallenged by underfinanced opponents, the institutions worry less about jurisdictional requirements and more about maximizing returns. Unlike the focus of financial institutions, the federal courts must act as gatekeepers, assuring that only those who meet diversity and standing requirements are allowed to pass through. Counsel for the institutions are not without legal argument to support their position, but their arguments fall woefully short of justifying their premature filings, and utterly fail to satisfy their standing and jurisdictional burdens. The institutions seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. Finally put to the test, their weak legal arguments compel the Court to stop them at the gate.

  57. The Shelter Rule

    It has always been a basic rule in commercial law that the sale of anything vests in the buyer whatever rights the seller had in the object sold. Phrased another way, the buyer takes “shelter” in the rights of the seller. Even legal rights can pass in this way, including “holder” status. Say, for example, that the payee fails to indorse the note (so no “negotiation” takes place) but instead sells the note to a new owner. The new owner is not a “holder” (since there has not been an indorsement by the payee), but the new owner takes shelter in the holder status of its buyer, and thus is a PETE according to both §§3-301 (defining PETE) and 3-203(b) (the shelter rule itself). In this case, the burden of proving proper possession is on the person in holding the instrument, and until that is done no liability on the note arises (since the maker of the note’s obligation to pay it under §3-412, see above, only runs to a PETE). The shelter rule even acts to pass on the original holder’s rights completely down the chain as long as the current possessor of the note can prove the validity of all previous transfers in between.

    The shelter rule can be hugely useful to the foreclosing entity. Say that the original payee on the note was First Bank, which never indorsed the note at all. The note was then transferred into the hands of Second Bank, which is the plaintiff in the current foreclosure action. Second Bank, using the shelter rule, is a PETE as long as it proves the chain of transfers of the note, obtaining the “holder” status of First Bank even without proper indorsements on the note or an allonge. The courts have had no problem reaching this result.


  58. “The issuance of one or more promissory notes has been an unproblematic feature in many transactions.”


  59. “UCC 9 – 68) “Pursuant to commitment”, with respect to an advance made or other value given by a secured party, means pursuant to the secured party’s obligation, whether or not a subsequent event of default or other event not within the secured party’s control has
    relieved or may relieve the secured party from its obligation.”

    If I were a creditor of Ally, say, I’d sure try to see if there’s some application, given that Buffet’s company took that loan portfolio free of liens. Well, I’d at least look into it because the bk of Ally was an event not in the control of secured parties. I’d prob have to do a lot more reading to understand how they did that – were able to ditch the secured parties – in the Ally (any?) bk, and I’m not going to.

  60. From the American Bar Association:

    “The issuance of one or more promissory notes has been an unproblematic feature in many transactions. The basic legal regime for transfer and pledge of such instruments is well
    understood: If the note is negotiable, Articles 3 (“Commercial Paper”) and 9 (“Secured Transactions”) of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) govern; otherwise, it’s Article 9 and the common law (which is likely to draw on Article 3).”

  61. Off topic, but not really because it all relates:

  62. Key in that post for which I don’t know how to underline.

    In addition to the foregoing rules, the CFPB Guidance references the broad regulatory rubric that establishes its authority over servicers, including, among other things, the
    *******prohibitions on furnishing inaccurate information about consumers under the Fair Credit Reporting Act********;
    the obligations on servicers
    ******to the extent they act as a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Act********;
    the general
    *******prohibition against unfair, deceptive, abusive acts or practices*********;
    and the overall
    **********enforcement of federal consumer financial laws and regulations****************.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  63. I had passed this up but Charles Reed questions and JG’s portion of the puzzle, and some of what I posted makes this make more sense.

    Servicers are debt collectors, they do not loan money.


    Beginning snippet of the posted document link.

    With the new mortgage servicing rules under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) (“RESPA”) scheduled to go into effect January 10, 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) decision to issue guidance on the existing servicing transfer regulations may have been unexpected by some. However, given the high volume of recent servicing rights transfers, the CFPB determined that the time was right to provide servicers with notice that their policies and procedures on servicing rights transfers will be closely scrutinized. The guidance serves as “advance notice” of what the CFPB’s examiners will be looking for with regard to transfers of mortgage servicing.

    If a servicer is the reason people were robbed, but a bank issued a settlement since the servicer is their in-house debt collector, the settlement agreement (if the issues are known) does not absolve them from the legal liability in what is done by entities under the bank’s control. (?)

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  64. If article 9 requires a writing to even perfect a security interest, does the psa stand for that writing? Does the psa, if it doesn’t identify each loan with requisite particularity, stand for a sale and assignment agreement? Is the “MERS” assignment being used for what I’ve claimed? A belated article 9 sale and assignment to save the banks from their true insolvency and the law be damned (and homeowners, one class of people, with it)?

  65. The American Securitization Forum acknowledges that these notes (in jud noticeable material) are subject to Art 9, which calls for a writing (paper or electronic) for sale and assignment OR even to create a perfected security interest. Under article 9, the one for which compliance is essential, mere possession of a note does not create either interest or ownership or enforcement rights in the note.
    A caveat about the material linked: UCC 9-203g is either mis-cited, misapplied, or both (I forget). Here is what it says as opposed to what they claim in says:

    ” g) [Lien securing right to payment.]

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


  66. Interesting that a simple refusal for cause and mentioning their own document Modern Money Mechanics and that they have deceptively reported where the obligation lies, would/could/should/may open this wide up for what it is and shut it close.

    A people, any people who is a witness by Affidavit can usurp the powers they have placed over our heads with the money they created for the price of ink, or the electricity on their computers, and demand slavery and Peonage in return for the ‘privilege’ of using it when it’s the only thing available to use.

    I go to the bank and I can give them $1000 of labored earnings and they act like they can’t release $100 in dollar coins from their vault.

    They have ‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’ that can be spit out of their de la rue machines but to release $100 they got in physical currency from the US Mint that is not under their control, they act like you want to break the bank.

    A: I’m sorry, all we have is $25 in dollar coins.
    Me: Well can I have 50 cent pieces?
    A: We don’t have them.
    Me: Well can I have anything to make up for the amount I’m asking for in total in coins?
    A: Someone else came in just before you and took them all.

    I sometimes wonder if when they got those ‘people’ to issue them a 99 or 100 year charter how long did it take to know they make a ‘huge mistake’ and that their friends, family, kids, grandkids, and great grandkids were going to be living with that distortion for a long, time.

    Was the creation of MERS a twenty year plan to take the property and hold the dollar coins and all the gold and run?

    I remember an article that $1 billion (yes I’m quoting that part right) dollar coins are sitting in the federal reserve vault.

    They have all these banks pushing their drug and we labor for it under coercion, it’s not our will to have it, receive it, or use it. We don’t trust it and as long as we have it someone else wants to take it, and if we don’t have it, we can’t get anything without it.

    They push the IOU’s and then can’t even have a bank somewhere holding coins so that if people want American specie, they can’t get it as consideration for our deposits?

    The take our labor and turn it into credit to be spent on a card called a ‘debit’ card.

    It would have been nice, while they are trying to offer $300 and are pretending they can’t honor that in digits, if the people who were curious and didn’t care went to their banks and asked for that $300 in dollar coins. That would be something, now wouldn’t it. That would make checks not be honored all the way around. The fed is not going to give up their hoard of dollar coins.

    The news video said something like they said the people don’t want it. I say they kept it hidden so the people didn’t have access to it.


    Article says they want to fed to encourage people to use the coins. Well they have to make it available in the banks for people to use them, right?

    I can’t even get the consideration I want from the bank in a normal transaction and I’m the true creditor depositing wealth onto their balance sheets.

    I’m going to stop discussing this now. I have to maintain my inner peace, as it appears we are in ‘revelation’ a revealing of information from a divine source, and that’s an etymology word that carries that definition.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  67. Will do, E.Tolle.

  68. Carie, if you have contact with Anonymous, can you ask her about something I remember her saying way back when she used to post here, and I never got an answer from her as to where she got this quote exactly:

    “Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”

  69. “Thanks SAS. Couldn’t have been said better.”

    Unbelievable. Having conversations with herself. Wow.

  70. A lot of strange things about this IFR settlement and just one pop out at me. Now the HAMPs said you could not be going through Bankruptcy or you could not received a modification as it says in the modification itself that one in a modification will have the mod canceled.

    But in the settlement there were 28,287 people in this settlement that were in BK or even more, however only 3,192 people in BK applied for the IFR. So how is it that this process found out about the other 25,095 if they did not even bother to inform this body about the BK.

    BK courts don’t handle the primary residency and that what was the hold up in starting the HAMP because the Obama elitist did not know this to be the case, as well as most of the 1st mortgages were having 2nd mortgages behind them to avoid PMI.

    So now we got the banks simply picking out who they want to have compensation as these folks did not even apply but the category not address was the “No Standing” which is the bank did not have the right to foreclose because they were not the a financial party to the contract.

    What about the admitted too by Lorraine Brown in her plead deal, where she said there were 1 million fraudulent assignments she had her staff perform. She has the records for what loans she performed these phony assignment, but not 1 out of a million was a part of 4.2 million?

  71. Notes in subprime were not notes …they were “pretend” notes—created to hide the fact that the “original” notes were manufactured false default/charged off—by the GSE’s back in 1999-2000—to facilitate securitization ponzi. Now loan sharks/distressed debt buyers are stealing homes with unsecured debt and fabricated/fraudulent paperwork to make it look like notes were “real”. Period.

    The truth is simple—lies are complicated.

  72. How the $200,000 got created in the first place, a bookkeeping entry, no one else can claim to own the ‘deposit’, but everyone is using it. So instead of signing it because that would ‘really be criminal’, in my opinion, they attach a piece of paper called an allonge to show how they transferred the deposit from one to another, and if the number on that note doesn’t change, then each One who handles that Note can use it to get the same amount of money as the first one did, a further opinion. So one check (Note) for $10 can be passed to $50 people and each get $10 by going to the government and purchasing bonds and securities for that value, then they pass it to someone else. The last one holding it who doesn’t get something from the homeowner decides to close the Note out by doing a ‘foreclosure’ and taking the property because they can’t pass it to anyone else. The lack of payment by the homeowner renders their scheme with the passing around of the Note immobile. And they dangle the carrot of ‘credit history’ to us and will ruin our ‘credit history’ if we don’t play their game and keep money flowing into their system. All my opinion, I don’t know legal nor monetary things.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  73. So you walk into a court and start with telling the judge that the judge did not fund the loan. So my next question is where did the $200,000 come from to purchase the home? Now you start talking and what depositors had in there account and so on and so on, but the bottomline in that argument is were did you get the money to purchase the home from. I think you don’t win that argument, but you do win as to what happens after the closing of the home mortgage loan.

    Since the monies is free and clear that the lender gave to you for the purchase, then it is the lender freedom to do whatever it wants to with the Note. A lender can sell the Note, give it away or simply forgive the debt. In the case of a WaMu who dead and the debt was simply no longer with them, so the reason why the debt is no longer there is fact of life, however as a dead man cannot talk and there was no sale, not the lender in WaMu not in possession of the blank Note, those 1.3 million government insure home loans bid not get sold to JPMorgan by the FDIC when the bank was seized.

    So why did the loan not get sold with the other loans is because as the Note is blank and in the physical possession of another the Notes don’t belong to WaMu but instead belong to Ginnie Mae. However it is a fact Ginnie Mae could not purchase the debt. But forever reason that the debt is no longer attached to the Note is a fact. There does not need to be a reason why their not a debt, but only that there is no debt.

  74. Archive.org has Modern Money Mechanics.
    For anyone who can see them explain how the money supply works and that they ‘aren’t’ funding anything.

    They get us to sign a promise, and they place a lien on the home. They put no consideration on the table, except to take that promise and make a bookkeeping entry of a deposit for that amount; which is not consideration. They later offer to file the document with the County Clerk’s office and that fee was the consideration since they can’t loan ‘their credit’ and they can’t loan another depositor’s money. Our deposit which is an obligation for them to pay us is then turned into them pretending to write a check to us for the very obligation that was deposited with them and was their obligation to pay to us.
    I put in a $10 check. Bank owes me $10.
    But I put in a $10 promissory note, the bank creates a $10 deposit credit to the depositor, but turns around and says they loaned the $10 to us and want it paid back, plus in the process they put a lien on our property when they made the deposit.

    They take the deposit and use it to buy US Treasuries (bonds and securities) for the amount that was ‘created’ when they took our signature on that note, and we get none of what they received from our signature, yet they come back, steal the property, and claim they don’t have money we owe them when they played with the ledger and got a lot more than they told us and did a lot more than we knew about.

    So for them to come and claim the property is fraud. They don’t even bring into the court where the debt really lies…on their own books…they owe us.

    Judges don’t comprehend real estate law even though they are adjudicating it. Where there was a question of standing, the clerk of the court could get the details with a phone call, or they can demand that the Plaintiff bring that to court before the case is even considered for purported damages. Once you find out about MERS the standing issue is gone. Let’s see, a note, no consideration, no money loaned, bank purchased securities for the amount of the deposit from the government and now they want to go back to the home owner and demand more money or take the home that they got as collateral for a ‘deposit’? yes. A home as collateral for a deposit. if that doesn’t beat all.

    That’s why they are told to Cease and Desist, they have no power and playing on our ignorance of the things that happened behind the transaction does not give them carte blanche to steal from us.

    Some rights are unalienable and the right to property is definitely one of them.

    They are trying to enforce an unconscionable contract and used the courts to do so until the people called foul and the government said, you can’t do that. Cease and Desist. Review what you did and make these people whole.

    They dragged their feet, but then counties called fowl and the clerks did the basic forensic and put out in the public that more than 80+% of the filings that were put in their records had problems, and that’s not including the ones they hid in MERs, which is how they were denied the recording of property ownership. Florida AG has one of the best presentations above and beyond just the robosigning.

    Now that the banks can’t take our deposits and buy securities since the government is cutting spending they are trying to make right with the people they robbed but their agreements give them great credit.

    In that last hearing the woman said, they have incentive to give settlement to higher balances because they get more credit.
    The chairman alluded to something like, and I’m paraphrasing because I’m not listening to it, but that a $9 billion dollar settlement could essentially be a $12 million dollar actual pay out with the way they are provided credit for each dollar spent in the settlement.

    Banks don’t offer money unless they have to, to settle a wrong, and and my opinion is that they write into their cost of doing business the cost of fines and penalties if they are caught doing wrong.

    This is different and it may be because the veil is pulled back and they weren’t just handling the property of corporations.

    If the People and Corporations are all listed in the same database how can you tell who’s alive and who’s a business when looking in the database? You can’t. So you need something else to gauge who they are dealing with.

    People have SSN and corporations have EIN, but still how can you tell which people are alive. A birth certificate without a corresponding death certificate means you are dealing with someone alive and not their estate.

    These are the basics they, in my opinion, did not want us to figure out because they roll politicians in and out of power every 2 to 4 years and they keep them so busy with nonsense, they don’t have time to look in the system before them and see that the remedies are written in, just ignored.

    The people who were educated to ‘not know’ have used the power of the internet to ‘teach’ the others who don’t have the time to learn this, how it really works and now they see that they have served corporations. Undead. (nice definition in layman’s terms on the internet). There is still someone alive behind that undead corporation. It has suffered no wrong, and it has no rights above the People who came first.

    Which came first? The Chicken or the egg? Which came first? People or the Corporations that other People created on paper?

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  75. Archive.org has Modern Money Mechanics.
    For anyone who can see them explain how the money supply works and that they ‘aren’t’ funding anything.

    They get us to sign a promise, and they place a lien on the home. They put no consideration on the table, except to take that promise and make a bookkeeping entry of a deposit for that amount; which is not consideration. They later offer to file the document with the County Clerk’s office and that fee was the consideration since they can’t loan ‘their credit’ and they can’t loan another depositor’s money. Our deposit which is an obligation for them to pay us is then turned into them pretending to write a check to us for the very obligation that was deposited with them and was their obligation to pay to us.
    I put in a $10 check. Bank owes me $10.
    But I put in a $10 promissory note, the bank creates a $10 deposit credit to the depositor, but turns around and says they loaned the $10 to us and want it paid back, plus in the process they put a lien on our property when they made the deposit.

    They take the deposit and use it to buy US Treasuries (bonds and securities) for the amount that was ‘created’ when they took our signature on that note, and we get none of what they received from our signature, yet they come back, steal the property, and claim they don’t have money we owe them when they played with the ledger and got a lot more than they told us and did a lot more than we knew about.

    So for them to come and claim the property is fraud. They don’t even bring into the court where the debt really lies…on their own books…they owe us.

    Judges don’t comprehend real estate law even though they are adjudicating it. Where there was a question of standing, the clerk of the court could get the details with a phone call, or they can demand that the Plaintiff bring that to court before the case is even considered for purported damages. Once you find out about MERS the standing issue is gone. Let’s see, a note, no consideration, no money loaned, bank purchased securities for the amount of the deposit from the government and now they want to go back to the home owner and demand more money or take the home that they got as collateral for a ‘deposit’? yes. A home as collateral for a deposit. if that doesn’t beat all.


    That’s why they are told to Cease and Desist, they have no power and playing on our ignorance of the things that happened behind the transaction does not give them carte blanche to steal from us.

    Some rights are unalienable and the right to property is definitely one of them.

    They are trying to enforce an unconscionable contract and used the courts to do so until the people called foul and the government said, you can’t do that. Cease and Desist. Review what you did and make these people whole.

    They dragged their feet, but then counties called fowl and the clerks did the basic forensic and put out in the public that more than 80+% of the filings that were put in their records had problems, and that’s not including the ones they hid in MERs, which is how they were denied the recording of property ownership. Florida AG has one of the best presentations above and beyond just the robosigning.

    Now that the banks can’t take our deposits and buy securities since the government is cutting spending they are trying to make right with the people they robbed but their agreements give them great credit.

    In that last hearing the woman said, they have incentive to give settlement to higher balances because they get more credit.
    The chairman alluded to something like, and I’m paraphrasing because I’m not listening to it, but that a $9 billion dollar settlement could essentially be a $12 million dollar actual pay out with the way they are provided credit for each dollar spent in the settlement.

    Banks don’t offer money unless they have to, to settle a wrong, and and my opinion is that they write into their cost of doing business the cost of fines and penalties if they are caught doing wrong.

    This is different and it may be because the veil is pulled back and they weren’t just handling the property of corporations.

    If the People and Corporations are all listed in the same database how can you tell who’s alive and who’s a business when looking in the database? You can’t. So you need something else to gauge who they are dealing with.

    People have SSN and corporations have EIN, but still how can you tell which people are alive. A birth certificate without a corresponding death certificate means you are dealing with someone alive and not their estate.

    These are the basics they, in my opinion, did not want us to figure out because they roll politicians in and out of power every 2 to 4 years and they keep them so busy with nonsense, they don’t have time to look in the system before them and see that the remedies are written in, just ignored.

    The people who were educated to ‘not know’ have used the power of the internet to ‘teach’ the others who don’t have the time to learn this, how it really works and now they see that they have served corporations. Undead. (nice definition in layman’s terms on the internet). There is still someone alive behind that undead corporation. It has suffered no wrong, and it has no rights above the People who came first.

    Which came first? The Chicken or the egg? Which came first? People or the Corporations that other People created on paper?

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  76. Hang in there, Tresspass…
    “SAS” is another alias for you-know-who—a very deceitful individual.
    You are right—the truth is one, and compassion is needed.

  77. Good point by johngault, and it lead me to the question who does a registry that many of the large lenders if not all the large leader are shareholder and member using the product, but there is the conflict of interest as to what & how things registered with this “thing” called MERS.

    How are you this registry recording an interest with one self, while not actually recording the events, because you don’t have employees and cannot and does not record a single bit of information into the electronic system?

    Who authorized this company to exist?

    I do believe that focusing of whether a bank funded a loan that take in deposits and other type of profits, yet they quickly originate and sell the loans, would be hard to say that another like the Fed give bank the monies to fund these loans if you did not first locate the source of the monies deposit.

    I believe where we got no distance in this matter so far is trying to argue the point the banks are wanting and that is did you borrower the monies from bank B, and at that point once you go down that path your done because the judge is a person who has or has had a home mortgage loan and he know without the monies from whoever the borrower is nor purchasing the home.

    However this is not the issue as the issue is that the lender is no longer involved in the transaction because they have relinquish ownership in a post home loan closing that does not involve monies changing hands in exchange for the Notes that are now blank.

    At this point the blank Notes are forever non-negotiable and cannot be called Notes because they don’t contain the main ingredient in what make the Note a Note and that is there is no debt. Plus the Note does not have a lender in the case of Ginnie Mae pools Ginnie Mae cannot be a lender.

    You have a contract that completed because the debt is gone and only the borrower stand alone as the complete owner of the property! Once you start to example that I was behind, you have lost because your admitting that there is a lawful debt, but if at the beginning its establish that here today there is not a illegal party that has brought claim to a defaulted debt, that argument has no place in what is taking place currently. If the original lender want to bring claim that a debt is due in Ginnie Mae pooled loan they need to bring proof where they were authorize to violation Ginnie Mae rules and US & State laws!

  78. Hat’s off Poppy. No quarter usually means not sparing the life of one’s foe, but it can also mean refusing to enter in to an agreement with an enemy attempting to surrender. These banksters will eventually start losing, it may be a ways off, but the law will eventually catch up with their spree, or not, as in the judges just staying steadfast in their belligerence come hell or high water. When and if it does change, let’s hope the banks will begin to loosen their grip on those cases where they’ll surely lose, or where it will obviously be costly. That’s definitely not the case at present, where they’re totally willing and capable of riding the Titanic all the way down to the seabed, if it means protecting their criminal secrets as a result.

    It doesn’t help that they’re getting free money and all their crap MBS is being purchased for way above market. Goliath being fed by the FED.

    But don’t forget the good news….WE GET $300 BUCKS!!!!!

    Keep at it Poppy. Good luck.

  79. Dangerous to appeal, nowadays. Pro se or not.


    [Cite as
    Middlebrooks v. Bank of Am.
    , 2013-Ohio-1592.]
    Ronald Middlebrooks, et al. Court of Appeals No. L-12-1098
    Plaintiffs Trial Court No. CI0201006998
    Bank of America
    [Joanna E. Baron, Esq.—Appellant]
    [Creditus Lending 2 LP—Appellee] Decided: April 19, 2013
    * * * * *
    Joanna E. Baron, pro se.
    Todd V. McMurtry and Margaret E. Cunningham, for appellee.
    * * * * *
    OSOWIK, J.
    {¶ 1}
    This is an appeal from a judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common
    Pleas, which sanctioned counsel for plaintiffs $1,960 for frivolous conduct in violation of
    R.C. 2323.51. For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the judgment of the trial

  80. Another one in favor of the mortgage company, with costs.


    Court of Appeals of Ohio
    Civil Appeal from the
    Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
    Case No. CV-589598
    Boyle, J., Stewart, A.J., and McCormack, J.
    April 18, 2013

    Judgment affirmed.
    It is ordered that appellee recover from appellants costs herein taxed.
    The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.
    A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.


  81. Sad result. I’m am starting to think that there is some truth to what pops up more and more everywhere: some group is determined for peoples of all nations to start revolting so that populations may be limited.

    Why else otherwise push people so hard over and over, to the point of ordering them to pay banks’ attorney’s fees even when they are already destitute?


    Court of Appeals of Ohio
    No. 98775

    III. Conclusion
    The trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in Wanda’s favor because he offered no pertinent grounds for dismissing the foreclosure action. The trial court’s decision was based on the double-dismissal rule, which had no application where the prior dismissals were not voluntary dismissals under Civ.R. 41(A)(1).
    This cause is reversed and remanded to the lower court for further
    proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is ordered that appellant recover of said appellees costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
    A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.


  82. Comment to trespass:

    N.A. are not lenders and cannot fund loans. You are so right. All of this dialogue and newspaper articles means nothing. If you cannot get to the core of this, you cannot gain ground.

    Had a deposition last week and denied everything, e.g. do you recognize this (note/deed)/ response: it looks like a copy of a note and deed. Do you recognize it? As I said it is a copy of a note and deed, counselor. Did you sign this, I cannot say, it is a copy of a note and deed, but without having the original I cannot affirm. Did you make a loan with BOA, N.A., no I didn’t. I attempted to make a contract with a party to lend me a mortgage, but not them. So we danced. Repeatedly, she asked this. I said BOA N.A is the servicer, how can I have a loan with them and they be the servicer too? And the paperwork has yet to be verified. They have offered a settlement, which has yet to be agreed on.

    Argued with the lawyer too. Walked out on mediation. They are full of shit. Playing with monopoly money, while we come up with actual money. The losses for us are in the Multi-Billions, while they have NONE! It’s all in the accounting.

  83. PNC Mortgage servicer is an N.A (National Association bank)

    Trespass Unwanted.

  84. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the note. (See Anheuser Busch Brewing Co. v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. 46 NW 558. )

    As I comprehend it and from reading files I have saved with details I can’t totally verify,

    Banks create the entire purported loan amount in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That’s our ‘created out of thin air at the signing of the note info’. That this was the Banks Consideration used to support the Note and the Mortgage of the same date. The Money and credit first came into existence when they credited it.

    If that is the case and no money changed hands, there is no lawful consideration tendered only by bookkeeping entry.

    Some Case law references.

    “In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has not power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for him.”’ Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat ‘l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669.

    “The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporations within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their corporate charters, and it probably is not invoked too often .. . Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank, 103 Wis 125, 79 NW 229. American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 430.

    “A bank may not lend its credit to another even though such a transaction turns out to have been of benefit to the bank, and in support of this a list of cases might be cited, which-would look like a catalog of ships.” [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Nat. Bank, 144 SE 505. 151 Va 195.

    “It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal Law being limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of another. All such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra vires . . .” Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759(1926).

    We must keep our focus that there were issued Cease and Desist orders, and that banks entered into settlement agreements and that banks waited until the sequestration happened to begin to ‘settle’.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  85. What we have here is the Fed is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States so there is no transparency in anything it does. They are only auditable if they agree to be audited.

    The banking system is a closed system, so under the umbrella of the Fed, the banks created ‘servicer’ as their in-house debt collectors and made them separate entities within their system but not subject to transparency.

    The servicers were doing things that were visible in the public, including the confiscation of property unlawfully.

    The evidence was in the public from the standpoint that people were being removed from their homes and they were openly complaining of it being contract violations, where they were offered modifications but non were received or were temporary without full disclosure and revoked without warning.

    Then there were the violation of state laws where One claimed a right to the property without assignment, or didn’t send a representative to the auction to place a bid on their behalf.

    The only way anyone could truly see the extent of the fraud to steal was to go through the entire process with the expectation that their system had checks and balances to protect the innocent.

    Beyond whether someone considers they won because they had their home, I saw many who watched as others dealt with the theft thinking they were ‘safe’ only to experience it first hand.

    Neil had an article of a Congresswoman that he removed. She heard about the foreclosures and that the banks were going to court with lost note affidavits signed by people with no knowledge of the transaction. She contacted her servicer to ask if they had the note to her mortgage and they initiated a foreclosure on her. She was in the news and Neil had the article online. She stated that if she didn’t have the contacts she had in Congress her home could have been taken and she expressed how scary going through that process was.

    There were youtube videos of people who were ‘foreclosed on’ within that 2009 – 2010 time frame, one I remember they did a live stream and people were watching it, and one night a swat type team broke into the home and someone was heard on audio giving the instruction to locate the camera, after which streaming stopped.

    That’s a situation where ‘sheriffs’ could put their hands on the people in the home to take possession by order of a judge who was a stranger to the transaction.

    To be issued a Cease and Desist order is not something done in a flimflam way. Some wrongdoing has taken place.

    The Cease and Desist order demanded a review. The servicers set it up, spent a lot of money, no one got a resolution to the theft so back to the drawing board.

    The servicers grouped people into category according to ‘purported’ harm, and get credit of $7 to $10 for each $1 paid, so we are back to the $2100 to $3000 per home settlement that JPMorgan and Bank of America offered in the $25 billion dollar settlement with 49 states, and 48 attorney generals. A Texas attorney and not the Texas AG signed that agreement.

    There was some information on the internet a while back and it was pulled immediately, it had to do with receiving a check from a class action suit and signing and cashing that check is final settlement.

    Then I read somewhere, and I don’t know where, that the banks will be seeking final disposition from those who cash these settlement checks. My opinion is, it’s not resolved until there is a final settlement.

    I can’t burn down your home intentionally, then write up a document that you ‘lost’ your home, and then offer without admitting or denying involvement in you not having full use and peaceful enjoyment of your home; a pittance of less than pennies on the dollar of $300 and pretend that makes you whole.

    Because the banks do not loan any money in the transaction;
    The Chicago Federal Reserve Bank’s book, ”Modern Money Mechanics”, explains exactly how the banks expand and contract the check book money supply forcing people into foreclosure; they haven’t lost anything when there is a claim of loss of right or need for remedy.

    That may explain why the Cease and Desist orders and other lawsuits exist. The problem is, no law impairing the obligation of contracts. If you enter into an agreement of ‘consideration’, where the offer is specific and indicates it’s a ‘settlement’ and that you are receiving ‘consideration’ for purported harm without admitting or denying they caused you harm, there is really no recourse for you after you accept.

    I burn your home, I give you consideration and tell you (full disclosure it’s a settlement) of which I defined in these postings, and you cash the settlement with no refusal or counter offer then it’s settled.

    No one can force you into a contract and no one can represent your interest without a contract, so the settlement checks are a ‘private agreement’ (notice the lack of transparency in how the placed the homeowners who were robbed into categories).

    There are many people still in their homes to this day because many people were robbed of their homes in 2009 and 2010 and the banks cannot move as ‘easily’ into the process of stealing real estate as they had planned because they’ve “lost” the power of hiding behind MERS, and the people who were robbed did not ‘remain silent’. We spoke up, and got attention, and agencies issued Cease and Desist orders that slowed them down.

    They only reason a bank would offer a settlement is if there is enough evidence of wrong doing, as being revealed in the public by County Clerks who are suing for the corrupted titles and lack of revenue, that the banks are trying to clean up, in my opinion, all of the thefts by going back to the homeowner to make the settlement.

    There is 4.4 million people robbed.
    Not one, but 4.4 million in a two year period.
    MERs was holding 60 million mortgages and has slowed down on stealing the rest, because there are .4.4 million people who aren’t spending 3 years dealing with a threat, who haven’t gone to court and settled with a gag order or non-disclosure agreement, but who were robbed and can show a paper trail of how it was done.

    There is forensics that can be tracked and traced.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  86. carie or anyone – I still do not understand how collection rights remain on a charged off debt. I’ve said this 5 times, so one last time, let me try again – because I’d like to understand if possible. Take any debt to anybody – when a debt is charged off, it’s g o n e. What is there to sell? I would think ABC, in order to sell collection rights, must maintain the debt on its books, which would allow ABC to annually expense the loss (as it occurs or as provided by the IRS rules) up to the amt not realized by ABC from the sale of the collection rights…….?

  87. NG said:

    “Alleging that they are the holder of the note is a legal conclusion and not a short and plain statement of ultimate facts upon which relief could be granted.”
    That’s what the NV DC said in the Mitchell ( involving some 20 notes so is also know by other names) case in the stinking part of a transcript I can’t find. Whether or not one in possession is a “holder” is a question of fact (and is not established by allegation). In fact, the court said it was impossible for MERS (just so happens) to be a “holder” of a note which belongs to someone else.

  88. no doubt, christine, but we can change that.

  89. kudos to Rolling Jubilee.

  90. John,

    I was searching any info i could put my hand on concerning home buyers refusing to sign docs containing MERS in them. Can’t find any. Even among those who lost a home through BK or other means and were able to buy something else after a few years, no one appears to refuse to sign MERS docs. Otherwise, there would be a few law firms speaking about it.

    My feeling is that it isn’t done and I would suspect that any potential home buyer balking at loan paperwork containing MERS might simply be told “It’s MERS or no house.” Can’t verify that either though. Just a gut feeling.

  91. MERS set up its deal to do a lot of things, and a biggie was to allow members to foreclose in MERS’ name. what a load. whatever. I’ve suggested that mers may have been behind the consent order. After all, what did it really cost them or their cronies? What it did, however,
    is provide a reason to do assgts member to member (this assumes the secn trust trustee being a mers member is relevant), which theretofore wasn’t allowed, and these assignments now include an assignment of the notes to trusts. Think about it…….

  92. christine, for starters, by refusal to sign a MERS dot or mtg. Refuse to get a loan with any company which utilizes the MERS dot or mtg. Loans don’t have to be “securitized”. That’s just a money making bunch of junk from WS. Seems a golden opp for companies who can portfolio loans to do so and advertize accordingly.

  93. Personally, I believe that humans have what it takes to come out on top. It rests solely on communities with a common goal and a unity of purpose but it can be achieved. Of note: Yves Smith was very critical of this solution a few weeks ago. The problem is that Yves Smith is like most people: she looks for problems, she find them, she analyzes them. Very short on solutions herself.

    So what if people being helped with the bills end up with a tax liability? That tax liability will never be as heavy on a budget as the original debt was and Debt Jubilee already has the answer for that as well: if the people participating in it can erase debt, they can erase tax debt as well by paying it. I don’t see a problem. All i see is a solution.

    Naysayers are the problem!!! They always are.


    U.S.: Occupy Affiliate Aims at Abolishing Consumer Debt

    by Matthew Charles Cardinale (atlanta, georgia)
    Sunday, April 14, 2013
    Inter Press Service

    ATLANTA, Georgia, Apr 14 (IPS) – Strike Debt, an affiliate of the Occupy movement, has devised a legal and what some consider ingenious way to abolish millions of dollars in consumer debt…

    … But instead of trying to collect the debts through practises that range from threatening letters to lawsuits, Rolling Jubilee is mailing letters to families saying that their debts have been forgiven. Thus the debt is actually being abolished for pennies on the dollar – a fraction of what it would have cost for the families to pay off the debts.

    So far Rolling Jubilee has raised 578,795 U.S. dollars. With that they were able to purchase some 11.5 million dollars in medical debt owed on the secondary market by families who either live or once lived in Kentucky or Indiana….

  94. So is it not odd that they are talking about loan issues from 2009-2010, but 679 homeowners that are not behind on their payment but are either foreclosed of in some action with the lender and all received a notification to apply for a IFR but 617 did not apply.

    So over the last two years people who were not behind yet the OCC did not address this issue if they were informed by the homeowner. But if the OCC was not informed by the homeowner then how now does it get to the point two years later that these people were never behind?

    How is it that your in some portion of foreclosure for two years, and the bank is telling you that your in default even if your processing for a modification. They would have been processing for a modification since Dec 2010 at the latest, which is 2yrs 4mths to Mar 2009 which is 4yrs that possibly the homeowner been dealing with morons at the bank.

    So if you got let say 60 month of cancel checks or bank statements that show the electronic transfer how can whether a homeowner is current of not, not be easily solved?

    Who can never be not current? If you do not owe the due caller then the homeowner can never be in default, as the party does not have standing.

    How do you have an agreement to settle when parties did not have the standing to bring a foreclosure action. This of all things (along with military SCRA) is an illegal act to have process paperwork through the court to illegally take another’s property. Do we not expect greater clarity as to at least 2.5yrs of a borrower not being delinquent?

  95. T.U.

    “I correct myself, you are not intelligence, artificial or otherwise [whatever that means].” Well, I’m still in my house, 3 years down the road. Are you? If you don’t mind, I’ll consider the source, as usual.

    Thanks SAS. Couldn’t have been said better.

  96. There have been a lot of strange people on this site as of late. It didn’t use to be that way. Fighters came here to get information they could use in court, to share relevant news and to describe their own experience, good and bad. What gives people the misguided impression that they have a right to force feed the Bible to everyone all the time and to bring everything back to religion? And why is it that those who do it the most happen to be the same people who lost to their mortgage servicers and appear the most prone to attacking others?

    If religious jargon was the answer, those preaching the loudest would be the greatest victors. If anything, that strange behavior serves as the proof that religion doesn’t work: religion makes people mean and intolerant. This site is not the proper forum for theology. Please do find a most appropriate one before everyone in need of serious help is being permanently disgusted and chased away for good. Better yet: find yourself a church to attend and go discuss religion among yourselves. This is ridiculous and a serious put off for legitimate people in need of information.

    While I am at it, the use of capital letters does not give any particular weight to weak arguments, on the contrary. Many have voiced their objection and been unmercifully berated over it. Certain people here make it a point to post very interesting articles from different sources every time they come. Those helpful people have been showing increasing frustration and I’m afraid they will soon leave for good. Once they do, I am concerned that this blog will be the meeting place for incoherent rambling and very little fresh and pertinent information.

  97. I correct myself, you are not intelligence, artificial or otherwise.

    What part of ‘leave me alone’ do you not comprehend.

    I have no beef with you.

    I know what I said, and I said what I meant.
    There is nothing to argue about.
    It’s stated.
    It’s defined.
    It’s true.

    I can only presume something about the options I’ve put before others, has got you in an uproar.

    Maybe it’s the not cashing the check.
    The locating of the settlement docs that if they get more information about the ‘theft’, the banks are not absolved from their actions.

    Maybe it’s the reopening the FTC complaint, adding the details to the court case. Everything known about my experience with PNC has been stated before.

    Whatever it is, I’m glad it’s online and in these postings.

    The first shall be last, the last shall be first.

    There are some battles not worth fighting, and yours is definitely one of them.

    You know me. You communicate with me as if there is impunity for what you do.

    Your energy resonates in the Universe.
    There will be no; I didn’t know when you have to atone for your attack.

    Peaceful people have a right to not be forced into any war.
    We have that right.
    We have a right to NOT battle someone who wants to fight.

    I am exercising my right.
    I said what is true.
    I defined what is legal.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  98. You’re just full of shit and it reeks. i don’t address you either: no need to. But I will correct what is patently untrue especially in someone who didactically professes to know and tell “the truth”. Too old to be impressed by the “Do as i say and not as i do”. And i have my own truth. Don’t need yours: apparently it didn’t help you much. Can’t be that good a truth…

    I know all i need to know. And what i don’t know and need to learn, i get from credible sources. So far, it’s working. And you’re not one of them.

    Case closed.

  99. Stripes is not here to bicker with, choose someone else to attack.

    I give you legal meanings. you do not dictate my experiences nor the legal ramifications of what happened.

    I have read your posts, and there has to be some interest your attempt to discredit my ‘opinions’.

    Is it because it reveals the truth and the conscience of the Creator?

    There is only one truth.

    I do not have a contract with you to get into any conflict in this physical realm or spiritual realm. So if I tell you to ‘Leave me alone!’, you must obey.

    You serve someone else. They want you to attack me as the truth is being revealed.

    I See You.
    I know who you are and who you serve.
    Anyone else reading your comments and your directives may not know.

    Control is an illusion.
    I AM that I AM.

    You cannot intrude where you do not belong, and if you choose to ignore this on the physical realm, let’s hope you are a bot, or some form of artificial intelligence for your ‘soul’s sake’.

    Leave me Alone! I will not address you any more directly as I said in a prior post.

    You are not worth it.
    From hear on out, any comment needing clarification of what I posted; if it comes from another, I will clarify.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  100. Would someone PLEASE call me back! I have a very messy situation with now no representation!

    Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Jan Jan Winter NMLS 947364 702-806-4450 jan.winter21@hotmail.com

    Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:18:56 +0000 To: jan.winter21@hotmail.com

  101. Bank-Induced Default: The Next Wave of Foreclosure Defense

    Posted on April 17th, 2013 by Mark Stopa

    For years, I’ve listened as homeowners walked into my office with the same story. “The bank told me to default to be eligible for a loan modification, but when I stopped making payments, the bank refused to give me a modification.”

    I have always believed this is a defense to foreclosure. I even have a term for it – “bank-induced default.” But don’t take my word for it. Read Florida’s case law on the matter. See La Boutique of Beauty Academy, Inc. v. Meloy, 436 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (“because the mortgagee, by its own conduct, led appellees to believe acceleration would not occur following a late payment … we affirm the order granting summary judgment for the mortgagors”); Dale v. Jennings, 107 So. 175 (Fla. 1926); Kerber v. Chadan, Inc., 364 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

    In my view, the law in this regard is clear. When a bank leads a homeowner to believe acceleration/foreclosure won’t occur after a default in payments – as it does when it tells a homeowner to default in order to get a loan modification – then it should not be able to foreclose. The Meloy case is particularly eye-opening. There, the Fourth District affirmed a summary judgment for the homeowners where the bank led the homeowners to believe a foreclosure would not occur after the default. Yes, a summary judgment for the homeowners … foreclosure case over, homeowners win, just like that.

    That, however, begs the question. Even if a homeowner is able to “win” with this defense, what does that “win” mean? The bank can’t foreclose in that lawsuit, that seems clear. But what happens with the mortgage?

    Let me dispel your immediate thought. No, I don’t think this gives a homeowner a free house. The fact that the bank wrongly declared a default shouldn’t give a homeowner a mortgage-free house.

    So what, then, happens to the mortgage? If it doesn’t go away, can the homeowner resume payments? This is where it gets tricky.

    In the bank’s view, the homeowner can’t resume making normal, monthly mortgage payments – not without paying all of the late charges, attorneys’ fees, and default interest since the alleged default, not to mention the monthly payments that accrued since the last payment was made.

    In the homeowner’s view, doing that would be ridiculous. Why should a homeowner who was wrongly declared in default have to pay default interest, late charges, and attorneys’ fees where those charges would have been unnecessary if the bank hadn’t wrongly declared the default? [Absolutely! That’s exactly why I’m in court! And I wasn’t even behind!!!]

    Judge William Levens of Hillsborough County recently encountered a fact pattern like this and crafted a really interesting solution. His Final Judgment not only denied a foreclosure, but it required the bank to reinstate the mortgage as of the date that payments stopped being accepted. All default interest, late charges, attorneys’ fees – POOF, GONE. The homeowner could resume making monthly, mortgage payments today as if the mortgage were never in default.

    Great result, huh? I thought so, and that’s why I blogged about it nearly a year ago.

    Now is when it gets really interesting.

    The bank didn’t like that result, so it appealed to Florida’ Second District Court of Appeal. Today, the Second District issued a written opinion which reversed part of Judge Levens’ ruling but affirmed the rest. Significantly, the appellate court affirmed the judge’s ruling that the mortgage should be reinstated retroactive to the date that the bank wrongly stopped accepting monthly mortgage payments.

    Read the appellate court’s ruling for yourself:

    At the conclusion of the foreclosure trial, the trial court found that Kraz had not been in default under the terms of the loan when BB&T declared the default. Having reached this conclusion, the trial court denied BB&T’s request to foreclose on the property, and it set about creating an equitable remedy that would return the parties to the financial positions they would have been in had the improper default not been declared. As part of that remedy, the trial court reinstated the loan, ordered BB&T to write off the default interest and late fees it had charged …

    Wow. It’s one thing for one circuit court judge to make a ruling like this. Useful, yes, but the extent to which it can be used in other cases is arguable. However, when the Second District makes this ruling, it is binding law for every circuit judge in Florida.

    Yes, it’s now binding precedent that when a bank wrongly declares a default that a foreclosure should be denied and the parties returned to the positions they were in when this happened. I don’t want to call it a “bombshell” (I think Weidner has that term trademarked), but this is a really, really big deal.

    How many cases can this impact? As I see it, thousands. Maybe tens of thousands. In my experience, there are untold thousands of homeowners who were induced to default under promises of a loan modification, and all such homeowners can use this argument to not only contest foreclosure, but to ask that they be returned to the position they were in at the moment the homeowner stopped making payments. That means not only that the bank can’t foreclose, but that all late charges, default interest, and attorneys’ fees are eliminated, and the homeowner can resume making normal, monthly mortgage payments.

    One notable aspect of the Second District’s ruling … the fact that three years has passed without the homeowner making monthly mortgage payments is not relevant. Think about that for a minute. There’s no obligation to get current. Just begin making payments again, as if it were three years ago.

    Can this concept work for everyone? Undoubtedly not. Many homeowners were not the victims of “bank-induced default.” But many were. And now that we have precedent from a Florida appellate court, it’s time to start pushing the envelope on this defense, over and over again.

    Any homeowner who was duped to stop making payments under the auspices of a loan modification (only to ultimately realize the modification never came) … I can’t guarantee this defense will work, but you sure as heck better try. And if you want to bring your case to my firm, then, well, I hope you see I’m well-versed in the argument.

    Mark Stopa


  102. Any typos or formatting errors, etc, are my fault during formatting. It didn’t copy well into wordpad.

    Trespass Unwanted.

  103. Found it.


    $7 to $10 credit for each $1 cash commitment. (in PNC’s settlement)

    In recognition of the Bank’s cash payments of $69,433,224.00 to the Fund and Foreclosure Prevention commitment s made pursuant to this Amendment to the Consent Order, under 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b), the Comptroller will not assess a civil money penalty, under 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i), or initiate a ny further enforcement actions against the Bank or its subsidiaries or affiliates, including for remedies available pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b), with respect to:
    the findings contained in Article I of the 2011 Consent Order; (b) the matters addressed in Article VII of the 2011 Consent Order (including matters relating to the work or findings of the IC or IC counsel under the IFR); and (c) any ot
    her past mortgage servicing and foreclosure-related practices that are addressed by the 2011 Consent Order through the execution date of this Amendment to the Consent Order, provided that the terms of this Amendment to the Consent Order are satisfied. In addition, the Comptroller’s agreement not to assess a civil money penalty in regard to points (a) and (c) above is further conditioned upon the Bank making payments or providing borrower assistance pursuant to any agreement it enters into with DOJ/HUD that is substantially similar to the NMS within two (2) years of the date of this Amendment to the Consent Order.
    Notwithstanding any other terms of this Amendment to the Consent Order, the Comptroller specifically reserves an
    d does not release the following:
    any right to institute an enforcement action for violations of the Articles contained in the 2011 Consent Order, outside of Article VII of the 2011 Consent Order;
    any and all claims based upon acts or omissions subsequent to the effective date of this Amendment to the Consent Order;
    any and all claims based upon the or igination of a residential mortgage loan, or the sale or transfer of a mortgage, security, or whole loan, whether legal or equitable, to, into, or for the benefit of a mortgage-backed security, trust, or
    special interest entity, including but not limited to mortgage loan securitizations and whole loan sales to such entities, except for any and all claims addressed in Paragraph (1) above;
    any liability arising under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq. , or any other statute or law that prohibits discrimination of persons based on race, color, national origin, gender, disability, or any other protected status,
    including the non-discrimination provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691, et seq., or under the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 41, et seq. , or any other statute or law that prohibits unfair or deceptive
    any and all claims against individuals, including current and former employees, agents, officers, directors, or contractors of the Bank; and
    any and all actions to enforce the terms and conditions of this Amendment to the Consent Order.
    In no event shall the Bank request or require any borrower to execute a waiver of any claims against the Bank (including any agent of the Bank) in connection with any payment or Foreclosure Prevention assistance pursuant to this Amendment to the Consent Order. However, nothing herein shall operate to bar the Bank from asserting in the future in any separate litigation, or as part of a settlement related to the Bank’s foreclosure and servicing practices, any right that may exist under applicable law to offset the amounts received by a borrower through the distribution process set forth above. Nothing herein shall operate to amend or modify in any respect any preexisting settlement between the Bank or an affiliate thereof and a borrower in the In-Scope Borrower Population.

    There is 21 pages of details, I must go though to see what is offered, what is still on the table.

    Got some addresses too, but no names, one address is PNC specific.

    All communication regarding this Amendment to the Consent Order shall be sent to:
    Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision
    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
    400 7th Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20219
    National Bank Examiners
    Two PNC Plaza, 620 Liberty Avenue
    MS P2-PTPP 20-3
    Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2719

    According to this amendment the accounts were ‘funded’ before the checks went out, so these bouncing stories are “either” not the IFR (Independent Foreclosure Review) or a distortion of it.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  104. JG,

    How do you propose we make MERS go? What actions to you advocate we take to get to that result?

  105. Again the same refrain… Confiscations under the name “bail-in” to protect the big banks if needed be.

    Canadian deposits safe under bail-in, but no guarantee: Carney

    Canadian Press | 13/04/18 1:55 PM ET
    More from Canadian Press

    OTTAWA — Mark Carney says policy-makers are working diligently to devise an international “bail-in” regime to prevent big bank failures, but he offered no guarantee that individual deposits would be protected.

    The Canadian central banker, who is a few months away from heading the Bank of England, says banks must have a set of buffers in place to draw on in an emergency.

    Speaking during a televised interview in Washington, Carney appeared to disagree with the approach taken in Cyprus last month that involved taxing deposits, but would not state his personal position because he said it might be misinterpreted.

    He notes the Canadian government has pledged not to dip into individual deposits [and we all know what a government pledge is worth, these days…]

  106. Jamie Boy gave us the heads up when promising investors that JPM would remain strong and weather the next crisis. Switzerland is alluding to a forthcoming crisis as well. We can’t say that we haven’t been warned.


    Switzerland Revises 1934 Banking Act to Allow Bail-in Deposit Confiscations!

    April 19, 2013 By The Doc 14 Comments

    The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) has quietly joined the growing parade of western nations who have quietly re-written banking laws to allow depositor bail-ins upon the next banking crisis.
    If Switzerland, the once ultimate safe haven for banking deposits across the world is preparing to confiscate depositors funds, there truly is no protection anywhere other than physical gold and silver in your own possession!

    In the event that a bank is failing or where its capitalization is no longer adequate, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (“FINMA”) may take measures to improve such bank’s financial viability rather than liquidating it. “Loss absorption” and “bail-in” are important instruments to support any such measures.

  107. Okay, so just humor me and say i’m right about the indentures and let’s (alright?) look at enforcement of those notes. 1) We’ve got the sellers indentured to the trusts for the full amts due on the notes at the time of the sale(s) that didn’t happen for non-delivery. 2) The UCC -9-203g as I recall – says the buyer -here the trust – has a security interest in both the notes and their collateral (here the dots). The trusts don’t own the notes or dots, but they do have security interests in them (but see trust law on true sales?) 3) Under ‘normal’ circumstances (where sec’n, trusts, and trust law, including cut-off dates, are not involved), such a note buyer – one who has paid but has not gotten delivery of the note – would have an equitable right to delivery of the note and the assgt of its collateral instrument (if any) and (3)(a) may sue as necessary to get both.

    Whom, if anyone, may enforce these notes against the makers under these circumstances? We know the indenture exists between the seller and the trusts (and that indenture should rightfully be carried on the seller’s books), but what of enforcement of the notes (and what does it mean to the banks financial positions if the banks could and should write down the notes to value because they actually still own them (assuming the notes even got that far)?
    Is that thee problem here being sought to be avoided by the powers that be? Despite all the gazillions of gimme funds, the banks are really yet insolvent, having blown all their CDS monies on yachts and mojitos and or moved the funds out of ‘accounting range’? ( Is it “immoral but not Illegal” to make a bet on a loan when you actually own it even tho you shouldn’t own it?) And they must write down to value (or worse – I don’t know), but still owe the full amts of the indentures, making them yet majorly, monstrously upside down??? Well, we could go on about this, but right now I’m interested in who may enforce notes against the makers in these circumstance. It’s complicated and hard not to consider what all is to be considered.

    Here’s where I’m definitely this day over my head, admittedly: I believe that it’s the indentured party who is primarily liable on the notes to the buyer who has paid for but not received the notes. Seems to me that maybe no one may enforce, not in a fed juris court, anyway. The seller has suffered no loss because he’s been paid for the notes** – here by the trusts if not by cds’s and or other insurance (see UCC for support regarding third party payments of notes retiring notes dollar for dollar).
    The ‘normal’ buyers may, probably even, have equitable rights to the notes and their collateral (and here I point out again it’s at the amt due and owing at the time of the agreement / as of the date delivery was due).II hasten to point out that an equitable right does not make a thing DONE, definitely not these things.
    But what about when the seller, who is the true owner (if so, because of his own negotiation issues before and to him, has been paid by third parties, so the note which is due to someone else is toast? That leaves, does it not, just the seller’s indenture. UGLY deal for them – death even! But never minding momentarily, if we can and it’s hard, 1) that the notes may factually have been paid and 2) that we’re talking about trusts and trust laws.

    We need to imo determine ANY buyers’ rights of enforcement against a note maker in the circumstance where the buyer has paid for but not received delivery of notes secured by real property. Must that buyer’s first course of action be one against the indentured party? I don’t know. If buyers who never got delivery could have sued to get the notes or sued on the indenture, have THEY failed to mitigate or something like that? But here, it’s particularly difficult to ignore cut off dates as to them suing for delivery, and in that regard, sec’n and trust laws seem to butt heads with the UCC and have truncated mitigation and rights, is that not so? Seem like a rather large issue to me. that conflict I see, and another reason to end securitization.

    We need these answers. Yesterday. What I do think, as I’ve said, is that those indentured parties are using the “MERS” assignments of not only the coll instruments but the notes, as well, to try to 1) get around their own indentures which demand that they take any losses, while at the same time – what cheek! 2) pretending the notes were legitimately transferred before the cut-off date and 3) use the handy credit bid of the trust for its (a) self-evident benefit and (b) not to expose the lie that the trusts don’t own the loans.

    The ‘exercise’ was to solicit help in determining the rights of enforcement against the makers of notes in the indenture
    situation I tried to describe as best I can and believe exists.

    Haven’t said it lately, so it’s due:

    lay opinions as always – ask 10 lawyers

  108. It’s been long coming but MN is starting to see some light… One by one, states will come to their senses.

    Foreclosure papers must be in order,
    Minnesota Supreme Court rules

    The state Supreme Court decision could boost homeowners fighting defective sheriff’s sales.

    Minnesota’s Supreme Court has tightened the screws a bit on home foreclosures.

    In a ruling out Wednesday, the state’s highest court decided unanimously that a foreclosing party must strictly comply with a state law requiring all the different banks and parties that have held a mortgage be clearly documented and filed before a foreclosure-by-advertisement can be initiated.

    The case involved Doris Ruiz, a woman whose south Minneapolis duplex was foreclosed on by 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing. The court voided her foreclosure because 1st Fidelity filed its paperwork on the same day that it began advertising for a sheriff’s foreclosure auction on her home.

    Her lawyer, Jonathan Drewes, said the decision sets a strict standard that could impact “hundreds” of potentially defective or illegal foreclosure sales in the state.

    “I anticipate that many more lawsuits will arise in Minnesota over the coming year,” Drewes said.

    Foreclosures in Minnesota are down from peaks during the worst of the housing crisis but they remain elevated. There were 17,895 sheriff’s foreclosure sales statewide last year, according to Twin Cities-based HousingLink, which tracks them. That’s the lowest annual total since 2006 but it is still nearly triple the number of foreclosures in 2005.

    Prentiss Cox, a consumer law expert at the University of Minnesota law school, said the new Supreme Court decision gives homeowners who find problems in their foreclosure paperwork a new avenue to argue in court.

    “This is the first decision from [the] Minnesota Supreme Court that suggests strict compliance really means strict compliance,” Cox said. “This is an industry that has had extraordinary problems putting one foot in front of the other to comply with legal requirements when they foreclose.”

    Eric Cook, a local lawyer for Florida-based 1st Fidelity, said he couldn’t comment on the case.

    Minneapolis lawyer Kevin Dunlevy, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Minnesota Bankers Association, the Minnesota Land Title Association and the Minnesota Association of Realtors, downplayed the decision.

    It’s narrow, he said, and only applies to potential errors in documenting mortgage holders. It simply means that foreclosure lawyers in Minnesota will have to be more vigilant about crossing t’s and dotting i’s, he said. He said he doesn’t think it will slow down the pace of foreclosures.

    Ruiz could not immediately be reached for comment.

    The onetime owner of a Minneapolis temporary-work agency called Olen Staff Co., Ruiz, 40, was sentenced in federal court last summer to one year and one day in prison for tax evasion.

    She pleaded guilty to taking more than $425,000 from employees’ paychecks. Court documents alleged that most of the workers she placed in jobs were undocumented workers.

    Drewes, her lawyer in the foreclosure fight, said he didn’t know much about that. “I’m just helping to keep her family rightfully in their home,” he said.

    Jennifer Bjorhus • 612-673-4683 | StarTribune

  109. You confirm what i suspected. For purpose of this site, you “lost” your house and what i said a few days ago stands. As far as teaching others the meaning of words, forget it. Keep using vocabulary as you see fit but don’t expect communication.

    Shit is shit, no matter what name you give it: merde, scheiss, poop, crap, mierda, shit is shit: It smells the same, it looks the same, it is the same thing. Grandstanding disguised as “enlightenment” is ridiculous at best.

    “losing present participle of lose (Verb)

    Be deprived of or cease to have or retain (something): “I’ve lost my appetite”.
    Cause (someone) to fail to gain or retain (something): “you lost me my appointment at the university”.”

    Call it “robbed”, call it whatever you want, you “lost” it.

  110. Notice in a definition of ‘lost’ who is responsible for ‘losing’ something.

    Black’s law 5th Edition.

    An article is “lost” when the owner has lost the possession or custody of it, involuntarily and by any means, but more particularly by accident or his own negligence or forgetfulness, and when he is ignorant of its whereabouts or cannot recover it by an ordinarily diligent search. See also Lost Property.

    Ouster; a wrong that carries with it the amotion of possession. An act whereby the wrongdoer gets the actual occupation of the land or hereditament. It includes abatement, intrusion, disseisin, discontinuance, deforcement.

    I did not “lose” my home.
    I was robbed. I know where it is. Someone else is occupying it.
    If I go back to live in it, there will be a conflict and someone will come after me for trying to obtain possession of what is ‘still’ mine.

    I never gave up my right to property in any document; regardless of how people want to interpret the thing. My Deed of Trust is clear, except it referenced ‘a person’. Which means a representative of the State should have been in the court room defending my right to property, as I was in possession of it and if living there for more than 10 years and paying taxes, and filing homestead, that should have meant some form of possession. My Deed of Trust has been rendered void and unenforceable.

    I don’t know their legal words, so it’s easy to discriminate against me for not speaking their language, but discrimination is against the law.

    Title 42, U.S.C., Section 3631
    Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing

    This statute makes it unlawful for any individual(s), by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with (or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with), any person’s housing rights because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights enumerated in the statute are:

    * The sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling;
    * the occupation of a dwelling;
    * the financing of a dwelling;
    * contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above.
    * applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings.

    This statute also makes it unlawful by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights.

    Punishment varies from a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results, shall be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to ten years, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
    back to top

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  111. responding to carie at 8:19 a.m. under Banks throw 20 Billlion post:

    carie et al – NG could say there is pressure to make good on what was SUPPOSED to have happened, even tho it did not happen. In fact, i think what he is saying is that there is pressure to pretend that it happened (legit sec’n), when he believes it’s impossible to have happened because the investors funds were used not to buy securities, but to actually fund the loans at the closing table. How do you sell someone something they already own? got me – some dog and pony show and shananigans, possibly including activities which would all under RICO etc? which is why he is so keen imo on the money trail. (tho I think he’s going at it from the wrong angle, i.e. forget that it’s a trust momentarily and just look at the trusts like any other
    debt buyers and the elements to establish a claim both as to the UCC AS applicable – caveat – and the laws of real property indentures, including the statute of frauds, non-recourse v recourse, one-action, anti – deficiency laws, holder v hidc, etc.) to get at the dates and amounts allegedly paid. He seems to further believe that the use of the investor funds to actually fund the loans made the (unlicensed) investors the lenders, with which I disagree, other than perhaps in equity. It’s surely conversion or got me again on its name(s) if the inv funds were contractually given for X and were used for Y, esp if executing plan Y involved any con, or criminal activity, such as RICO etc.
    But I have to say this: if there is such pressure to pretend what didn’t happen did happen, it says to me on one hand that there is a belief that in the absence of pretending, the people who forked over the dough would not benefit from their investments – not to mention any tax ramifications of monies paid to the investors which are not entitled to preferential treatment. That may well be (part of) the real name of the game. I have a hard time with thinking that as a matter of law and or equity because of the contracts in place between banksters and these agencies, and fnma guarantee, the fha insurance, the va guarantee, and so on, the pretense, other than the tax rams, is necessary to protect the investors’ investments. I guess right this minute, mostly because of my belief that if the investors signed a contract wherein loans would be bought by trusts and securities issued thereto (did they not?), I believe that under the UCC, if those loans weren’t delivered, SOMEone (the alleged seller to the trusts) is indentured to the trusts for the amts due and owing on the date the loans were to have been transferred to the trusts (as opposed to what is allegedly due and owing today as a result of non-payment by the borrowers.

    I’d like to make this clear fwiw: if the loans weren’t transferred, the SELLER owes (owes the guy(s) who paid – here the trusts) the amts which were agreed were due and owing on the notes at the time of the agreement as to the delivery (date) which didn’t happen, not what is owed today, less any payments made to the investors pursuant not to the notes but pursuant to the bonds (I think on the pursuant part). It is the seller-who-didn’t-deliver who must eat any loss, not the party who didn’t get proper (key word) delivery. (Admittedly, that changes or could change if the investors funds were in fact used to fund the loans. That has other names and ramifications altogether)

    I have no doubt Patrick is more knowledgeable than most of us about derecognition. I’d have to say I certainly don’t understand derec, and I sure as h don’t understand derec of an asset which is indentured (which is the case imo when delivery never occurred – seller owns notes – if that’s even true as to proper negotiation to the seller and those before him- but that’s offset on the books by the indenture).
    Whether or not it should and or I’m in left field altogether as to the following, it still shouts at me: when Buffet got that loan portfolio out of Ally’s bk free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, does it mean that any indentures such as what I’ve described, were avoided??!! (If so, where can we get some of this?) And if so, that’s a hell of a way to be able to end the indenture. For the sake of the investors, I hope I got it wrong. Don’t anyone bother yelling about my defense of investors. By and large they are good people who were victimized and preyed upon just as we were and are.

    But back to the ‘main’ theme here, if I may. If the loans were not delivered and therefore the banksters are on the hook as indentured parties, who is being so naive / ignorant or willingly overlooking those indentures? How does it benefit investors if they are made to wrongfully eat the (alleged) losses which, if a loss even exists, is to be borne by the non-delivering banksters? I guess it’s unrealistic to think judges understand the indentures, but for Pete’s sake, there must be someone(s) out there who does and is (are) doing NOthing. I’m just a plebe, but I think there is enough basis for my beliefs about indentures that people with really good
    brains should be on this.

    lay opinions as always

  112. “I want my property, my homestead back.” I thought you hadn’t lost it…

  113. Who are these people?
    2013 Committee Members

    Ben S. Bernanke, Board of Governors, Chairman
    William C. Dudley, New York, Vice Chairman
    James Bullard, St. Louis
    Elizabeth A. Duke, Board of Governors
    Charles L. Evans, Chicago
    Esther L. George, Kansas City
    Jerome H. Powell, Board of Governors
    Sarah Bloom Raskin, Board of Governors
    Jeremy C. Stein, Board of Governors
    Eric S. Rosengren, Boston
    Daniel K. Tarullo, Board of Governors
    Janet L. Yellen, Board of Governors

    Alternate Members

    Richard W. Fisher, Dallas
    Narayana Kocherlakota, Minneapolis
    Sandra Pianalto, Cleveland
    Charles I. Plosser, Philadelphia
    Christine M. Cumming, First Vice President, New York

    They are the Board of Governors with the Federal Reserve System.
    None of them know you nor me.
    They decided the type of harm people experienced when we were robbed of our homes and homestead.

    They decided to settle with the banks, for which they have a vested interest in, on the foreclosure review process.

    The banks had already spent over $2 billion dollars and none went to the people being robbed, and this group are members of a closed financial system. So a loss of $2 billion dollars will get their attention, but a bank violating the law of the land and taking someone’s shelter does not raise an eyebrow.

    These people along with some people from OCC and the banks (I’m sure attorneys were there) all got together and drafted a payment schedule and lumped each of us into a category and sent it with no option to appeal.

    One of those ‘all sales are final’ deals.
    Except we never went shopping to be robbed.

    Neil says you can still, how does he put it?
    “It is important to remember that the settlement does not preclude homeowners from filing whatever claims they have even if they have accepted the check. ”

    But maybe someone can clue me into how much money does it take to ‘file whatever claims’ and what are the chances of getting an ‘attorney that gets it’ or a ‘judge that gets it’.

    That gamble is well worth NOT cashing the check for some and others just probably don’t care and that’s their right.

    I have a better gamble of not accepting an unconscionable, moral turpitude version of ‘lack of’ consideration, than to gamble on taking the ‘offending amount’ and using it to purchase something I will use, or eat, or need.

    I want my property, my homestead back. Settle with the current ‘renters’, move them out, fix it back up for me, and pay me lump sum damages for every day over the past two years and more that you’ve crossed into my rights that your laws consider civil and I know are Universal. If we did an equitable payment for deprivation of rights under color of Authority, or deprivation of rights under color of law, that would be about $57,000 a day? Take that $2 billion you paid those reviewers who looked at a little over 100,000 files and I figure you’ve given them a pretty penny per day.

    There is no way an undead corporation, brought to life by the people running and controlling it, the corporate puppeteers; should be able to dispossess the People on the Land who came first and foremost and are the true inheritors of the real estate called Earth.

    This is your system of control. Fix it.
    Game over a long time ago. It’s time to shut it down.

    Can’t find that settlement agreement at the federalreserve.gov website even though the check said something was there for me to look at. I’ll go to the OCC website and see if I have any luck in the hunt.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  114. Neil, why haven’t you posted the link to the settlement between Fed, OCC and the 14.

    Credit of $500 to every $1 of settlement is definitely newsworthy.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  115. Trespass
    Hence i have to go judicial route to get the info under foia.

  116. I think the only answer is to live life to the fullest while you can and collect memories like fools collect money. Because in the end, that’s all you have – happy memories.

    — Sarah Strohmeyer

  117. IRS employees in Tennessee accused of theft, false statements

    Published: April 18, 2013 at 1:25 PM

    NASHVILLE, April 18 (UPI) — Thirteen Internal Revenue Service employees in Tennessee were indicted Thursday on charges they lied to get unemployment and other benefits, officials said.

    An additional 11 were indicted on state charges of theft. In total, workers improperly received over $250,000 in government benefits from 2006 to 2012, authorities said.

    The charges came after an investigation originated by the U.S. Treasury Inspector General of Tax Administration, which has focused on IRS employees who illegally draw government benefits, typically by properly collecting unemployment benefits while furloughed but failing to report their return to work, the (Nashville) Tennessean reported Thursday.

    The 13 indicted on federal violations were charged with multiple counts of false statements, punishable by up to five years in prison, the newspaper noted.


    America: the land of institutionalized theft. Very much karmic… wasn’t this country stolen from the natives who were simply decimated?

  118. Deborah wynn
    I got two 1099a(s) one from PNC Mortgage and one from Fannie Mae, both claiming the same amount which was about $4000+ more than the home was credit bid for at auction.

    I’m one who has studied from ‘life experience’ (no formal training) how contracts are made. Verbal, Gesture, written.

    I knew that the two companies sent in the doc to the IRS to claim the credit for the abandoned property in some way, why else would they both want to be the ‘creditor’?

    But there was a copy for me to send in, too.

    As I comprehend, which means I don’t really know, my sending the form with my tax contract that I would have signed under penalty of perjury would have validated their claim that I abandoned the property.

    Since I didn’t.
    Since I do not file false documents I don’t care who sends them.
    Since neither were my creditor it was easy to be belligerant and not do what either wanted me to do, which is to claim they were my creditor in any transaction I do.
    I kept the forms and would have let the IRS iron it out.

    But I had dealings with the IRS later on a request for a refund. Anyway, they went the frivolous filing route and I contacted them to try to keep them from taking my living wages. (That didn’t go well), but what I learned from them was they had the 1099a, and it seemed the representative without getting too specific brought up the fact that my home was foreclosed on and that foreclosure was on file. I wasn’t sure how she worded it, but when she mentioned the home, it was as if there was an outstanding obligation she was waiting on from me (I don’t know if that played a part in their frivolous filing claim), but I told her, my home was stolen, and we went on from there.

    Anyway, they’ll never get those papers from me, if my Will Be Done.

    By they way, our living wages is NOT income, but that’s a different story. Seems the first time we file taxes the question is, I didn’t owe taxes last year and I don’t expect to owe taxes this year, and we kind of put something in there as if we owed and that started the yearly contract. So they expect a contract renewal by April 15 of every year.

    Unless you know how to deal with them, and they are like ants, you may communicate with one, but you got a whole colony after you, I’d suggest not messing with the ant pile unless you know what you are doing and you know that a frivolous filing claim bites hard when they take it from your living wages through your employer.
    (the online manual that showed that department and process has been removed for a few months now…so I don’t know what they do now, I leave the ant pile alone).

    They aren’t getting anything from me indicating I abandoned anything.
    I had filed a complaint with the FTC, since this company wants to insist they are my servicer (which is what it seems they are doing, pushing themselves on me with no assignment all this time), then maybe I’ll reopen that complaint with the details of this inequitable settlement which is no consideration for what I complained about.

    Maybe the case where the judge was so eager to take my home thinking the attorney before her represented a true correct and complete and not misleading claim, could use a copy of this check on file to indicate PNC had an agreement to offer consideration and hopefully she’ll look at the evidence and reverse the writ of possession.

    These are avenues still open, and still open to me.

    I’ve read enough adverse possession lawsuits that I don’t feel comfortable letting someone sit in my home and I can’t go there without committing some crime when it’s my property, and they try to quiet the title when I don’t speak court and don’t know how to defend my right to my property under a foreign language.

    That’s discrimination.
    I come there and tell you in my language it’s my property and since I don’t speak the court’s language, they take it, force me out, let some realtor claim it abandoned, the corporations try to claim it abandoned, and the realtor sells it to someone else under MERS disguised as a Quicken Loan in the County Clerk records.
    Quicken’s phone number was 1-800-xxx-MERS. Can’t be more clearer than that.

    All these maybes, but I like having options, and I don’t like being discriminated against for NOT being a corporation and NOT representing the corporate entity person (all caps name that looks like how mine is spelled) that was created by the State of XXXXXXX.

    What they create, let them represent it.
    I have a Creator. I don’t represent anything created by man who is equal and One with me.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  119. I didn’t file any complaint with OCC so I don’t expect anything and I still have the house anyway. But I find it so… well, there simply is no word for it.

    People get a lousy $300 to make up for a whole, entire house they paid into for 10, 20, 30 years and had the misfortune or refinancing with some MERS outfit, intent on stealing it. 7 years into it, and after banks got billions from us, some “review” is performed and $200K is compensated by a bouncing check, subject to federal taxes.

    America has redefine surreal to a measure never reached before. If anyone had ever tried to write that story as a fiction, the book would have seriously flopped!

    Where is the outrage? Has everyone been so dumbed down that numbness is all there is left?

  120. Whether the victims are in need to cash $300 that was sent to them, the monies should have been available. This is 2013 not 1975 and within second the funds available are known.

    Now as far as what Neil is talking about in the blank Notes being conveyed to the Trust is why I believe there were never Trust to house Ginnie Mae pooled loan. If Ginnie Mae give to the Trust blank Notes then the Trust is owner of that Note, but just as the problem Ginnie has is that they did not pay for the debt.

    As my situation is our loan was with Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) however as I requested from HUD through its FOIA dept, they supplied me with phony information making it appear as if WaMu was not the lender that placed the loan into the Ginnie pool, and as if Wells Fargo place the loan into the pool, but Wells Fargo did not get involved with the loan until 3yrs later when the made a servicing agreement.

    Now HUD will not answer my later request which it already been almost a year since I requested the Trust information to the loan and any all information in the file they have. What tip me off to Ginnie hiding information, was the CUSIP number does not exist. We know for a fact that over 3yrs before Wells Fargo started servicing the loan only as with 1.3 million other WaMu government loans. But what Ginnie wants is it to look as Wells Fargo was the issuer when it was impossible and that fact that Wells has written a letter to the fact that they were not.

    The Federal government file are alter to make the government Ponzi over at Ginnie look legitimate but as I been saying is that Ginnie Mae has a $1.1 trillion worthless securities that has no underlying collateral, because they never purchase the debt!

  121. I had people talking to me about this.
    My opinion, and that’s all it is, is this
    These checks are final settlement, not subject to an appeal to them for more. People don’t trust this settlement (most haven’t read it anyway), so they were going to delay or not cash the check, especially the 3 or so plus million who got $300 when we know we are owed more.

    So what do you do? Use the media and tell people they are bouncing.
    Someone is curious and shouldn’t be in my opinion.
    They sign it and cash it and theirs go through.

    Voila, a settlement check that was accepted, and one less homeowner who has a strong case against you because they accepted your consideration.

    Curiosity killed the cat.
    That’s my opinion.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Life, Free, Independent, State, Corporeal, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  122. Javas point re are this msny people so desperate to waiver their legal rights by cashing this dumb check.
    Maybe the ones getting the checks were the ninjas- and im not saying they are loosers no one is a looser but maybe they just want them outta the way to bar future claims. I will not be getting a check firstly because they could shove it and secondly
    Because i apparently abandoned my home says 1099a- well thats a question of fact because it is in fact- not a fact.

  123. No Neil,

    I got one for $300.00…so far $11,000 just for an attorney!

  124. No one hates the banks more than me. However I don’t think is the banks fault. Nor of I think the checks are bouncing. I think they just are not being cashed at your bank. You must deposit and wait for the hold to be removed. Now why there is such a long hold timeframe is a fair question. I think what bothers me more , is there are really this many people desperate for 300, 500 , heck even a $1000, that they have to have cash NOW and can wait a few days for check to clear

  125. Of course the checks are bouncing—because the whole system is still in fraudulent chaos—being run by loan sharks:

    “…The (highly profitable) subprime fraud began when the banks started to “securitize” Fannie/Freddie CHARGE OFFS ,which started to occur about the year 1999/2000, after DEREGULATION (repeal of Glass-Steagall)…and MERS was created by the mortgage/banking industry.
    As this happened, “mortgage” market share shifted from Fannie/Freddie to the banks.
    Anything that has a cash flow can be securitized. Securitization is the pass-through of cash flows.
    But, the key difference as to SUBPRIME fraud is in the ACCOUNTING (just like Enron).
    Valid securitization MUST involve the removal of RECEIVABLES.
    You have to understand an accounting balance sheet for this. Receivables are the current assets that are owed to a corporation (the only one who files accounting financial statements.) Charge-offs are, well, CHARGE OFFS…NOTE IS GONE.
    So when GSE’s charge-off the NOTE—only COLLECTION RIGHTS REMAIN…NO NOTE.
    Collection rights (because there no longer is a NOTE)—can only be reported as “INCOME” by the aquirer.

    Therefore, all these REMIC’s that claimed to be removing RECEIVABLES from on-balance sheet to off-balance sheet—for “security” pass-through—were FRAUDULENT.

    This is what the securities fraud is really about.

    As to the borrower, big difference—because for one thing—THE NOTE IS GONE (and only collection rights survive)—AND the “debt” IS NO LONGER SECURED. It is UNSECURED. Big issue in bankruptcy. And, of course, the subprime refinances were falsely and fraudulently presented as a MORTGAGE REFINANCE—when, in fact, they were nothing but COLLECTION RIGHTS MODIFICATION.
    Also, big IRS tax fraud issues involved.
    THIS is why the financial crises hit so hard when it did.”

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: