The Truth: Was the Loan Sold or Not?


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

Editor’s Analysis: Suppose you wanted to foreclose on property for which you never made a loan. Suppose you don’t have a lien and never did. Suppose you wanted to do this on a grand scale. How could you get away with it?

If you start with the premise in the preceding paragraph then the entire foreclosure and mortgage mess comes into focus and makes a lot of sense. Conversely if you start with the premise that all mortgage claims are presumptively valid then nothing makes sense and when you try to fix it you get nowhere. That’s what the Florida legislature is attempting to do with Senate Bill 1666 (appropriately numbered).

If you start with the premise that the mortgage claims are valid then it is quite logical and appropriate to conclude that the attempts by borrowers to escape inevitable consequences of their own bad judgment are clogging the court system and that borrowers are essentially abusing their due process rights costing each state billions of dollars in one form or another. But you have to ask yourself why there has been a sudden meteoric rise in the percentage of cases in which the borrower vigorously defends and brings claims against the supposedly valid holder of the note. What if all your assumptions and presumptions are not valid?

This is the essence of the issue confronting the courts, borrowers and their attorneys. And in a display of extreme irony the Wall Street banks even have the borrowers and their attorneys convinced that the loan was closed and the loan was sold. “The Loan”  refers to the transaction that is memorialized in the loan documents. “The sale” refers to the transaction in which  the loan was sold by the owner of the loan to a buyer of the loan.

There are two key questions:

  1. The first (origination) fact pattern is usually the same.  A borrower applies to an entity that advertises itself as a lender and that “lender” agrees to loan the money to the borrower.  A closing agent contacts the borrower  with information concerning the closing of the loan.  The borrower goes to the closing,  the money appears, and the borrower signs a myriad of documents.  Here’s the question:  what if the  “lender” did not loan the money and either played the part of an undisclosed nominee, and unlicensed mortgage broker or licensed mortgage broker, and never had a valid legal claim to collect on the note or enforce the mortgage?
  2.  The second (assignment) fact pattern is also usually the same. In cases where there is litigation documents magically appear showing the assignment or endorsement of the loan using a claim of authority or the production of an apparent power of attorney. The assignment or endorsement frequently occurs more than once. There are actually two questions here: (A) assuming the facts in paragraph 1 above are true what difference does it make if there were one or 100 assignments? If there is no valid or perfected lien and the assignor never had a claim to collect on the “loan,” the assignment may give the appearance of propriety but it conveys nothing; (B) If the assignee never paid for the sale of the note how could the assignment transaction be considered complete?  The Uniform Commercial Code governing the creation and sale of negotiable instruments indicates that each transaction must be for value received or consideration.  Is the so-called assignment merely an offer lacking acceptance and payment?

 You can have 100 or 1000 pages of documentation, but without a completed underlying transaction nothing in the documentation will have any legal effect on anyone despite the apparent “weight of the evidence.”

 The point is actually very simple. Don’t get lost in the weeds of the documentation. The first question to be asked at the threshold is whether or not a transaction actually occurred containing the legal elements required for a completed transaction. If there is no consideration there is no transaction. If there is no transaction then there are no rights to enforce by or against anyone.

 The arguments about the holder of the note are frankly silly. In the absence of consideration the party holding the note is merely possessing the note without any rights of collection or enforcement. If it were otherwise then  any Courier, attorney or closing agent would be able to collect on the note and even foreclose on the mortgage leaving the lender out in the cold.

 Whether or not a party is a holder or holder in due course  is a question of law which raises presumptions if the proper foundation is established in order to conclude that a party is a holder or holder in due course. These are all legal conclusions and not factual issues.  In order to establish the legal conclusion of holder or holder in due course the proponent of that legal conclusion must have a prima facie case showing a legal transaction in which ownership of the loan was transferred. Imagine if it were otherwise: accepting the circular logic of the banks, if six people were sitting around a table with a note in the middle the one with the fastest hands would be able to collect on a note and foreclose the mortgage. This is not the law.

 As a tactical note, the practitioner should be relentless in the pursuit of the actual proof of payment (at origination or purported sale of the loan) without which there can be no proof of loss. If there is no proof of loss than there is no creditor. If there is no creditor there can be no credit bid at the time of auction of the property. And since that has occurred on a regular basis in all 50 states it would be fair to say that the sale of the property in foreclosure was never completed and that the homeowners still owns the home —  or is entitled to compensatory damages equal to the value of the home because of breach of contract,  slander of title, fraud etc.  I believe that the claim that is easier to pursue is the one for compensatory and punitive damages plus attorneys fees and costs of the action.

 In discovery what you are looking for is the actual wire transfer receipt, wire transfer instructions, ACH confirmation, cancelled check or Check 21 confirmation,  showing the name of the party who paid and the name of the party who received the payment.  Whether you are in small claims court or federal court the requirement is always the same. Any party seeking affirmative relief from the court must show that they were injured or damaged by the party whom they have sued. If they can’t show the payment and an unbroken chain of payments leading up and including the supposed assignment, then they have no claim because the court lacks jurisdiction and the party lacks standing to enforce or even consider a claim in which there is no injury.

 So the answer to the question posed in the title of this article is no, the loan was never sold. We know that because the investors deposited money with the investment bank and it was the investors’ money that funded the loan. Contrary to popular misconception the money from the investors was never used to fund any pool of assets or trust. It was used directly to fund loans and the various fees to undisclosed third parties contrary to the requirements of the truth in lending act. The investment by the investors into each loan was the only time  money changed hands which in turn means it was the only time that consideration existed.

 That is why you will never find payment from one party to another in the alleged securitization chain.  the truth is that there is no securitization chain and the banks intentionally failed to document the interest of the investors in each mortgage because the banks wanted to assert their own claim to ownership of the loan and the bogus securities allegedly backed by the loan. If they had been honest, then they would have taken the investor money, put it into an account that was owned by the asset pool, fund the loan from the asset pool and then document the transaction showing the interest  of the asset pool at the time of origination of the loan or at the time that the loan was in fact sold to the asset pool for payment received.

And THAT is why I say that the existence of MERS is proof of fraudulent intent. There would have been no need for MERS or anything like it (See Chase Bank and Wells Fargo) if the Banks were not going to trade securities based upon THEIR ownership of a loan they never made.

 If you prove these points in court I believe you will win the case.

SB 1666: Fast Foreclosure Bill Resurrected in Senate After Thought Dead

WOULD THEY STILL BE TIGHT LIPPED IF THE NEWS WAS GOOD FOR THE BANKS? Regulators to Keep Tight Lips on Foreclosure Improprieties

Foreclosure Scams Rampant in Florida

UBS faces calls for break-up at investor meeting

Macro Factors and Their Impact on Monetary Policy, The Economy and Financial Markets

Roubini: Fed Risking Sequel to 2008 Financial Crisis

177 Responses

  1. I am not getting thru to you bobhurt. I was in front Judge Sclesinger on an issue of Jurisdiction . An issue already decided by the US SUPREME COURT IN ELLIOT V. PIERSOL.

    She knew it , the Appellate Judges knew it and in order for the appelate judges to protect her making up her own decdision when the Federal Court prohibited her from doing that they changed the documented dates of the Petition in Federal Courtin their decisio

    Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

    The “supremacy clause” is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. – United States Senate[1]

    Nemo dat = you have to own something to sell it

    Judge Schlesinger had fairness in mind ? the parties that the attorneys clients “bought” the two condos from never owned them so all they received was a forged deed.

  2. The court mentions common law and equity in the context of courts. Judges ought to seek a fair and just resolution of the dispute, but have no authority to practice law for the litigants.

  3. @ bobhurt
    Any attorney who preaches a judges right to ignore the Supramacy Clause of the US Constitution is a looney to me.

  4. The US Constitution – use it or lose it

    The legislators? Sen. Sampson? The alledged Fox guarding the chicken house.

  5. A judge swears his fidelity to uphold the Constitution. His allegiance is to the Laws of the Land and not to their friends.

  6. All courts have the power to rule as the judge sees fit, and if litigants don’t like it they must appeal, and if the Supreme Court refuses to hear an appeal from the appellate court on the issue, then the appellate court opinion governs.

    If you don’t like that, file an action to have the judge removed for “bad behavior” or get the legislature to impeach him.

    Generally if the issue and facts are the same in a new case as one in which the Supreme COurt has ruled, the trial and appeal court will follow the Supreme Court’s opinion, but that is not written in stone. Numerous Supreme Court cases have challenged prior rulings by the Supreme Court successfully.

    Look at the issue of Obama’s lack of natural born citizen status. How far did that get in the courts, IN SPITE of the actual lack of status. Obama chose to interpret the Constitution for himself (or to flout it), and he has gotten away with it, with the Court’s refusal to grand discovery to the numerous plaintiffs across the land.

    You might WISH the Constitution and laws pursuant thereto were the supreme law of the land, but actually the highest court of jurisdiction to rule on an issue decides and creates the law. Even that does not matter, though, if no one enforces the court’s ruling.

    Our system lacks absolute perfection, and even if it didn’t, the judges and lawyers and executives and legislators lack perfection.

    Note that America has 75 million people with IQ below 85 (unable even to graduate from high school). Now combine them with children 18 to 25, welfare recipients, illiterates, and people who have never read the Constitution. ALL of those irresponsible people, m have the right to vote. Under such a situation, don’t you expect criminals and demagogues populate elective offices? DOesn’t that explain much of our problems with corruption and incompetence in government?

    Garbage In- – Garbage Out. The ethics of government can never exceed that of its electorate.

  7. @bobhurt

    You’re wrong wrong wrong
    When the United States Supreme Court rules on an issue that is the Law of the Land., be it Abortion, Segregation or Jurisdiction
    Judge Schlesinger had no desecretation to rule against US Elliot v Piersol.

    As i told you before Judge David Saxe AT THE APPELATE HEARING asked Attorney David K FIVESON WHO WAS REPRESENTING A NON EXISTANT TITLE COMPANY NAMED CORONET TITLE were the judgments done over when the case came back from Federal Court.

    Title attorney David K Fiveson didnt know.

    In their five page sCathing opinion the Appelate Dept changed the dates when my Federal Petition was under Federal JURISDICTION.
    trying to cover up for Judge Schlesinger

    I went directly to the NY Court of Appeals for leave to appeal.

    Justice Lippmans decision states
    Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground .that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

    made a motion to the appelate Court for a “final determination within the meaning of the Constitution.
    The appelate decision states” motion to determine action within the meaning of the Constitiution for purpose of an appeal to the Court of Appeals denied”

    This again shows the appelate judges unethical and disrespect for the JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

  8. The rulings from the highest appellate court of jurisdiction IS THE LAW over the case and identical cases. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the issue, then the appeals court ruling holds sway, like it or not.

  9. @bobhurt
    Counselor, thanks for spending the time here trying to illuminate the ignorant masses. I am involved with several cases in Wisconsin wherein the judges are spouting rulings that are contrived in nonsense. Things like “the maker of the note can’t contest the validity of the endorsement” even though two copies are tendered; bypassing evidentiary hearings; bifurcating defendants in adversary actions, you just can’t believe it. I do believe the judiciary in most districts are beholden to the banking system because their retirement plans are all in the hands of Wells Fargo, Citi, etc., and lots of MBS are involved. And please don’t waste time responding to the blather. Some people can’t handle the truth. many defaulters who were prime originations are at fault for their own profligate behavior. That’s why they spend all their time crying on this blog instead of either acting in a defensive/offensive manner or taking their lumps and moving on. you have surely met them in your travels. thanks again for the forthright advice. causes of action are many, but the fraud angle must indeed be plead with particularity. when law firms create phony documents and servicers collect assets on behalf of unnamed parties enforcing paid off debts, it is still racketeering.
    Filing forged documents on the county record is a Class H felony; they just won’t prosecute attorney misconduct. lawyer Regulation is also bought an paid for. the “Ruling Class” is trying to have their way and they gained the complicity of most of the courts. We have three assignments of mortgage and the judge says “one of them must be valid”.
    jim: in WI we have “Edwards”: bad decision left on the books because borrower settled instead of fighting more via appeal. our BK case is being cited already even though it’s still on appeal.

    I will attest that a pro se cannot hold a candle to a bunch of $1000 per hour attorneys for very long. i did it for three years by myself with limited help. Without counsel the last two years (and I’m talking veteran bulldog warrior type) I would have been gone by now. These guys have hundred-thousand-dollar educations and this is a procedural battleground. hurt is right, I just think he (I mean this respectfully) makes too many assumptions about the validity of bank claims. Some of these notes are gone and extinguished by derecognition, or fraudulently securitized (or allegedly securitized) more than once. Many are just not secured because of recording, transfer, delivery, acceptance, all the rules that govern the handling of these negotiable (allegedly) instruments. There has to be a holder in due course to enforce the note, or a holder with rights of a holder in due course, and their must be a chain of title to the security (the res).

  10. Bobhurt

    Unless you have walked in Stripes or mine or any of our shoes, you have no idea the corruption and
    prejudice . we have witnessed by the Banks and the Courts .

    What you say about how one handles their case works well on paper but not in reality.

    According to our US Constitution this is not what the Courts were meant to be
    for the people of this country. And neither are the Banks.

    If we all don’t make noise, and fight the Courts and the Banks will run us into the ground .
    They are doing a pretty good job of that now.

    As I said before we need 12 more stripes .

    Do these judges realize if our Constitution goes, there go their jobs.;

  11. This has been a very long battle for me and you can never make up the years that one loses fighting a fraud.

    The Bank ,Astoria Federal successor in interest to Fidelity NY FSB admitted in NYSC that they didn’t own my two condos when their long gone corrupt debt collector attorneys and the corrupt court referee auctioned off my two condos and the Banks new attorney said it’s Indemnify Indemnify Indemnify.

    The only reason I am not in possession today, of my two properties is that Judge Alice Schlesinger illegally contradicts the issue of jurisdiction already decided in the US Supreme Court case Elliot vs pretending she could override clearly established Federal law-

    When the US Supreme Court speaks on an issue that is the Law of the Land.
    Anything less in not due process.
    and you think that what this seasoned Judge thought
    Thomas Malone of Fidelity and David K Fiveson of a non existent Title company he called Coronet meant was,
    when they told her ‘they have Equity”-
    they were trying to make her think “Court of Equity”

    That word Equity really conveyed something to her –
    she ruled against the US Constitution giving possession to their clients with forged deeds

    Forged deeds have no Equity since the Forger had no Title to convey in the first instance. .

    Judge Alice Schlesinger is a criminal.

  12. My view is simple but you and Stripes seem to have a hard time grasping and internalizing it. Let me show you how well the method works which promote, in case you still doubt:

    1. *House free and clear, legal fees/costs paid, $2.1 million in punitive damages*-

    2. Wells Fargo lied on the loan application – *$250K compensation, $1 million punitive* –^1681713

    3. Ocwen lied to borrower who missed loan payment – *$10 million actual damages, $1.5 million mental anguish and economic damage* –

    4. 8th USCCA W. Mo. *reinstated $6 million punitive damage arbitration award* against servicer (Stark v. Sandperg, Phoenix & von Gontard, et al.) –

    The VAST MAJORITY of Neil’s troubled adherents LOSE THEIR HOUSES TO FORECLOSURE because the methods he promotes most (securitization arguments, judging from his model pleading) DO NOT WIN IN COURT. I consider foreclosure defense (aside from actual torts or breaches against the borrower) as a LOST CAUSE and LEGAL MALPRACTICE, particularly if the attorney never bothers to examine the mortgage for causes of action.

    I have pointed out that if a client comes in complaining about a lawsuit accusing him of breach of contract, the first thing the lawyer should do is EXAMINE THE CONTRACT and all related documents for evidence of causes of action against the lender and lender’s agents. FAILURE TO DO THAT is legal malpractice, as I see it, and I believe most courts would agree, if foreclosed clients bothered to sue their lawyers for malpractice.

    In effect, that makes pro se litigants guilty of malpractice against themselves for failing to examine the mortgage COMPETENTLY for evidence of causes of action.

    I hope you get the point. I don’t condemn ANYBODY (including you) for fighting to win against a crooked lender or servicer. I simply say you have two battles – the MORTGATE BATTLE (which you ignore) and the FORECLOSURE BATTLE (which you lose even if you win, because you still owe the money and all those legal fees).

    I have offered repeatedly to help people see this issue clearly, FREE. Just call me at 727 669 5511. By now anybody reading this thread should understand it perfectly, but there are still strategic moves that can minimize the damage even if the mortgage examination does not reveal causes of action.

    We can discuss those if you like.

  13. Marilyn, I have explained my view repeatedly. If you can timely prove the lender or lender’s agents cheated you, you have a good chance of getting a judgment in your favor. If you timely prove fraud underlying the mortgage and you can repay the the lender, the court might order a rescission and you get the house free and clear. But that means you must litigate the issue properly.

    On the other hand, Stripes has propounded foam-at-the-mouth nonsense, protesting against the court, etc, and admitting no fault of his own. If you take a similar tack, you are likely to lose your case as I predicted. I predicted it BECAUSE of comments I read. I realize that I don’t know the facts of your case, or whether you represent them accurately, or whether your adversaries or the court sees different facts differently. I just know the typical pro se litigant loses because of ignorance of the law and litigation practice, and mismanagement of the case.

    And with respect to foreclosure, even if a lender conned a person into not paying the mortgage, the court typically holds the borrower to the letter of the contracts UNLESS the borrower can prove they lack validity for some reason. And that kind of reason forms the linchpin of my contentions against Garfield and his minions. I generally disagree with foreclosure defense because most defendants breached the note contract and must forfeit the collateral in order to bring about a FAIR and EQUITABLE resolution. However, if the defendant instead focuses on attacking the lender for the breaches, torts, and errors underlying the mortgage, the defendant has a good chance of winning the house free and clear or a financial compensation.

    Now, apply that principle to your own case. I imagine you hang your case on the allegation that the holder’s agent kept and hid and lied about your 4 payment checks, and that’s why you appeared to have defaulted. Well, that ought to get the judge’s attention. But you’d be right back where you started, with a loan that’s probably under water.

    IF you took the approach I recommend and you got someone like Storm Bradford to examine your mortgage, AND the report showed causes of action underlying the mortgage, THEN you have a chance to get the court to INVALIDATE the mortgage or declare it void, and get the jury to punish the lender by awarding you compensatory and punitive damages.

    I hope you see the difference and stop blowing off steam at me. I’m just the messenger showing you the way to the BIG JESUS of foreclosure defense: STOP defending the foreclosure because you will not get ahead and typically you’ll only lose the house and waste money. START attacking the lender for causes of action underlying the mortgage because you could get your house free and clear plus a big wad of dough.

    SMELL THE COFFEE. I am not your enemy or adversary. I’d love to see you win. But even if you win this case the way you’re fighting it, you might get sanctions against the servicer, but you’ll still have the same old mortgage and payments on a house that’s probably worth half what you owe on it. That’s not much of a win, in my humble opinion.

  14. You make a good point there. I hope you can prove this to the court.

  15. Most of us are here on these sites because we are victims of scams perpetrated by Banks, Title Companies, Attorneys etc and you aren’t helping this sites by lumping everything that your simplistic mind understands.

    Maybe that is your purpose on this site to cause confusion.

  16. bobhurt Its a good thing you are not a judge. you keep changing the facts of my case even without knowing what the facts are.

  17. Bobhurt

    You seem to decide cases without knowing all the facts.

    These two fraudulent foreclosures started with the banks previous long gone debt collector
    Attorneys hiding four of my checks claiming I defaulted while the Bank silently dropped them in four different envelopes and mailed them back to me.

    These four checks that the attorneys claimed the Bank never received had all bank markings on the back and had been posted to the Bank ledger. The purpose of their imaginary default was to accelerate and demand legal money for the banks created money. – and that is how I become very knowledgeable about the money issue of the US Constitution. And why I was in Federal Court etc etc etc

  18. Suppose you prevail in your standing issue. THen what? The standing issue will get resolved, the case refiled, and the foreclosure will go through. So, what’s the point in the knock-down-and-drag-out?

  19. Yes I do.

    I was in front of JUDGE Alice Schlesinger pursuant to US Supreme Court case Elliot v. Piersol

    Under Federal law which is applicable to all States, The United States Supreme court stated that if a Court is “without Authority , it’s judgments and order are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable but simply void and form no bar to recovery sought, even prior to reversal in opposition to them

    “Equity” in void ab initio judgments ? BS.

  20. You do know the difference between law and equity, right Marilyn Lane? Judges in equitable proceedings can ignore the law as needed to devise a fair resolution of the dispute. That’s why most foreclosure actions go through to just completion.

  21. I predict you will both ultimately lose, if you defaulted on a valid mortgage, and you are wasting your time and resources on a pointless battle. IF you truly owe the money and defaulted on the loan, you ought to lose the collateral to help discharge the debt.


    Another tale of borrower woe. Trial court dismissed foreclosure-mill lawyer’s case, and Appeals court reinstated it, as it should.

    People cannot seem to grok the principle that foreclosure is an action in EQUITY and the judge MUST do what’s fair. Unless the lender or lender’s agents cheated the borrower in the lending process, the borrower MUST lose the collateral to pay off the mortgage debt in the event of default. It’s simply UNFAIR for the uncheated borrower to get the house free and clear. THAT’s why nearly all foreclosures go through to completion.

  23. The judges who are not upholding the law are imposters.

  24. Some judges are acting like judicial supremacists. Where is the law that makes these foreclosures legal?

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

  25. I would have been thrown under the bus with any attorney here because of the circustances and be left without documentation.
    i know whose side i am on.

    A Judge is waring with the US Constitution when he decided he does not want to follow the law of the Land. Judge Schlesinger’s illegal ruling destroys The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

  26. Stripes
    same with me here in New york and I’m not backing down either

  27. Whatever the court rules is not the law in foreclosure otherwise there would be no foreclosures. These judges are being told to ignore the rule of law and rule on an investor theory. Show me that law that makes fraudclosure legal & NO EX POSTO FACTO ILLINOIS MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE LAW.. That says a recorded mortgage is proof enough…OH HELL NO IT’S NOT..!

  28. Bottom line ….. there are no attorney’s willing to fight bankster fraud. At least not in this State. I am left no choice but to fight for myself. This is everything we worked our entire lives for and I am not backing down.

  29. First Midwest Bank are hustlers who were not upfront or honest about anything.

    In a commercial foreclosure, the UCC governs foreclosures. The law requires they attach the legal agreement at the onset and they did not and that is in itself proof of intent to deceive….that is criminal.

  30. Nevertheless, whatever the court rules IS the law, so whatever you do that gets the court to rule in your favor is lawful. Of course if you can’t get a ruling in your favor, then the law is against you. That’s why there’s no substitute for knowing the legal landscape and how to navigate it.

  31. First Midwest/Chase Bank hid the cross collat by not releasing the paid note by the previous bank …. Amcore Bank…… that paid note is in my possession……. First Midwest rolled everything in a blanket mortgage that was toxic, it was a subprime piece of shit and there was no HUD 1 and no TILA as required by law.

  32. The banksters are greedy bastards but the reason for that greed is not monetary. It is control freak b.s.

  33. The banksters are making the media, the politicians and the courts/judges look bad. Some are tiring of having egg all over their faces.

    My cases are particularly heinous bankster behavior. They cross collateralized our roof with our business property without our knowledge or consent. They pulled our credit lines and put our business of 25 years out of business in order to steal everything from us.

    They set us up to fail and I can prove it and for that they should pay.

  34. the question remains open as to who gave the word at Fidelity for Thomas Malone to give Judge Schlesinger Equity so that Fidelity would not have to Indemnify.

    Now that Sen Sampson was indicted prehaps we can all find out how NYSC operates. and figure it out for the other Courts.

  35. i sure do bobhurt

  36. Reading only your side of the issue, it looks like you have a good reason to complain about misbehavior of judges.

  37. A judge said in open court, the Supreme Court told us to accept anything from the banks and the Supreme Court is the last word.

    To that I say ….. not if they are not upholding the U.S. CONSTITUTION ……. if they are not upholding the U.S. CONSTITUTION they are imposters.

    The media and the politicians can fake ignorance all they want, WE THE PEOPLE are not going away because we own this place.

  38. Agency law is the UCC and the banks ignore it and it is up to the judges to uphold it. The Supreme Court are not above the law either.

  39. The tables are turning. The judges are waking up to the bankster scam.

  40. Bob Hurt’s shallow, out-of-context argument doesn’t hold water. Veal states as he posted:

    “SO LONG AS THE MAKER’S OBLIGATION IS DISCHARGED [my emph.], the maker should be indifferent as to whether the “person entitled to enforce” the note SATISFIES HIS OR HER OBLIGATIONS, UNDER THE LAW OF AGENCY, to the ultimate owners of the note.”

    Well, of course, IF the maker’s obligation is discharged, he or she should be indifferent about the semantics of agency law. The point is, the Veal Court held that the maker’s obligation is NOT being discharged when he or she pays a stranger.

    When the debt is not being discharged dollar for dollar, the only nightmarish recourse for the debtor is MORE litigation to recoup all payments the stranger stole. The Veal court was in no way holding that debtors should go ahead and pay a stranger and then plan more litigation to get it back. Reaching that conclusion is absurd.

    SO LONG AS the debt is discharged dollar for dollar is the main point. The Veal Court held that paying a stranger has NO EFFECT on discharging the debt obligation, therefore, the “so long as the maker’s obligation is discharged” qualifier does not apply in cases where strangers attempt to enforce a Note.

    Debtors are not obligated to pay a stranger one cent. Willful payment to a stranger means those who do so are mere volunteers.

    Veal held that the maker should be indifferent about whether the person entitled to enforce satisfies its obligation UNDER THE LAW OF AGENCY. The maker is a third party to any agency agreement between servicer and the owner of the Note (if there is one), therefore he has no concern there. But the maker, sure as heck, had better be concerned about whether the debt is being properly discharged! Millions of homeowners, whether in default or note, are paying strangers.

    The foreclosures are being rushed through the court without homeowners demanding proof of agency. In my case, the servicer could not prove agency, as it was a FNMA loan. Fannie put out a publication stating clearly that servicers are not its agent, assign, or representative; rather they are INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. A little research on independent contractors is helpful to understand some of this mess.

    Fannie’s servicing guide also states that FANNIE is the owner of the Note at all times; yet servicers are lying to the courts every day and falsely claiming ownership. Some are being sanctioned… ALL should be.

    In some cases, a servicer can obtain limited power of attorney from Fannie, but the servicing guide states that each servicer who requests and obtains limited power of attorney must file a copy of that limited power of attorney in the proper jurisdiction of authority. None of this is being done; instead courts are filled with attorney allegations about the servicers right to enforce, and far too many homeowners and courts are failing to force proof of it. Allegations from attorneys, made in argument or in brief, are not facts before the court.

    A thief can TRANSFER a Note, but he surely can’t claim ownership of it, nor can he enforce the Mortgage. (The Eaton court held that only the owner of the mortgage can enforce it). Thieves are fraudulently claiming ownership and transferring negotiable instruments by the tens of thousands (if not more) every day. I am thankful that some courts are catching on and sanctioning false claims of ownership.

  41. i believe the massive fraud happened because the Judges were team players and even when they felt they should ,they did not want to make waves.

    I remember in my Appellate hearing the lead Justice DAVID SAXE correctly asked Mr Fiveson words similar to “did the NYSC sign a judgment when the case came back from Federal Court and the NYSC had jurisdiction.

    Mr Fiveson didn’t know.

    I also remember Judge Helen Friedman saying words similar to ” the case was in Federal Court when the state court judge signed the two foreclosure judgements – she too was pushed under the table.

    What was the courts agenda . I don’t think judge Schlesinger shared
    her Equity with them. i simply think that the Court thought they could get away with this and give possession of my two condos to their cohorts
    because I was a pro se. and they were protecting the courts established proceedure of attorneys for the litigants.

  42. @bobhurt

    My issues have always been right in both State and Federal Court
    and Astoria Federal S & L’s new attorney agreed that they never owned my two condos when the banks long gone previous corrupt attorneys auctioned them off to straw buyers.and now the Title attorneys were stepping in to Indemnify.

    And that is when i discovered and documented the fraud in the
    NYSC. When I filed two orders to show cause in front of Judge A;ice Schlesinger to vacate the two void ab initio judgments and when
    Thomas Malone of Fidelity and David k Fiveson of a non existant title company told Judge Schlesinger ‘they have Equity for their forged deeds Schlesinger took the EQUITY and ruled against Federal law
    established in the US case of Elliot v. Piersol.

    Judge Alice Schlesinger is a CRIMINAL

    Even though Judge Lippman of the NY Court of Appeals ruled this decision is not Constitutional the Appellate Dept tried to change the documented dates in their opinion and shield Judge Schlesinger and when that didn’t work, they tried to lose my case , the Appellate
    won’t issue a final determination so that Fidelitys Client and Fiveson ‘s client can remain in possession of my two condos with their forged deeds.

    Maybe Sen Sampsons indictment by the FBI will break open the massive fraud that goes on the NYSC

  43. The tables are turning Bob. The people are becoming more educated and more proactive and the judges are listening. Thanks to people like Neil Garfield & some very honest Americans who told the truth, some of us learned a lot.

    Thank You to all of those who gave a damn about the people and not the banksters!

  44. If the appraiser overvalued the property, and the lender based the loan on that value, the one might logically and validly argue that the lender fraudulently induced the borrower to take the loan. The borrower could prevail on that point in a lawsuit against the lender for fraud. Aside from tortious conduct, contract breaches, and legal errors underlying the loan, and lack of standing by the “wrong” plaintiff, the court or trustee deems the contract valid and allows the owner of beneficial interest in the note to foreclose the loan.

    That is as it should be, and I have made that point repeatedly BECAUSE court rulings support that point.

  45. The Credit River Decision was issued by a JUSTICE OF THE PEACE who had no authority even to hear the case, and an appeals court overturned it lock, stock, and barrel.

    EVERYBODY should study the case to learn what will LOSE IN A COMPETENT TRIAL COURT.

  46. Let me get this straight, Marilyn and Stripes. You cannot stop foreclosure without a court order. But you cannot trust lawyers and judges. So if you faced foreclosure you’d go to court and propound your losing arguments, and you’d foam at the mouth with mindless nonsense as you have on this blog thread about how the note and mortgage don’t exist, the lender didn’t lend anything, etc. Okay, I understand. You feel perfectly happy losing your house to foreclosure even though you could have prevented it by getting your mortgage examined professionally and suing the lender for the related causes of action in those same courts. And you want everyone in the nation to heed your nonsense.

    In other words, you make as much sense as a pair of blithering idiot aliens from another planet.

  47. Hello Every One,
    My Name is Mrs Barbara Arnold, i live in USA and life is worth living comfortably for me and my family now and i really have never seen goodness shown to me this much in my life as i am a struggling mum with three kids and i have been going through a serious problem as my husband encountered a terrible accident last two weeks, and the doctors states that he needs to undergo a delicate surgery for him to be able to walk again and i could not afford the bill for his surgery then i went to the bank for a loan and they turn me down stating that i have no credit card, from there i run to my father and he was not able to help, then when i
    was browsing through yahoo answers and i came across a loan lender Mr Potter Mark who provides loans at an affordable interest rate and i have been hearing about so many scams on the Internet but at this my desperate situation, i had no choice than to give it an attempt and surprisingly it was all like a dream, i received a loan of $35,000 USD and i payed for my husband surgery and thank GOD today he is okay and can walk and is working and the burden is longer so much on me any more and we can feed well and my family is happy today and i said to my self that i will shout aloud to the world of the wonders of GOD to me through this GOD fearing lender Mr Potter Mark and i will advise anyone in genuine and serious need of loan to contact this GOD fearing man via and i want you all to pray for this man for me


  48. The majority of people in fraudclosure believe the lies.

  49. Answer this question Bob Hurt… How do you enforce a contract without the legal agreement? You can’t …that is why foreclosure is called FRAUDCLOSURE & the cover up is called FORECLOSUREGATE….

  50. You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. Maybe Bob Hurt is brainwashed and believes the lies but no one at this blog does.

  51. read this again bobhurt –
    out of thin air
    Congress never gave them this authority

    The president of the Bank admitted that the Bank created the money and credit upon its own books by which it acquired or gave as consideration for the Note; that this was standard banking practice, that the credit first came into existence when they created it; that he knew of no United States Statutes which gave them the right to do this. This is the universal practice of these Banks

  52. I type too fast, the first line should read -an honest banker’s
    testimony under oath in the Credit River case which has never been ajppealed nor overturned.

  53. bobhurt – here is what an honest bankers tertified to used oath

    The Bank brought the Action to recover the possession to the property in the Justice of the Peace Court at Savage, Minnesota. The first 2 Justices were disqualified by Affidavit of Prejudice. The first by the writer and the Second by the Bank. A third one refused to handle the case. It was then sent, pursuant to law, to Martin V. Mahoney, Justice of the Peace, Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota, who presided at a Jury trial on December 7, 1968. The Jury found the Note and Mortgage to be void for failure of a lawful consideration and refused to give any validity to the Sheriff’s Sale. Verdict was for the writer with costs in the amount of $75.00.
    The president of the Bank admitted that the Bank created the money and credit upon its own books by which it acquired or gave as consideration for the Note; that this was standard banking practice, that the credit first came into existence when they created it; that he knew of no United States Statutes which gave them the right to do this. This is the universal practice of these Banks. The Justice who heard the case handed down the opinion attached and included herein. Its reasoning is sound. It will withstand the test of time. This is the first time the question has been passed upon in the United States. I predict that this decision will go into the History Books as one of the great Documents of American History. It is a huge cornerstone wrenched from the temple of Imperialism and planted as one of the solid foundation stones of Liberty

  54. bobhurt doesn’t believe this either



    A Minnesota Trial Court’s decision holding:

    the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional and VOID
    holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and VOID
    declaring a mortgage acquired by the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the foreclosure and
    the sheriff’s sale, to be VOID
    This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State Banks to be null and VOID.

    This amounts to an emancipation of this nation from personal, national and State debt purportedly owed to this banking system.

    Every True American owes it to himself/herself, to his or her country, and to the people of the world for that matter, to study this decision very carefully and to understand it, for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery

  55. Does bobhurt believe in our Constitution or that it is just a piece of paper
    All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
    –Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803


  57. Stripes, by making such statements as these you beg readers to think of you as a BOZO:

    “Those notes and contracts and all court orders are in fact a nullity upon presentment of those copies entered without the legal agreement or affidavit swearing to the validity of their claims. Those copies can only be considered counterfeits & forgeries.”

    Courts and trustees enforce mortgages and notes all over America every business day. Obviously they are not counterfeits, forgeries, nullities, or frauds.

    But I believe lenders agents (mortgage broker, title company, appraiser, etc) have committed monumental frauds, torts, breaches, and errors in at least 80% of the single family residence loans over the past 12 years. A competent mortgage examiner can find such causes of action.

    Anyone can contact me free for a full explanation and strategic guidance. I have nothing to sell. I do this as a public service .

    727 669 5511. No bozos, please.

  58. Regarding the notion that the bank didn’t actually lend any money, read the Ohio 10th District Court of Appeals ruling in Wells Fargo v Ward (2006). I have documented it here:

    The court TROUNCED the vapor money theory, citing North Dakota and South Dakota opinions likewise trouncing it. In point of fact, the lender DID lend money and the borrower DID borrow it.

    These rulings COMPLETELY DESTROY Neil’s assertion in the first paragraph of his analysis above. The loan did get made, and default on that loan fully justifies foreclosure.

  59. By the way, Neil says above that the existence of MERS proves fraudulent intent. Courts across the land seem to think MERS is perfectly legal. And Just recently the Idaho Supreme Court ruled the MERS, as the holder’s nominee, is a beneficiary has the power to enforce the note.

  60. Furthermore, The Veal court also said this at note 27: “To re-emphasize the oft-overlooked point: Article 3 is sufficiently flexible to allow a single identified person to be both the “person entitled to enforce” the note, and an agent for all those who may have ownership interests in a note. This point reflects the view that so long as the maker’s obligation is discharged by payment, the maker should be indifferent as to whether the “person entitled to enforce” the note satisfies his or her obligations, under the law of agency, to the ultimate owners of the note.”

    And, Veal might not apply in non-judicial foreclosure states.

    “…In re Veal actually recognized that non-judicial foreclosure statutes may change the common law rule requiring a mortgagee to hold the underlying note. Specifically,In re Vealnoted that although Illinois follows the common law rule that a mortgagee must hold the note to foreclose, other “states may have altered this rule by statute.” Id. at 916-17 & n.34.”

  61. Try and cash a third party check that was already cashed & see what happens.

    The law is the law for everyone or the law is the law for no one.

  62. Bottom line….those contracts don’t exist so it does not matter what those contracts say. The presentment of those notes indorsed in blank is fraud upon presentment because THE ISSUER OF THE ORIGINAL BILLS OF CREDIT ALREADY CASHED THE CHECKS. THE ISSUER DEFAULTED WHEN THEY CONVERTED THE ORIGINALS & ALTERED THE TERMS OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTS. THOSE NOTES ARE FRAUD UPON THE COURT.

  63. It is all bankster psy ops with the “signing.” They lied (did not disclose any & all pertinent aspects of the transaction) about everything, from who the borrower was to what they were planning to do with our autographs (unauthorized signatures). Those contracts were therefore, fraudulently induced, frauds at the onset. Just like their fc actions.

    When fraud enters a contract, fraud vitiates everything. Those notes and contracts and all court orders are in fact a nullity upon presentment of those copies entered without the legal agreement or affidavit swearing to the validity of their claims. Those copies can only be considered counterfeits & forgeries.

    The banks are who have no legal rights in redemption because of the ORIGINATION FRAUD.

  64. I feel relieved that you are not a lawyer, anonymous Guest, because I consider some of your comments unreliable. You show the Veal opinion’s essence, but you miss the glaring reality that in the note the borrower agrees to pay the “Lender” or whomever the lender designates (typically the servicer). The servicer disburses the mortgage payment to a variety of parties, keeping some for himself, presumably, paying the owner of beneficial interest in the note, the escrow accounts for taxes, insurance, etc. And any time the borrower worries about who gets the mortgage payment, the borrower can pay the court through an interpleader action. THERE IS NO DANGER THAT THE PAYMENT WILL GO TO THE WRONG PARTY. The PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST IN EVERY PAYMENT COUNTS TOWARD DISCHARGE OF THE OBLIGATION up to the point of default. Why don’t you know this?

    Just recently the Idaho Supreme Court ruled the MERS, as the holder’s nominee, is a beneficiary has the power to enforce the note.

    In any case the borrower can take legal action for injury resulting from misrepresentation of holder / servicer status.

    Take note further that in some non-judicial foreclosure states the forecloser does not need to produce the original note in order to foreclose.

    On May 18, 2012, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an opinion in/Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A., et al./, CV-11-0115-PR, holding that Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statutes do not require the beneficiary to show the original promissory note for the trustee to notice and conclude a non-judicial trustee’s sale.

    Affirming the two underlying decisions of the Arizona Court of Appeals, the Court noted that a non-judicial foreclosure sale, or a trustee’s sale, is governed by statute in Arizona. The Court emphasized that A.R.S. § 33-807 empowers the trustee to sell the property and that no Arizona statute requires the beneficiary to show possession of, or otherwise document its right to enforce, the underlying promissory note. Commenting that non-judicial foreclosure sales are meant to operate quickly and efficiently, “outside of the judicial process,” the Court reasoned that“[r]equiringthe beneficiary to prove ownership of a note to defaulting trustors before instituting non-judicial foreclosure proceedings might again make the ‘mortgage foreclosure process … time-consuming and expensive,’ and re-inject litigation, with its attendant cost and delay, into the process.”

    Here’s the point. In foreclosure, the defendant has already lost the right to make payments in the normal way, and must forfeit the collateral, the money from the auction of which will go toward discharge of the mortgage debt. The defendant still may have a window of opportunity to recover the foreclosed property, but that seldom happens. When the sale occurs, the money goes to the party entitled to foreclose, EVEN THOUGH that party might not own full beneficial interest in the note, MERS for example.

    Yes, the defendant SHOULD make certain that the foreclosure plaintiff has standing by challenging it in court if it isn’t obvious. But aside from that, the foreclosure should go through for every valid mortgage loan on which the borrower defaulted. Take further note that the UCC protects the borrower from spurious efforts to enforce the original of a lost note.

    Florida Statute 673.3091 Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument.— (2) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (1) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, s.673.3081 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

    As to constitutional rights to defend property, the borrower WAIVES certain rights when signing the mortgage, as you already pointed out regarding the mortgage’s waiver of presentment. The paired note and mortgage contract IS the law of the case. Furthermore courts throughout the land have ruled that the note and mortgage, as a unilateral adhesion contract, is both valid and enforceable. The borrower negotiates the terms by either signing it or walking away from it.

    During the past century millions of buyers of homes on credit throughout the nation have executed the terms of the note and mortgage perfectly. Contrary to your assertion, performance of note and mortgage are eminently possible and practical.

    Readers of this blog definitely should read the law, read what the courts have ruled, and seek competent legal counsel before heeding anything anonymous GUEST and STRIPES have written.

    Bob Hurt

  65. @ BobHurt. I could say you are an imbecile, but considering your self-importance, supported by delusions of grandeur, you would never believe it. Go back to your own Web site. Don’t you get enough traffic? Do you come here to steal Garfield’s thunder?

    Just so you perhaps won’t keep making a fool of yourself, I’ve pasted below the reason most homeowners should be defending their property.

    The whereabouts of the Original Note and making payment to the party entitled to enforce THAT TANGIBLE Note are extremely important.

    In re Veal:

    The Veal opinion, from the 9th Circuit BAP was very clear about what happens when a borrower pays a person not entitled to enforce the note.

    [From the Veal opinion, emphasis added]

    …A thorough understanding of the concept of a “person entitled to enforce” is KEY to sorting out the relative rights and obligations of the various parties to a mortgage transaction. In particular, the person obligated on the note – a “maker” in the argot of Article 3 – MUST PAY the obligation represented by the note to the “person entitled to enforce” it.
    UCC § 3-412.

    Further, if a maker pays a “person entitled to enforce” the note, the maker’s obligations are discharged to the extent of the amount paid. UCC § 3-602(a).

    Put another way, if a maker makes a payment to a “person entitled to enforce,” the obligation is satisfied on a dollar for dollar basis, and the maker never has to pay that amount again. Id. See also UCC § 3-602(c).

    If, however, the maker pays someone other than a “person entitled to enforce” – *even if that person physically possesses the note the maker signed* – the payment generally has NO EFFECT on the obligations under the note. The maker STILL OWES the money to the “person entitled to enforce,” (Miller & Harrell, supra, ¶ 6.03[6] [b] [ii]), and, at best, has ONLY an action in restitution to recover the mistaken payment. See UCC § 3-418(b) (emphasis added).

    As an added affront to Bob Hurt’s dribble: Every homeowner has a constitutional right under the due process of law to defend against unlawful seizure of property. In fact, the mortgage itself, most often, DEMANDS that the mortgagor “defend generally the title to the property against all claims and demands.” (Homeowners, read your Mortgage carefully.)

    The problem with that is the Waiver of Notice of Dishonor in the Note caused the entire contract to be void, as the Note makes the Mortgage impossible to perform. The so-called Original Lender — one of the big banks admitted recently that there are no Lenders in securitization — intentionally failed to advise the borrower that if he signed the Note, he relinquishes his right to assert legal defenses.

    The definition of the Waiver of Notice of Dishonor in the Note — a document drafted by a sophisticated financial institution and leaving no bargaining power for the unsophisticated borrower — is purposely deceptive and failed to alert the unsophisticated borrower that he would be unable to perform the covenants of the Mortgage if he signed the Note.

    15-104 Unlawful object — Performance impossible — Object vaguely expressed.

    Where a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful, whether in whole or in part, or wholly impossible of performance, or so vaguely expressed as to be wholly unascertainable, the entire contract is void.

    I am not a lawyer. These comments are my personal opinion, based on the laws of my state.

    Search your state laws for confirmation of Performance Impossible aspects of the contracts.

  66. Right on marilyn. Some experts have said Chicago is where all of the ideas for these weapons of financial fraud and mass destruction originated from. The Democratic machine has been at work here for decades. Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn, Saul Alinsky, Hillary Clinton, and the list of radical communists goes on & on. There are countless cover ups.

    People can’t even make a decent living in this State anymore. People want to get the hell out of this corrupt hell hole. Anyone who believes in this democracy crap is out of their skulls brainwashed. Time to restore our Constitutional Republic and get back to the basics.

  67. two heads are better than one. A lot of smart ideas and info coming from these sites.

    A while back someone on one of the sites told me to check the investments and the real estate of the judges in the Appellate Division.
    First thing I noticed was the lead Justice in my case David Saxe when he and all the Judges were complaining how poor they were bought an
    addition to his Manhattan apartment for $90,000 that he called maid’s quarters. I guess the money would come from not having lunch a few days that week or a rich uncle was coming to visit.

  68. So many people in postions of power trying to get rid of our Constitution. What is wrong with these people?

  69. WOW 104 responses, is that a record? i am so proud of us all for staying the course. even after 3 1/2 years we are still learning. This information is all coming to light. a little slow but it is out there. My lawyer is one of mr garfields fans. My motion for discovery was beautiful as is my motion to compel. my only problem now is i have a new judge on the case who obvioulsly is for the bank. have no idea how we are going to change his mind. he approved an enlargement of time for wells fargo after 5 months of nothing. no production of court ordered discovery , no nothing. then they have the audacity to motion to squash my affirmative defenses. are they in their right mind. where are the sanctions? where is my dismissal. i will pray for everyone and please pray for us. thi has been a long and winding road!!!

  70. @Stripes

    Chicago Chicago but who bought Chicago
    The same Fidelity that had ‘equity” for Judge Schlesinger.

    Do you remember the price list they had for all their fraudulent documeints . Not big numbers. I imagine the “equity” they gave her was at the low end of the scale. Do you think she would ever share her “equity’ with the five appellate Judges that went into the gutter defending her ?

  71. The Treasury Department are supposed to be protecting our wealth, liberty & property. They are the trustees for the trust of tbe peoples money NOT THE INVESTORS MONEY. What is all this bullshit going on that these Congressmen, Senators & Obama are all saying they work for the Federal Government passing OBAMACARE & all those FEDERAL MANDATES…..THEY ARE ALL TRAITORS.. & they are ALL FIRED. Because they all swore an oath to uphold the U.S. CONSTITUTION & THE U.S. CONSTITUTION GAVE NO SPECIAL POWERS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

  72. All title companies are agents of the U.S. Treasury. No matter what name they use they are the trustees of our Property titles. Do you have an owners title policy Marilyn? Has anyone tried to file a claim against the Treasury Department for not protecting our titles?

  73. cross the first line out in my post to Neil, Stripes, and all
    in showed up in the wrong place. Thanks

  74. @Neil, Stripes and all
    David k Fiveson of a scam company he called Coronet Title
    New York is a lien state.
    After the Bank Astoria Federal S & L / Fidelity NY FSB admitted in front of Judge Alice Schlesinger of NYSC they never owned my two condos when the banks long gone corrupt debt collector attorneys auctioned them off to straw buyers,and they are stepping aside and the title companies are steping in to indemnify the forged deeds.- Title attorney Thomas Malone of Fidelity and his friend in crime attorney David K Fiveson of a non existant title company he called Coronet Title told Judge Schlesinger we have ‘EQUITY” and took the money and ruled against the US Supreme Court case of Elliot v. Piersol

    Judge Schlessinger had no discreation but to vacate two void ab initio judgment signed in NYSC after a Petition had been filed, removed and docketed in Federal Court. and a copy filed in the NY County clerks office.

    I timely appealed to the Appellate Division, 1st dept and in their scathing 5 page opinion changed the documented dates when the case was in Federal Court trying to protect JUDGE SCHLESINGER.
    CHIEF JUDGE Jonathan Lippman ruled the Appellate opinion was not Constitutional.

    Motion after motion the Appellate Division will not give me a final decision in keeping with the Constitution.

    i want my two properties back.

    i don’t want to end up like Sonny Shue.

  75. LOL ….. you are right marilyn.., it’s all dirty tricks and no treats. They use what we don’t know against us and I am not just talking about fraudclosures. I am talking about the media, doctors, veterinarians, regulatory agencies and all of these so called professionals who think they are smarter than everyone else. They prey on what we don’t know because no one knows everything. That is evil and everyone is in great peril because of it and I am not exaggerating in the least. CAVEAT EMPTOR…. HELLS BELLS are ringing all over America because evil investors roams the earth and is so incredibly deceptive that we really cannot trust anyone at all who calls themself a professional. Investing is the devils work..

  76. All true marilyn. Little did the citizenry know what was going on in the courtrooms with our tax money. Then they try & offer us “free attorney’s” to screw us with our own tax payer money and I have heard the stories of that happening. Everything they have they take from us so what are they going to do when we are all robbed into the poor house & corporate America fails? It won’t be pretty that’s for sure. They think fascist fixes for fraud like fraudclosure, a world tax, Obamacare are going to fix things for the investors. I’ve got news for them, people are FED UP and sick of paying these bankster crooks who keep screwing them.

  77. you are so right Stripes They expect all of us to be dummies.
    What makes them think they will be secure in their positions if they destroy our Constitution.

    Once our Constitution goes they can wear their black robes on

  78. correct my last post to read WON a round

  79. Stripes
    When these two fraudulent foreclosures started against my two NYC Condos, the only thing I knew about Banking was how to balance my checkbook.
    i had no idea how to use a computer. i had to go to the library everyday to read and do all my research.
    This started in the early 1990’s and off the top of my head I remember reading an article written by five law professors stating that according to our Constitution all foreclosures were illegal .

    As everyone sees Banks are still continuing to foreclose and with illegal methods. no one should think they are home safe because they one a round in Court. A lot is going on behind the scenes. Who knows
    the methods they are planning.

    i am very uncomfortable with the Courts trying to get free legal service for pro se litigants.

    The five ny appealate judges I had wasted lots of time and money mine and theirs in their quest to circumvent the law.

  80. True marilyn. If the Supreme Court, the Congress, the Senate, both Houses, would stop enabling these crooks, we would not be in court. There is definitely an agenda here that is not legal, moral or ethical. Same thing goes for OBAMACARE and most of the “laws” passed by these enablers. Where is the outrage is the real question. People for the most part, except for some of our second amendment rights, people just shrug their shoulders & move along.

    The truth is, any laws, including gun laws that weaken our Constitutional rights are illegal.

  81. When I first started reading law I thought I would never get what they did. But once you get it, you really get it. That is what the banksters never expected. They underestimated us.

  82. and the Judicial System is pretty overwhelmed by the pro se litigant.

  83. Stripes
    you are definitely right about Control. To me this is what is behind the pro bono movement . They just don’t like us to speak for ourselves. I guess we don’t understand that a wink of the eye by a judge means -drop that issue.

    if the judges simply followed the letter of the law it shouldn’t matter whether an attorney says it in his language or we say it in our simple english.

    The Talmud says no man knows his case better than themselves and should speak for themself. But since we are in an American Court that fact is disgarded. No one wanted me to talk for myself. The great attorney Thomas Malone from Fidelity and Attorney David K Fiveson
    fron a sham Title company he called Coronet both very distressed that i spoke and wrote for myself.

    Thank God for judge Llippman, he let me.

  84. Bobhurt I am a Pro Se who won -lack of standing. Thank you very much. Made the bank tool cry. Even banksters have to follow the law, Bobby and even they don’t have enough dough to payoff every judge and lawyer in the country. So get used to losing…

  85. True marilyn..stuff gets “lost” all of the time. Wrong case numbers get entered and you really need to pay close attention to what is going on. The judicial system is pretty overwhelming to pro se’s. I never set foot in a courtroom for anything in my life before this happened and it was all pretty intimidating at first. One other pro se told me its o.k. we all make mistakes, we are all learning.

    Learning as we go is not easy but, I am grateful that I am learning a lot.

  86. The sixth line of my last post should read

    -‘even losing Judge Lippmans decision stating that the Appelate dicision was not Constitutional.

  87. Stripes
    I have another topic that rarey gets brought up for pro se litigents.

    Court records and even complete cases that goes missing from Court records. i have become aware that the NY Court of Appeals made several attempts to lose my Appeal papers as if I was never appealed
    Judge Alice Schlesingers illegal ruling.
    even Chief Judge lippmans decision
    it is very important for everyone to have copies of everything filed in the Courts.

    in fact it was Chief judge Lippman that notified me i was never in the Court of Appeals after a hiatus of waiting for the Appealate Court to give me a final decision on my case .

    Since I had copies of all the fees paid to the Court of Appeals , written decisions from Judge Lippman, bills and cancelled checks paid to the Appelate printer etc etc it was hard for him or whoever it is at the Court who plays magician to hide the fact that I timely and PROPERLY APPEALED my case. How can Chief LIPPMAN EXPLAIN HIS WRITTEN DECISION on my case if I wasn’t before the C of A unless in the middle of the night he turned over and said to his wife ‘you know what I FEEL LIKE DOING NOW——I feel like writting a decision in
    Marilyn Lane vs Astoria Federal/Fidelity even though she is not in front of the Court of Appeals.

    Missing Court records a problem for the pro se litigant

  88. Thanks for bringing up that subject marilyn. I learned a lot.

  89. We have been fighting these same control freaks all through history. The Catholic Church always feared communism and they were right. They have infiltrated & hijacked everything by many guises & proxies. Joseph McCarthy was correct in his suspicions. The problem is, these people are well practiced at the art of deception….the black arts & accusations are not always easy to prove.

  90. You;re right an interesting read. i think when he said that it could have been a little tongue in cheek .
    i think that saying applys to my case where 5 appellate Judges refused to give a final decision although Chief Judge Lippman decided that their pending opinion is not in keeping with the Constitution.

  91. If the link is blocked you can search that link. It is an interesting read.

  92. I don’t think Mr Cohn would be very fond of this completely communist agenda not based in law or fact going on in America right now.

  93. That is true only if you don’t know the law….

  94. As The famous attorney Roy Cohn said-
    ‘it’s not how well you know the law,
    it’s how well you know the JUDGE

  95. The stakeholders….WE THE PEOPLE …..are the only party with any skin in the game…..that’s what they are hiding for the benefit of the investors. Banks don’t lend money…they lend credit and they destroyed that credit contract upon issuance of those lying contracts.

  96. Agree on that pic marilyn…..

    bob hurt…what they will never tell us is WHO the borrower was …..THE FED…

  97. Stripes pull up bobhurts photo – he looks like a devil

  98. @bobhurt

    I got into into Federal Court and the US Supreme Court because I
    knew what I was doing.

  99. The creditor owns beneficial interest in the note.

  100. And pro se litigants don’t know the law, the legal landscape, or how to litigate.

  101. Bayview v Nelson does not deal with a problem in the chain of assignments, but only at the tail end, and it deals with lack of standing because Bayview had no beneficial interest in the note. So the appeal court reversed the summary judgment, leaving the matter to go back to trial.

    What do you suppose happened then?

    Nelson complained that Bayview violated the FDCPA, lost, appealed, and lost again.

    I imagine Bayview obtained a nomination to enforce the note, or the present assignee, the Partnership, enforced the note. I imagine the proper plaintiff refiled the case and won the foreclosure. I don’t have access to trial court records.

  102. A little common sense will tell you the reason you don’t see rulings favoring a pro se litigant
    is the banks have the power, the connections and the money to block access to the courts.

  103. @Bobhurt
    I filed a Federal PETITION OF under Article 1 Section 10 paragraph 1 of the US CONSTITUTION. The Honorable Louis l Stanton of Federal Court Southern District, read my Petition .accepted it, docketed it and removed the case from NY Supreme Court under Federal Question..

    My long journey all started by the bank Fidelity NY FSB hiding four mortgage payments in order to fake a default and accelerate the mortgage so that they could collect legal money for their fake money.

    The Hon. Louis L Stanton is very knowledgably about our Constitution and he understood my issue very well as he should. He wrote his first orders and demanded that I write a letter for settlement for this fraud.
    However three months into my case the corrupt attorneys MJRF who have now been long gone from the Bank
    Pressured Judge Stanton into believing that his understanding of our US Constitution wasn’t right and I ended up back in State Court

    I went all the way into the US Supreme Court and had my very legitimate issue docketed. In fact the US Supreme Court advised the Bank to contact the Solicitor General of the United States.

    Once again as always happened the Bank with its money power and connections was able to get my case dismissed saying I WANTED TO CHANGE THE BANKING SYSTEM IN THE US

    Watching our Country going down the drain I think .

  104. @bobhurt

    Who is the “lender”??? Who is the REAL creditor?


  105. Read the mortgage, Stripes. It says the borrower will pay the servicer or whomever the lender tells the borrower to pay.

  106. So, will you use that argument in court to defeat foreclosure?

  107. WE THE PEOPLE are in fact, the only harmed party. The FED defaulted and did not send notice via U.S. Mail of their default and there was an alteration to the perceived contract. All payments that were collected went to the wrong party and were collected as usury that was excessive.

  108. McClean v J.P.Morgan…….

  109. @bobhurt said:
    “…The court will disburse the payment to the appropriate party (the servicer, of course),”

    REALLY??? How about the REAL CREDITOR being the “appropriate party??? Why don’t they ever tell you the name of the real creditor, mr. bobhurt??? Where did the money go after I gave it to the servicer??? Where???

    Do you know, mr. bobhurt? Well, guess what—they won’t tell you. Because it’s all a lie. Period. Why are you sticking up for fraud and lies, mr. bobhurt?

  110. Bayview v Nelson…..

  111. Show me some appeals rulings that support your wild and crazy assertions, Stripes. Otherwise, I stand by what I wrote. You spread misrepresentations to readers through rabid accusations of ” re-cashing third party checks, counterfeiting and racketeering with fraudulent securities and forgery” in the loan.

  112. Remember Bob Hurt….Ben Franklin said the national bird should have been the wild turkey, not the bald eagle. Funny how these occultists even transformed the bald eagle into the phoenix rising symbol.

  113. Bob Hurt says fraud, re-cashing third party checks, counterfeiting and racketeering with fraudulent securities and forgery are not crimes. Please, let us see those laws so we can all join the party. We would all love some free money …..!

  114. Thanks marilyn….Read the UCC Bob Hurt…I have not misinformed anyone. No where does it give a bank permission to commit Securities Fraud. The Assignment of Beneficial Interest is the Delivery and Acceptance Receipt, the Trustees Receipt. It is physical proof the bank followed the rule of law if the loan was ever transferred, the law requires the Issuer create the Security. No one else can do that and that is why we hold the deed …the title and an owners policy from the Title Company that protects our title from fraud. We are the holders of the Securities…NOT THE BANKS. You better do your homework Bob Hurt… Carpenter v Longan or Bayview v Nelson. You need a receipt to foreclose is the rule of law when it comes to real property.

  115. @ Bob Hurt
    Counterfeit money passes as legal until it is discovered to be counterfeit and that it loses all value. So too with ” loans” made
    with money the bank doesn’t have. There isn’t a bank charter that allows a bank to lend their credit.

    Stripes understands banking according to our Constitution far better than anything you state.

  116. Furthermore, robo-signing, bad notarization, etc, mean nothing once the note has been indorsed in blank. Think about this. None of that injures the borrower, and whoever holds the note (or operates as agent for the holder) can ENFORCE THE note (foreclose), regardless of robo-signing. The issue of valid assignment of benefical interest lies between assignor and assignee. and if none of them sue one another, the borrower owes the debt to the holder and must forfeit the collateral as consequence of default.

    Any borrower who has a concern about assignment and who holds the note can merely file an interpleader action and give the mortgage payments to the court. The court will disburse the payment to the appropriate party (the servicer, of course), So what’s the point of all this whining about who owns the note?).

  117. Stripes, you are as ignorant of the law (F.O.S.) as as a Christmas Turkey, and you have misinformed readers in your comments throughout this blog. You don’t understand mortgage loans at all.

    When a borrower cashes the loan check or indorses it over to a bank to pay off a loan, or to a seller so as to buy the house, that proves the bank made a loan and the borrower received it. The borrower affirms receipt of the loan in the text of the note. Unless the borrower proves the loan did not get made, the lender or assignee or holder can foreclose in the event of default and force a foreclosure auction of the house. This happens every business day all over America.

    The borrower can temporarily set back the foreclosure by challenging standing in a judicial foreclosure state, but NOT IN A NON-JUDICIAL foreclosure state. The right plaintiff will then refile the case and win the foreclosure. It happens all over America every business day.

    Even when the note gets lost or destroyed, the judge can simply ask the borrower “did you take out a loan and make payments, and then default?” If the borrower says no, the judge will probably sanction the borrower for committing perjury, because of the above-stated proof. There is no question as to the indebtedness UNLESS THE BORROWER raises a cogent, valid argument in a cross claim or counterclaim such as “Well, yes, judge I breached the note contract by defaulting on the loan, but the lender breached the contract first by lying in the appraisal, and the lender thereby fraudulently induced me to take the loan which I would not have taken but for that lie.”..

    The borrower must show that the lender injured the borrower through fraud, torts, breaches, or legal errors underlying the mortgage itself to win the house free and clear or financial compensation. Otherwise the court will ultimately order the foreclosure.

    MOUNTAINS of appeal court rulings prove that securitization arguments fail as foreclosure defenses.


    this is a new class certification re: Wells Fargo serving as trustee of the Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2006-NC3. All loans originated by New Century Mortgage.

  119. Who owns Weyerhaeuser stock…..? Surprise…Surprise….the usual suspects…

  120. You were right on about those REITS marilyn…!

  121. Oops…allow me to repost that link…

  122. Weyerhaeuser…..


  124. I blame the politicians for allowing the FED to repurchase their own fraud with U.S. TAXPAYER money. That is why the economy is horrible. All of our wealth is in the hands of these felons.

    Ben Bernanke told the jerks in Congress, you created the FED and if you don’t like FED policy, you can pass a mandate to abolish the FED.

    That is what we should be marching on the State Capitals for. Not stupid shit like fair foreclosure and other farcities that don’t correct the problem that is the bankster debt cartel and their entire system is a crime racket. …

  125. So they just sentence Lorraine Brown of Docx in MI for 40 months to 20yrs and she waiting for FL, MO & Fed sentencing. But that bring to my attention when the OCC brought in MERS on part of these discussions.

    How is it that these other parties such as Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie, MERS, Docx nd foreclosure mills not under the oversight of the OCC or FDIC if they are doing banking business by this quasi ownership?

    I running into this OCC that know that Ginnie Mae had claimed this ownership of government loan in the pools, but they order foreclosures that are not legal under banking rules and laws because the investor has not purchase the mortgage loans but is purchasing these alleged worthless securities without any collateral attached to them.

    How can we talk two to these servicers who were saying that they work for this unregulated entity? Should not one who claims to be working as owner of home mortgage loan be required to be regulated as Fair Housing Laws apply. How does some yahoo tell a service to foreclose when that entitle not regulated by banking regulations.

    In dealing with Wells Fargo there are two other parties in Ginnie & MERS in which it know that neither has a financial interest and Wells has already admitted to not being the lender, but because Wells says it is acting for this non-lender does not ring bells to them who can Wells work for in executing a foreclosure when nowhere in America is Ginnie Mae in title at the local court or can be in title when they did not originated or purchase a home mortgage loan by law.

    It seem very simple that if an Federal agency prints that Congress does not allow it to perform these acts because they cannot create debt for the taxpayers by originating and purchasing home mortgage loans, what and how did these $70 billion in FHA loan losses occur? Its called Fraud!

  126. I agree Charles Reed…they don’t pay it home. Even Bill Gates is using his wealth for population control, sterilizing women in Africa. Why would they want population control? Bankster greed. I believe they fear a populous uprising when the people have had enough. The African people are severely oppressed by these crooks..

    I love Reverend Manning, he has videos all over you tube ripping these phonies like Rev Jesse Jackson & Rev Al Sharption who have been saying for decades they want to help the poor but the poor are still poor.

  127. Munger sound like a free market guy but a free market where Berkshire talk publicly about CDS as Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction and people should not have them, but Buffett probably got the most of, as you say stripes he insurance his losses, but on our backs.

    When I was a kid in Omaha and later as an adult I thought the world of Buffett, but as a old man who was born a month before Buffet youngest son who’s b-day is tomorrow, but at the same hospital, were in I left it was to the ghetto and he and his son to a house 4.1 miles away where Buffett still residents today. However the 4.1 is a world away and lifestyle away. However as I look in the North & South areas of Obama were black & Hispanic live, and Buffutt does nothing to help in those areas to stop the violence, poverty or education.

    Dude said he giving away most of his money to the Bill Gates foundation and Bill is all about education, but while Buffett is living what about fixing school systems where less than 50% of black graduate from HS?

    Nebraska is 4 in the Nation in percentages in black homicides and was number 1 in black childhood poverty. Buffett’s secretary makes allegedly $150,000 to $250,000 which he so proudly talk about her tax rate being more than his, while she recently purchase a vacation home. But now as it turns out after Buffett awarded by President Obama with some medal and then the Buffett rule, I saw him on CNBC and he was ask what he paid as a tax rate, and he said around 16 or 17%.

    Now Obama talking about Romney 14% and Buffett talking about 16 or 17% but since he cannot now remember, that more like 13 or 14% also. Dude is full on BS but because he is a Dem he get a pass and all the insider trade information his portfolio can hold!

  128. The more i read about REITS the more I know that REITS are a perfect business for ex tricky bankers.

  129. Yes marilyn lane … a nation of renters was their evil plan all along. They will call it a WORLD TAX….and the banksters will impose it when they can’t steal anymore from us. The banksters want it all….TOTALITARIANISM….. They have a lifetime revenue flow from the land and these greedy bastards also want a lifetime revenue flow from the buildings. Same thing with OBAMACARE & everything we pay & spend is a cradle to grave control freak investment mechanism that gives these banksters control and vast riches off of our backs.

    No one should be cooperating but, people are scaaaaared sheeple and are dependent upon this Corporate imposter for their basic needs so, they do everything they are told. People don’t demand accountability. They just accept fraud & keep paying until they are stripped of everything. All of their private property, wealth, businesses and livelihoods will be stripped because the banksters control by investing and are making private business obsolete and the basics unaffordable.

    They want everyone working on their minimum wage wall street slave plantation. They are so desperate to have everyone working for “Corporate America” they will raise minimum wage to $16 bucks an hour just to get the sheep to cooperate. They are also destroying the availibilty of cash to fraudulently institute the microchipped mark of the beast in OBAMACARE.

    It is not just unconstitutional and illegal, it is blasphemy.

  130. Being in the Billionaire Boys Club certainly has its perks. These guys never lose because they insure their risks so nothing comes out of their pockets. Imagine going to Vegas and being able to insure your losses with U.S. TAXPAYER money. It’s a rigged game for the richest people on the planet. Money stays with money.

  131. True Charles Reed. Certainly, Buffet got those millions to bailout BOA from the U.S. TAXPAYERS. Obama used him as a proxy to divert attention away from the robbery of us and make it look as though if Buffet has confidence in the banks, everyone should. It’s all smoke & mirrors but, Munger was right about what he said and it doesn’t sound like he is too fond of the way the big banks operate. He sounds like he is a free market guy but I don’t know too much about him.

  132. Charlie Munger is one of my Nebraska homeboys, and he is right about bankers, but ain’t like Berkshire and the tons of bank stock they have and the Goldman Sachs deal that keep on giving for Buffett.

    These guys like Munger boss are talking one thing but as Berkshire is one of the largest shareholder of Wells Fargo during this entire ordeal of the housing crisis, is just like when Warren wanted to keep the ChinaPetro stock even while there was a genocide taking place in the Sudan, but Buffett was like its only business, and the stock was put to a vote and Berkshire shareholder overrode Mr. Potter (Buffett) and sold the shares.

    Charlie right but the bankers come to Buffett, and can you say loan to BOA!

  133. This is the banksters evil end game Hitler plan. These crooks don’t deserve another dime from us. They have received $60.4 trillion in U.S. TAXPAYER money and 20 million fraudclosures since 2008 reported CNBC, backed by our initial U.S. TAXPAYER investment of $12 trillion dollars. This ongoing bailout of the banks is GRAND THEFT LARCENY and is their evil endgame plan to create totalitarianism by the banksters.

  134. REITS (all a part of the corrupt plan):

  135. “Bankers are like heroin addicts” says Charlie Munger, vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway.

    Charlie Munger said the flash crash was illegal and all of us should not be paying for the crimes of the banks.

  136. Wall Street hits 15,000 for the first time ever… It’s good to be a bankster and steal as much of the American peoples wealth as you please. Max Keiser fave Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway coming up next in an interview on CNBC.

  137. and it looks like there is connection between Title Companies, REITS and the County Recorders. you are absolutely right Stripes they want
    to start their disappearance of our property rights with these corporations making profits as they convert us to a nation of renters.

  138. i mentioned before that i live in a REIT simply because it was an apartment complex that would allow a dog. i have lived in two now and never again.

    The apartments are the nicest that you can find around for a rental. The prices are on the high end BUT the places are run like a housing project.

    So i started to look up why and went into the NAREIT website.
    The CEO of the REIT I live in is on the Board of Governors of NAREIT
    ( and noticed almost all bankers on the REIT’s boards.

    how much of their investment money comes from Bank bailouts.and their connection to Washington? A project for you Stripes.

  139. D.C. is full of crooks too. They are the enablers. If it weren’t for these turncoats politicians, we wouldn’t be here. How do non-judicial States get away with no due process when it comes to someones life, liberty & property? Have there been any lawsuits brought about the unconstitutionality & illegality of that? It boggles my mind. Not to say judicial States are following the letter of the law either but, it’s like Communist Russia in non judicial states the way these imposters are just seizing the peoples property with no legal proof. Where’s the outrage? This Imposter Government is way out of control.

  140. Social Apocalypse yes it been a long ride but we are closing in on these clowns.

    I know this evening I been ranting but talking with you guy has given me this ideal to simply break down Wells Fargo letter standing that the Nation’s largest mortgage lender and now servicer, who is acting as the custodian for Ginnie Mae and having physical possession on the Note, plus Wells Fargo itself place 100’s of thousand of loans in Ginnie Mae pools never having had Ginnie Mae pay for the loans or granting an assignment of the DOT at the local land recording office.

    So how would Wells Fargo type in a letter that they though Ginnie Mae was the lien holder, when that not the case anywhere in the Nation that Ginnie Mae is the “lien holder”!

    So I got to take a walk and get back here and break this letter down, to simply display the lie in the letter with the blank Note and have the OCC explain there take on the story Wells is telling.

  141. Yeah, we have spent around $60K now. The end is near 🙁 that’s what they do, that’s their game. We weren’t even behind on the mortgage, but we rescinded it because of the fraud. It led to this. It’s a nightmare.

  142. carie you hot this evening and that Bob thing was great. stripes you right with the robot personnel. Here is what was funny is when this OCC clowns who was maybe 25 or so telling what my obligation was, and that we people needed to pay our payment, I busted back that I had a mortgage since I was 26yrs old (55 now) and I had been paying 70 months on this mortgage loan to someone that could not collect the payment and had “No Standing”.

    Funny was when there was when again payment not being made was mention for about the tenth time and as I keep repeating I was not behind as the should have never been made in the first. But I told this person I had a VA loan with a full income and asset underwritten file. But if we wanted to blame somebody for something it was the same lender I am fighting in Wells Fargo who in 2012 that was fined $175 million for steering black into subprime loans when they qualified for Prime & government insured loans, and the year before Wells was fined $85 million for just steering people.

    I told this clown that there was a letter from Wells Fargo were they said they were not the “holder in due course” and they thought Ginnie Mae was was the lien holder. Let me ask you how does the largest mortgage company in America think that somebody that not on title and that they are in possession of the black Note & title which neither one has Ginnie Mae listed on either document, but you think they are the lien holder!

    We are going to win this game!

  143. @Social Apocalypse

    It certainly IS “jaw-dropping horror”.
    I am in non-judicial California and we certainly did NOT have $20,000 lying around…so they kicked us out.
    There is a guy out here (Brian Davies) who has spent well over that amount with his case—and has been battling for years. Does anyone know what happened with his case?


    Just days after saying Wall Street is full of “crooks,” top economist Jeffrey Sachs continues to bring the hammer down on financial institutions.

    Dr. Sachs, special adviser to the UN secretary general and the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, said in an interview on HuffPostLive that the country’s financial system is not only mismanaged, but also wrought with criminal activity. Sachs used Steven A. Cohen and SAC Capital Advisors’ recent settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission for more than $600 million to illustrate what he perceives to be a “pathological,” “out of control” system regulating U.S. financial institutions.

  145. They are told what to say. Everything is programmed. These are human robots. They are told we are deadbeats and they need these jobs so they will blame the victims.

  146. @bobhurt

    Do you know what UNSECURED means? Putting aside the fact that the “contract’ is a complete LIE—any “debt” associated with the house is UNSECURED because of said lies.
    Unsecured means dischargeable in BK.
    We weren’t told the truth. The economy was destroyed. The perpetrators get rich while we sink.
    Do you think that’s okay, bobhurt?

  147. People are being insulted by the OCC personnel because they have a lack of knowledge as to just what the hell is going on. How is it that the GAO bust a new hole in the OCC and Sen Warren on the Hill killing them, and the person I talked with was a idiot and did not know what “No Standing” meant.

    I knew we end in the end because it is what it is, but it is what it is, and they are going to have to provide proof of ownership which is a bar they cannot clear!

  148. They are all pretending ignorance to keep up the charades for the benefit of the investors. The FED is stealing more of our wealth, CNBC reported these maniac banksters have stolen $60.4 trillion U.S. TAXPAYER dollars since 2008. The banksters are using our stolen wealth to repurchase their own debt fraud and create a nation of renters….it is totalitarianism. That is why the economy sucks because the foreign multinational bank Corp are wiping out middle America. They want rich & poor & no middle classes just like down in Mexico. They want a nation of renter slaves.


  150. If you people had only made your payment…? Arrogant pieces of dung. How about IF the banksters weren’t allowed by the corrupt politicians to default on what they borrowed in our names and pocket all of our payments and overissue investments in nothing to the tune of $700 trillion dollars WE WOULDN’T BE HERE…!

  151. I just talked with the OCC appeal section in reopening the “No Standing” that I had already proved back before the IFR program started. However the OCC employee said if “you people” would have only paid you payment we would not be having this problem.

    What part of “No Standing” in the letter I wrote to reopen the investigation suggest that I believed I was ever behind as I am stating which Wells Fargo has already admitted that they were not the “holder in due course” plus we got a copy of the blank Note in its current state.

    The OCC does not hire regulator with knowledge why the sun raise in the morning, and I see Sen Warren eating these clowns lunch because after the entire world turned a spotlight on them and the latest in the GAO, they are not aware of really what “No Standing” stands for.

    It would be very funny if these people were not in charge of overseeing banking!

  152. You hit it out the park stripes!

  153. Without the Security they had no right to collect any payments.

  154. Here is where BobHurt and I part ways and that is that the reason we are in court is because the defendant (bank) has “No Standing”.

    What funny is a contract (Note) is between two party but guy like Bob think that we have no right in the contract. The contract only effect the property if there is a valid title that been placed against the property and if not the issue is about a unsecured debt.

    These loan are in pool without the proper exchange of monies, where no money is exchanged and we have a blank endorsed Note that does not say the defendant is endorsed over the Note. And that the no cannot identify who owns it the burden of proof is on the party claiming they paid a sum of money for the Note and its debt. Without proof it does not matter what state the payment situation is in because the proper party if there is one is not in court claim that they are owned a single red cent.

    Payment that Bob!


  156. I think it was Bloomberg news who reported the Goldman Sachs gang were told at the height of the manufactured financial crisis to buy guns and arm themselves in case of a populus uprising.

  157. We took our own equity out and they collected all payments as usury and tacked your home equity back on to the mortgage. It was the scam of the century used to equity strip our property values by hyperinflating the properties values.

    Howard Dean & Maria Bartiromo on CNBC praising Bernanke for (robbing) saving the economy…

    I think all gun laws should be repealled. Then we will see how arrogant these crooks are.

  158. The order of the day was “fundit”

  159. I agree with BobHurt that a loan is made as you in returned purchase a $200,000 or in 90% of refinances cash out was given and the borrower remodeled homes, purchase car and paid for children’s college.

    Instead of trying to get bank records for another client whoever it maybe in the Fed or Joe Blow when you cannot even get you own records, use what you have available what you got and that the Note,

    As Bob said it says the loan can be sold to another Lender or anyone entitled to receive payment under the Note. Only a Home Lender can purchase the Note or is entitled to receive the payment as the Lender is the only one authorized by law to perform the contract.

    So we are not dealing with a group of different corporation that the mortgage industry has webbed together. People are losing traction because your getting away from the basic way a home loan works.

    Home Loan Lenders must be regulated to do this business so they are govern by the Fair Housing Laws. This is not where your grandfather make a loan to your uncle which he can do, but he cannot start going out and and making home mortgage loans.

    You got a situation just like a person can sell a certain number of auto but they cannot exceed that number and not be a register auto dealer. However the seller of the auto is not a car dealer.

    So what I am saying is we know some fact and what they bank’s argument that they are the “holder in due course” but they got no proof that they purchase the Note and they are in fact Lenders and can accept payments, but cannot come to the table with a receipt show any amount paid for these loan.

    Now those bank that started out as the lender of the loan and have placed the loan into a pool but did not physically transfer the Note, that a little different deal as your going to have to obtain information from the pool to prove the loan was in the pool and that the Note was relinquish.

  160. What the banksters are really hiding is they are one giant multinational Corp…..TOO BIG TO FAIL is a coup de tat of our Constitutional Republic by our enemies both foreign & domestic.

  161. That’s right Deborah. Many of us bought property as a retirement investment. These greedy banksters don’t want us to own anything of value or ever be able retire comfortably. These greedy bastards are all for themselves. Public sector pension money should have never been protected over our property. That is complete communist bullshit. Just because you work for the Bankster Corp does not mean you are entitled to any protections over the private business owners. Private business owners got destroyed by these crooks. Corporate America stole everything from us.

  162. Let me think here..
    ….humm…If I cut myself, it’s is really bad, dirt gets in and it festers, and gets very infected
    ….humm….then I put a big band-aid on it….well that’s, better can’t see the cut or the infection…that must mean it’s all better
    …humm…but it still hurts!
    ….Scratch my head.
    ..humm……maybe I need a bigger band-aid this one will be with superhero on it…
    ….Yep! that did it I feel better….
    later….humm…now what….it still hurts, maybe it’s my shoes.

    I guess they can play stupid, tell we all give up and go home. Oh yea that’s right I don’t have a home, but I got a band-aid. Jaime

  163. Bob hurt
    Apprausals? Toxic underwriting

  164. And the fact that derecognition was in practice allowed, does not absolve them from the intention to steal and preditorily induce unsophisticated people to sign, for a purported loan that infact out stripped the value – the true value of the collateral home and that signature was being used for a fraud they were totally unaware of at closing handing over their lifes earnings and plans towards retirement.

  165. The treasury gave the loan to the FED….The FED are the borrowers who defaulted and pocketed all payments as usury. WE NEVER RECEIVED A LOAN…..COLLECTING PAYMENTS IS NOT PERFORMANCE ON A CONTRACT.

  166. Goldman’s Blankfein being interviewed on CNBC at ICI conference saying we are confused, we need to keep paying the (banksters) debt. We need to keep “moral hazard” out of it….these sacrifices are necessary. Overtaxing may cause social unrest. He said the mortgage crisis is life. Financial Crisis legacy issues will last for a while. Much of the trauma from the financial crisis has receded. He would invest long term in China’s growth. Blankfein said the 20th Century was our century …the 21st Century could be China’s …..

    Blankfein is a commie. Notice he uses the same hand gestures as the commie politicians. China & Russia have stolen everything they have from us. Time for boycotts.

  167. Furthermore, numerous provisions in SB1666 protect mortgagors and mortgagees from each others’ shenanigans, and speed up the foreclosure process. I don’t see why anyone would object to it. See the most recent text to date here:

    As to completeness of the transaction, when push comes to shove, the judge asks the defendant whether he received a loan and used the money and made payments on it. That pretty much proves the borrower considered the loan valid and the transaction has become complete except for full discharge by the borrower.

    Bob Hurt

  168. The problem, Neil, lies in the fact that nothing in the note or mortgage says WHO gave the funds to the borrower. The borrower signs this statement in the note:

    “In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay U.S. $_ (this amount is called “Principal”), plus interest, to the order of the Lender.The Lender is _.I will make all payments under this Note in the form of cash, check or money order. I understand that the Lender may transfer this Note.The Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under this Note is called the “Note Holder.””

    and this statement in the mortgage:

    ” The Note or a partial interest in the Note (together with this Security Instrument) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower.”

    Note the capitalized term “Lender,” meaning the contract, not the dictionary, defines the term.

    This means your assumptions are false, and the debt is valid on its face.

    Bob Hurt

  169. I remember Romney said during the fake campaign he was paid to throw….We have to pay back the principal…To that I say, go to hell.

  170. You never got a “loan” as you perceived it A man…they lent you poor quality credit. The Treasury funded the scam. All they needed was your autograph.

  171. All of our payments went into the banksters pockets as usury even though they never lent a dime. They and their criminal friends, the politicians robbed us blind. These imposters hijacked the U.S. Treasury Department.

  172. The mortgages were never sold, the FED is one giant credit lending & investment bank. No need to sell to themselves. The mortgages & notes were bifurcated and were converted into stocks & bonds, chopped up in a million pieces swapped and traded and investments were overissued in our securities and insured to the tune of $700 trillion dollars. The names of the deriveratives such as ….COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS…and the insurance ….CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP INSURANCE…..give the scam away…They were overissuing investments in their own debt they were creating by overissuing investments in our securities and other things that did not exist and insuring their own massive debt creation would cause us to default even though they defaulted first.

  173. Lets start with Who gave me the Loan? Show me the money trail
    I made payments for X amount of years? Where did those payments go? Papertrail.

    I rest my case.

  174. […] Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, foreclosure, GARFIELD GWALTNEY KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: assignment, consideration, credit bid, money changing hands, money damages, origination, proof of loss, proof of payment, sale of loan Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  175. nemo dat you have to own something to sell it

    if the regulators and attorney generals had that tatooed on their chests
    they could remember that.

  176. Mr Editor

    The 5th cir said a thief could enforce the note. So much for consideration. See Horvath 2011

  177. I have been saying now for a long time that it would be an interesting experiment to go down to our County Auditor (Washington State) and file a random foreclosure notice on an unsuspecting few homeowners who were NOT in default. My guess is that you would successfully foreclose on an alarming number of them. There simply IS no checks and balances in this State, because the foreclosure trustees are owned and advised by the bank-representing law firms. It is a HUGE story that nobody seems to want to tell.

    We have watched, in jaw-dropping horror, the illegal activity in our OWN foreclosure, spent tens-of-thousands to defend what had started out as a NON-delinquent loan being rescinded legally, and now we have a SALE DATE of June 14.

    NON JUDICIAL foreclosure adds to the problem, because nobody with a dog in homeowner’s fight is in the process. If the homeowner is to stop a wrongful foreclosure here, they must be quick, they must have at least $20K in CASH handy (NOT an exaggeration) and they must be well educated about the process. It’s INSANE.


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: