Hawaii Federal District Court Applies Rules of Evidence: BONY/Mellon, US Bank, JP Morgan Chase Failed to Prove Sale of Note

This quiet title claim against U.S. Bank and BONY (collectively, “Defendants”) is based on the assertion that Defendants have no interest in the Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan, yet have nonetheless sought to foreclose on the subject property.

Currently before the court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs’ quiet title claim fails because there is no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiffs’ loan was sold into a public security managed by BONY, and Plaintiffs cannot tender the loan proceeds. Based on the following, the court finds that because Defendants have not established that the mortgage loans were sold into a public security involving Defendants, the court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

Editor’s Note: We will be commenting on this case for the rest of the week in addition to bringing you other news. Suffice it to say that the Court corroborates the essential premises of this blog, to wit:

  1. Quiet title claims should not be dismissed. They should be heard and decided based upon the facts admitted into evidence.
  2. Presumptions are not to be used in lieu of evidence where the opposing party has denied the underlying facts and the conclusion expressed in the presumption. In other words, a presumption cannot be used to lead to a result that is contrary to the facts.
  3. Being a “holder” is a a conclusion of law created by certain presumptions. It is not a plain statement of ultimate facts. If a party wishes to assert holder or holder in due course status they must plead and prove the facts supporting that legal conclusion.
  4. A sale of the note does not occur without proof under simple contract doctrine. There must be an offer, acceptance and consideration. Without the consideration there is no sale and any presumption arising out of the allegation that a party is a holder or that the loan was sold fails on its face.
  5. Self serving letters announcing authority to represent investors are insufficient in establishing a foundation for testimony or other proof that the actor was indeed authorized. A competent witness must provide the factual testimony to provide a foundation for introduction of a binding legal document showing authority and even then the opposing party may challenge the execution or creation of such instruments.
  6. [Tactical conclusion: opposing motion for summary judgment should be filed with an affidavit alleging the necessary facts when the pretender lender files its motion for summary judgment. If the pretender’s affidavit is struck down and/or their motion for summary judgment is denied, they have probably created a procedural void where the Judge has no choice but to grant summary judgment to homeowner.]
  7. “When considering the evidence on a motion for summary judgment, the court must draw all reasonable inferences on behalf of the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587.” See case below
  8. “a plaintiff asserting a quiet title claim must establish his superior title by showing the strength of his title as opposed to merely attacking the title of the defendant.” {Tactical: by admitting the note, mortgage. debt and default, and then attacking the title chain of the foreclosing party you have NOT established the elements for quiet title. THAT is why we have been pounding on the strategy that makes sense: DENY and DISCOVER: Lawyers take note. Just because you think you know what is going on doesn’t mean you do. Advice given under the presumption that the debt is genuine when that is in fact a mistake of the homeowner which you are compounding with your advice. Why assume the debt, note , mortgage and default are genuine when you really don’t know? Why would you admit that?}
  9. It is both wise and necessary to deny the debt, note, mortgage, and default as to the party attempting to foreclose. Don’t try to prove your case in your pleading. Each additional “explanatory” allegation paints you into a corner. Pleading requires a short plain statement of ultimate facts upon which relief could be legally granted.
  10. A denial of signature on a document that is indisputably signed will be considered frivolous. [However an allegation that the document is not an original and/or that the signature was procured by fraud or mistake is not frivolous. Coupled with allegation that the named lender did not loan the money at all and that in fact the homeowner never received any money from the lender named on the note, you establish that the deal was sign the note and we’ll give you money. You signed the note, but they didn’t give you the money. Therefore those documents may not be used against you. ]

MELVIN KEAKAKU AMINA and DONNA MAE AMINA, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs,
Civil No. 11-00714 JMS/BMK.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii.

This is Plaintiffs Melvin Keakaku Amina and Donna Mae Amina’s (“Plaintiffs”) second action filed in this court concerning a mortgage transaction and alleged subsequent threatened foreclosure of real property located at 2304 Metcalf Street #2, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 (the “subject property”). Late in Plaintiffs’ first action, Amina et al. v. WMC Mortgage Corp. et al., Civ. No. 10-00165 JMS-KSC (“Plaintiffs’ First Action”), Plaintiffs sought to substitute The Bank of New York Mellon, FKA the Bank of New York (“BONY”) on the basis that one of the defendants’ counsel asserted that BONY owned the mortgage loans. After the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to substitute, Plaintiffs brought this action alleging a single claim to quiet title against BONY. Plaintiffs have since filed a Verified Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), adding as a Defendant U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-WMC2, Asset Backed Pass-through Certificates, Series 2006-WMC2 (“U.S. Bank”). This quiet title claim against U.S. Bank and BONY (collectively, “Defendants”) is based on the assertion that Defendants have no interest in the Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan, yet have nonetheless sought to foreclose on the subject property.

Currently before the court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs’ quiet title claim fails because there is no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiffs’ loan was sold into a public security managed by BONY, and Plaintiffs cannot tender the loan proceeds. Based on the following, the court finds that because Defendants have not established that the mortgage loans were sold into a public security involving Defendants, the court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.


A. Factual Background
Plaintiffs own the subject property. See Doc. No. 60, SAC ¶ 17. On February 24, 2006, Plaintiffs obtained two mortgage loans from WMC Mortgage Corp. (“WMC”) — one for $880,000, and another for $220,000, both secured by the subject property.See Doc. Nos. 68-6-68-8, Defs.’ Exs. E-G.[1]

In Plaintiffs’ First Action, it was undisputed that WMC no longer held the mortgage loans. Defendants assert that the mortgage loans were sold into a public security managed by BONY, and that Chase is the servicer of the loan and is authorized by the security to handle any concerns on BONY’s behalf. See Doc. No. 68, Defs.’ Concise Statement of Facts (“CSF”) ¶ 7. Defendants further assert that the Pooling and Service Agreement (“PSA”) dated June 1, 2006 (of which Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan is allegedly a part) grants Chase the authority to institute foreclosure proceedings. Id. ¶ 8.

In a February 3, 2010 letter, Chase informed Plaintiffs that they are in default on their mortgage and that failure to cure default will result in Chase commencing foreclosure proceedings. Doc. No. 68-13, Defs.’ Ex. L. Plaintiffs also received a March 2, 2011 letter from Chase stating that the mortgage loan “was sold to a public security managed by [BONY] and may include a number of investors. As the servicer of your loan, Chase is authorized by the security to handle any related concerns on their behalf.” Doc. No. 68-11, Defs.’ Ex. J.

On October 19, 2012, Derek Wong of RCO Hawaii, L.L.L.C., attorney for U.S. Bank, submitted a proof of claim in case number 12-00079 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Hawaii, involving Melvin Amina. Doc. No. 68-14, Defs.’ Ex. M.

Plaintiffs stopped making payments on the mortgage loans in late 2008 or 2009, have not paid off the loans, and cannot tender all of the amounts due under the mortgage loans. See Doc. No. 68-5, Defs.’ Ex. D at 48, 49, 55-60; Doc. No. 68-6, Defs.’ Ex. E at 29-32.

>B. Procedural Background
>Plaintiffs filed this action against BONY on November 28, 2011, filed their First Amended Complaint on June 5, 2012, and filed their SAC adding U.S. Bank as a Defendant on October 19, 2012.

On December 13, 2012, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs filed an Opposition on February 28, 2013, and Defendants filed a Reply on March 4, 2013. A hearing was held on March 4, 2013.
At the March 4, 2013 hearing, the court raised the fact that Defendants failed to present any evidence establishing ownership of the mortgage loan. Upon Defendants’ request, the court granted Defendants additional time to file a supplemental brief.[2] On April 1, 2013, Defendants filed their supplemental brief, stating that they were unable to gather evidence establishing ownership of the mortgage loan within the time allotted. Doc. No. 93.


Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The burden initially lies with the moving party to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact. See Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323). If the moving party carries its burden, the nonmoving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts [and] come forwards with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) (citation and internal quotation signals omitted).

An issue is `genuine’ only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact finder could find for the nonmoving party, and a dispute is `material’ only if it could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” In re Barboza,545 F.3d 702, 707 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). When considering the evidence on a motion for summary judgment, the court must draw all reasonable inferences on behalf of the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587.


As the court previously explained in its August 9, 2012 Order Denying BONY’s Motion to Dismiss Verified Amended Complaint, see Amina v. Bank of New York Mellon,2012 WL 3283513 (D. Haw. Aug. 9, 2012), a plaintiff asserting a quiet title claim must establish his superior title by showing the strength of his title as opposed to merely attacking the title of the defendant. This axiom applies in the numerous cases in which this court has dismissed quiet title claims that are based on allegations that a mortgagee cannot foreclose where it has not established that it holds the note, or because securitization of the mortgage loan was defective. In such cases, this court has held that to maintain a quiet title claim against a mortgagee, a borrower must establish his superior title by alleging an ability to tender the loan proceeds.[3]

This action differs from these other quiet title actions brought by mortgagors seeking to stave off foreclosure by the mortgagee. As alleged in Plaintiffs’ pleadings, this is not a case where Plaintiffs assert that Defendants’ mortgagee status is invalid (for example, because the mortgage loan was securitized, Defendants do not hold the note, or MERS lacked authority to assign the mortgage loans). See id. at *5. Rather, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants are not mortgagees whatsoever and that there is no record evidence of any assignment of the mortgage loan to Defendants.[4] See Doc. No. 58, SAC ¶¶ 1-4, 6, 13-1 — 13-3.

In support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan was sold into a public security which is managed by BONY and which U.S. Bank is the trustee. To establish this fact, Defendants cite to the March 2, 2011 letter from Chase to Plaintiffs asserting that “[y]our loan was sold to a public security managed by The Bank of New York and may include a number of investors. As the servicer of your loan, Chase is authorized to handle any related concerns on their behalf.” See Doc. No. 68-11, Defs.’ Ex. J. Defendants also present the PSA naming U.S. Bank as trustee. See Doc. No. 68-12, Defs.’ Ex. J. Contrary to Defendants’ argument, the letter does not establish that Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan was sold into a public security, much less a public security managed by BONY and for which U.S. Bank is the trustee. Nor does the PSA establish that it governs Plaintiffs’ mortgage loans. As a result, Defendants have failed to carry their initial burden on summary judgment of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact that Defendants may foreclose on the subject property. Indeed, Defendants admit as much in their Supplemental Brief — they concede that they were unable to present evidence that Defendants have an interest in the mortgage loans by the supplemental briefing deadline. See Doc. No. 93.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs’ claim fails as to BONY because BONY never claimed an interest in the subject property on its own behalf. Rather, the March 2, 2011 letter provides that BONY is only managing the security. See Doc. No. 67-1, Defs.’ Mot. at 21. At this time, the court rejects this argument — the March 2, 2011 letter does not identify who owns the public security into which the mortgage loan was allegedly sold, and BONY is the only entity identified as responsible for the public security. As a result, Plaintiffs’ quiet title claim against BONY is not unsubstantiated.


Based on the above, the court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.


[1] In their Opposition, Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ exhibits on the basis that the sponsoring declarant lacks and/or fails to establish the basis of personal knowledge of the exhibits. See Doc. No. 80, Pls.’ Opp’n at 3-4. Because Defendants have failed to carry their burden on summary judgment regardless of the admissibility of their exhibits, the court need not resolve these objections.

Plaintiffs also apparently dispute whether they signed the mortgage loans. See Doc. No. 80, Pls.’ Opp’n at 7-8. This objection appears to be wholly frivolous — Plaintiffs have previously admitted that they took out the mortgage loans. The court need not, however, engage Plaintiffs’ new assertions to determine the Motion for Summary Judgment.

[2] On March 22, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an “Objection to [87] Order Allowing Defendants to File Supplemental Brief for their Motion for Summary Judgment.” Doc. No. 90. In light of Defendants’ Supplemental Brief stating that they were unable to provide evidence at this time and this Order, the court DEEMS MOOT this Objection.

[3] See, e.g., Fed Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Kamakau, 2012 WL 622169, at *9 (D. Haw. Feb. 23, 2012);Lindsey v. Meridias Cap., Inc., 2012 WL 488282, at *9 (D. Haw. Feb. 14, 2012)Menashe v. Bank of N.Y., ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2012 WL 397437, at *19 (D. Haw. Feb. 6, 2012)Teaupa v. U.S. Nat’l Bank N.A., 836 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1103 (D. Haw. 2011)Abubo v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2011 WL 6011787, at *5 (D. Haw. Nov. 30, 2011)Long v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 2011 WL 5079586, at *11 (D. Haw. Oct. 24, 2011).

[4] Although the SAC also includes some allegations asserting that the mortgage loan could not be part of the PSA given its closing date, Doc. No. 60, SAC ¶ 13-4, and that MERS could not legally assign the mortgage loans, id. ¶ 13-9, the overall thrust of Plaintiffs’ claims appears to be that Defendants are not the mortgagees (as opposed to that Defendants’ mortgagee status is defective). Indeed, Plaintiffs agreed with the court’s characterization of their claim that they are asserting that Defendants “have no more interest in this mortgage than some guy off the street does.” See Doc. No. 88, Tr. at 9-10. Because Defendants fail to establish a basis for their right to foreclose, the court does not address the viability of Plaintiffs’ claims if and when Defendants establish mortgagee status.

61 Responses

  1. This is a giant investor scam loiuse. They are all investors in this scam to steal our wealth and hijack our freedoms. Investment in everything that effects our Life, Liberty and Property by anyone, either foreign or domestic is a very deceptive form of terrorism by these control freak investors. They are hiding behind their perps at the FED and on Wall Street and are dictating policy here in America. That is why nothing the politicians do is legal. They are investors too. That is why there have been no arrests of those directly involved in the Origination Fraud by the banks and the Derivatives fraud by Wall Street. All of these settlement moneys are coming out of the pockets of all of us.

    The investors are bailout queens who are simply robbing all of us and making all of us pay for the fraud of their perps.

  2. I put the concept of this investor theory is governing fraudclosures in my motion to dismiss. The judges really don’t like to hear they are compromised and that these fraudclosures are being governed by an investor theory. The truth is the truth and is apparent on its face. If it is not investor theory that is governing these cases than what specifically is governing these cases? What is meant by these fc cases are “instant actions?” What in the hell does that mean specifically?

  3. It would be honorable if a judge were invested in these banks if they were to recuse themselves from these fc cases. Last time I was in court, the judge recused himself from a case Bank v U.S. Govt. The judge said the reason being, he was an employee of the City of Chicago. That was honorable IMHO.

  4. Hey, Kalifornia, I did put the bias and conflict of interest into my lawsuit, and they paid little attention to it. The Judge does have his pension fund in MBS and there is even a lawsuit here by the pension plan participants against the bank/pension plan that invested hugely in MBS, but the Judge did not recognize that either. The judges have received orders from above, and I would really like to know who that is. Is it Eric Holder, Jamie Dimon, Obama, the CIA?

  5. ****.snl.com/irweblinkx/institutionalownership.aspx?IID=4200126
    ( for a complete link replace **** with —> www. <–).

    Following the directions below will lead to the judge's impermissible financial interests in the outcome of the claims asserted against the institutional owners he is invested in/with, such as:

    Wells Capital Management Inc.
    Bank of America Merrill Lynch
    BNY Investment Advisors
    Deutsche Bank Investment Management Inc.
    California Public Employees' Retirement System
    Credit Suisse (USA) Inc.
    Goldman Sachs & Co.
    Wells Fargo Advisors LLC
    Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
    Deutsche Asset Management Inc.
    JPMorgan Securities Inc.
    US Trust Bank of America Pvt. Wealth Management
    Comerica Bank
    Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
    Wells Fargo Bank NA
    SunAmerica Asset Management Corp.
    U.S. Bancorp Asset Management Inc.
    PNC Bank NA (Trust Department)
    JPMorgan Asset Management
    PNC Capital Advisors LLC
    Wachovia Wealth Management
    WFG Advisors LP

    p.s. Read between the lines as to the names of the institutions and the interest in the outcome. Only then can due process follow.

  6. @ Deborah Wynn

    @ Louise

    As to getting beyond being denied due process, learn to research and acquire where the judge’s financial interest create judicial bias — for disqualification purposes. Below is an example ( for a complete link replace **** with —> www. <–).


    For California, below is an example of the route to determine whether and where a judge’s bias may exist.

    California Fair Political Practices Commission:
    •Superior Court Judges (Counties A-M / N-Z)

    (A-M) ****fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=611
    (N-Z) ****fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=612


    San Francisco Superior Court_Department 501_
    HOUSING COURT_Judge’s 2011 Financial Disclosure Statement:


    (see disclosure: Hatteras Financial)


    Hatteras Financial_Business Summary

    Hatteras Financial Corp. operates as an externally-managed mortgage real estate investment trust (REIT). It invests in single-family residential mortgage pass-through securities guaranteed by a U.S. Government agency or issued by a U.S. Government-sponsored entity. The company has elected to be taxed as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to federal or state taxes on its REIT taxable income to the extent that the company distributes its income to stockholders and maintains its qualification as a REIT. Hatteras Financial Corp. was founded in 2007 and is based in Winston Salem, North Carolina.


  7. So carie
    We are not given due process
    And that is in itsel isf something we all must fight to have – if we dont then everything the founding fathers did was in vain and 2 world wars, leaves us where ? This means we the people have been betrayed and those before us and those to come.
    Happy mothers day all you mothers.

  8. “…all documents relating to the sale or purchase of the Subject Loan” and “all documents relating to the transfer of the promissory note”…

    Of course they won’t EVER let that come in—because they know it never happened. You can’t sell or purchase an unfunded loan/collection rights to (false) default debt. The “notes” weren’t real notes, or real “mortgages”. PERIOD. You will never get to discovery…because if you did—all the lies would be exposed.

  9. I agree Louise, the judge should give you a reason otherwise we are living in a fraudulently induced dictatorship. No one is above the law.

  10. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: admissions, allegations, Amina v Bank of New York Mellon et al Civil No. 11-00714 JMS/BMK, bank of new york, debt, default, evidence, foreclosure, JP Morgan, Mellon, Mortgage, note, PROOF, quiet title, sale of loan, securitized pools, U.S. Bank Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  11. yes he does
    if its ignored then raise the fact that he ignored your MSJ and needs to reconsider
    (not an attorney but basing my comment on my own experience pro se)

  12. Louise…..I believe the law requires the judge to give a valid reason for shitcanning your motion to Summary Judgement. Look it up.

  13. Kalifornia….if you mess yourself often… you may need to change your skivies more …..I don’t follow directions from communists.

  14. Elexquisitor: In my case, they did not read my Motion to Compel, nor the Summary Judgment on either side and sent the whole case to the trashcan and ruled against me with no due process. It looks to me that the Judges are either in on it or afraid of something. The judges all have a conflict of interest, because their pension plans are invested in mortgage backed securities.

  15. About that discovery in California – by anticipating / following Neil’s strategy I got to discovery and got to ask for “all documents relating to the sale or purchase of the Subject Loan” and “all documents relating to the transfer of the promissory note”. And back came the objection – “irrelevant”, among others. So I did a motion to compel. Suddenly the court decides I need to go to ‘discovery facilitation’ (because my 4 motions were a little over 200 pages due to court pleading rules and the legal references I included).The ‘facilitator’ and opposing counsels come to agreement that I should drop my (unread) motions and they will grant very minor concessions, like identifying employees for deposition purposes.

    So I bail on signing any such agreement after the meeting, and re-file my motions, amending them to account for facilitation. And the judge rules against me because of the findings of the facilitator and non-agreement I didn’t sign. NOT A SMIDGEN of legal discussion was allowed at the facilitation meeting or court heariing.

  16. yes, louise, the PSA’s will follow a somewhat common outline.
    The duties of the MSVCR, SVCR, TRSTEE, etc, and the MLPA’s are also set forth therein. Lots of boilerplate.

    judges are finding ways to procedurally pass over the evidentiary hearing. they have their marching orders. But others are not letting the new generation lawyers and bankers manipulate the law. some of the old guys are getting pissed off.

  17. @ stripes-in-my-skivvies:

    Learn to follow directions.

  18. deadlyclear.files.wordpress.com –> for the complete link to the Amina’s Second Amended Complaint, insert in place of **** below

  19. ****/2013/04/amina-sac-verified-complaint.pdf

  20. Also, a cause of action for slander of title is useful to address the illegitimate (falsified & fraudulent) recorded instruments against the subject property which one has superior ownership of — properly plead of course.

  21. @ johngault:

    Key #1 — a QT action must be properly plead on the grounds of one’s own superior OWNERSHIP of the subject property (title), NOT the opposing party’s adverse claim nor THEIR failure to prove a valid claim on same.

    By pleading accordingly, then the burden shifts to the opposition whom MUST plead and prove some interest in the subject property. If they cannot, as in this instance, then the case goes to trial on the merits because of properly pleading the strength of one’s own superior title to the subject property. Discovery follows.

    p.s Let’s see if stripes-in-my-skivvies can follow this direction?

  22. Every state and the federal have provisions and law by which to discipline judges, and other officers of the court. A few years ago I started such a process on Hawaii, but then started working with another case and didn’t complete it. Check your state’s Judicial Ethics, or similar, and statutes, rules, administrative procedures, etc. This could develop into very well-spent time, which otherwise gets wasted in blogs and forums.

    Complaining is a distraction. Complaining thickens the problem. Complaining is a smokescreen. Complaining works only for evil. Complaining never accomplishes good. Complaining is a major source of physical, mental, spiritual, and social illness, as we clearly see if able to discern Truth.

  23. @Gwen and @JohnGault,

    I totally agree with you. Our arguments and evidence are not the problem. The judges are the problem. Not sure what made the judge in this case follow the law. I guess it actually does happen every once in a while.

  24. Ginnie Mae is another federally insured institution who needs to be audited & put out of its misery.

  25. I agree Charles Reed. The banksters owe us a ton and clear titles to all of our properties.

  26. stripes Ginnie Mae cannot have Notes burned because it is the only thing that they have that links them to the loans. Here the problem Ginnie Mae has right now is that without the physical possession they cannot even have a claim of some type of ownership because, there entire collateral is UCC 3.

    Now that a property been foreclosed by a non ex-lender were the title was not already in the name of the lender/servicer as with Washington Mutual Bank loan, it becomes impossible for Ginnie Mae to even prove there even had possession because they don’t appear don’t appear on the Note or the county in title.

    There is no proof of origination, purchase or sell because these are function Ginnie Mae cannot legal engage in as they are not lender. Ginnie Mae pooling situation will be exposed and the taxpayer are due every dime insurance paid in the claims submitted by non financially interested parties.

    So who got a blank Note copy of the Note after the foreclosure? I do and its the proof of that the securities were always worthless and 800,000 Federal Government loan in 2009-2010 could not have been foreclosed!

  27. Same here and, they had the cahones to enter copies of these notes in blank and their destroyed contracts …. counterfeits & forgeries upon the court. They are Imposter felons.

  28. Here the key to winning this entire thing and that is presenting the blank Note as it speak for itself. How can anyone argue that they are owner of a blank Note that they no longer have possession of in the cases of all Ginnie Mae pooled loans.

    If the loan was servicer by Wells Fargo but placed in the pool by Washington Mutual then Wells Fargo needs to get the title placed in there name, which by hook or crook they do through MERS however the Note when you get a copy will show the crime because it will be a blank Note and Wells Fargo will be force to present a cancel check for the purchase of the Note.

    However as the loans are in the Ginnie Mae pools, its impossible to ever present any form of purchase because, Ginnie Mae cannot buy or sell a home mortgage loans.

    One blank Note blows this thing up and I got that blank Note!

  29. The Issuer never performed on their contract and that is not hard to prove. Handing you a check for your own equity is not lending. They never truthfully disclosed anything they did or were planning to do and that is criminal. They said they may sell the loan to another bank. That was another big fat lie.

  30. Interesting article, others see these same connections.

  31. I see divine intervention happening everyday Deborah. You may not see it the way I do but, I see this as a spiritual war playing out in the physical world. The malefactor knows his time is short to turn everyone his way. We are all struggling with this evil everyday mainly because of our lack of knowledge. Evil is deceptive, like a serpent, that is how evil works. It preys on our fears and what we don’t know. We need a lot of faith. Too many have lost their faith because they were taught if you can’t see it, it does not exist. That was the malefactors biggest accomplishment, to get us to deny the existance of the creator.

    Lack of knowledge and deception caused me to lose my dog to this evil. As a result, I will never underestimate this enemy ever again. I let my guard down and trusted that vet to do the right thing and that proved to be a fatal mistake. This is war and these people are the worst of the worst that we are dealing with, therefore we really can’t trust anyone. You really can’t verify things in life threatening situations. This nation is in peril and we are being held hostage by these imposters, the banksters & the politicians. Corporate America is destroying this country.

  32. stripes you like myself are asking for the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth- do you think politicians have the vaguest idea about that- these men are not free either they are “owned” and they will not live a life of beauty, it may look all that and more on the outside, but on the inside- not pretty, no sir. I wish for once a real leader would be sent (would have to be a divine intervention )

  33. They are simply stealing Deborah. They are ignoring the Constitution & all of the laws of this land and have been for decades. No one could have known everything the politicians/banksters were doing was illegal but, upon discovery of it, no one should cooperate with it. The last thing the judges want to be told is they are not upholding the rule of law.

  34. Obama talking today in his speech about the consequences of the sequester. Time for the politicians to stop pimping for the banksters & their Wall Street whores and hold them all accountable for their crimes. The b.s. needs to stop. This ongoing fascist robbery of the American people for the financial crimes of these bankster crooks is totalitarian and everything these politicians haven done and are doing is illegal.

  35. on a similar note to the case on point-
    and I hope you all read this and understand my utter frustration being pro se-( yet right on law procedure and rules of court,) is this- my case was brought in AZ federal court, the judge himself, treated a motion for reconsideration, also under a pleading that I never raised, awarded summary Judgment ( under a motion for reconsideration) and as such, AND in violation of rule 56. when a party has not moved for summary judgment then why is such relief granted, well folks , that is just not tennis now is it. now on appeal case number 12-16192.9th circuit
    it is in the public interest you understand what is in fact, going on with my case.

  36. The banksters and Wall Street used our autographs (unauthorized signatures) to try and confuse the titles to our property. The Origination Fraud by the banksters means our titles are clean to us and their title disputes are between the Issuer of the credit slips and the Originator of the loans to the FED……this dispute is really between the U.S. Treasury Dept and the FED banksters. The Treasury needs to do their jobs and hold the FED to account for their default and fraud to our titles they committed via Wall Street.

    The truth is clear, we are being blamed & robbed for the crimes of the banksters. WE THE PEOPLE are who got screwed by these crooks because the trustees for the trust for the peoples money at the U.S. Treasury Dept are covering up for the crimes of the banksters. The FED owes every American citizen a ton of money.

  37. @ Neil

    Welcome home Neil. May Allah continue to bless you and family. Trust you keep-up with your exercises.

  38. Here is a fact that is that a blank note represent that no one is endorsed and if you got a copy of a blank Note after the foreclosure sale of the property, then you got a problem.

    A Note after a foreclosure sale cannot be blank because that means the title is not correct because blank cannot be recorded at the local land recording office.

    The reason the holder of a blank Note has the burden of proof is because they got nothing proving the own the Note as the Note is blank and there is no cancel check, wire transfer or napkin.

    The reason the banks fight so hard not to have discovery is that once the Note is revealed and it still blank now 2 or 3yrs after the foreclosure it the scene of a crime, because simply the Note is blank and leads to the question…HOW? How can you have a blank Note when Notices of Default and assignment were performed but you got a blank Note hanging around.

    It you get a copy of that Note in a blank status after the foreclosure, case is won because the foreclosing party needs to explain the blank Note!

  39. i hate to post this on a good day but for the love of god how in yer face can it get

    OCC Misses Another Conflict of Interest: Foreclosure Review Outreach/Payment Processor Rust Consulting Owned By Residential Real Estate Player Apollo, Being Sold to VC Arm of Citigroup – 2013-04-29 09:57:03-04

    Naked Cap- It appears that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Fed dropped the ball yet again on vetting firms involved in the Orwellianly-named Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR) for conflicts of interest. Michael Olenick’s expose on Allonhill, one of the “independent consultants” hired by Wells Fargo, led to Allonhill’s role being […]

  40. The ousting of these crooks changes nothing Deborah. It will be more of the same. This is no more than garbage in and garbage out because their fraudulent business model hasn’t changed one iota. The investors not only trust these crooks, they tell them what to do. It is all just another smokescreen being used to make it look like there is some big changes being made when in reality, It is just more of the same.

  41. I fail to see the distinction the court makes in this plaintiff’s allegations over others. I suppose reading the whole stinking case might shed some light. Or – maybe you, NG, are going to spend some more time on it…..? I would appreciate it, as no doubt would others.

  42. If the banksters failed to come to court and meet the basic legal requirements to bring a fc at the onset, they can only be considered criminals who are counterfeiting and forging docs. Why would anyone give them a chance to counterfeit and forge more documents in discovery? That is like asking a criminal to please cover up their own crimes.

    The bankster owned media are using social issues like people admitting they are gay in public and civil justice issues like raising the minimum wage to one wage to conceal what this is really all about ……… totalitarianism. It is all about the fraud, robbery,and coverups all of the time with these control freaks. These issues are just smokescreens to get people to accept alot more than the gay lifestyle and one flat hourly wage/ These banksters want totalitarianism and in return they are giving people crumbs they had no right to deny them in the first place.

    That’s what you get when you believe an imposter Government such as this is going to save you. You are going to get served up a steaming hot platter of fascism disgused as something they tell you that you need all while they steal everything from you…

    Bleeding heart liberals really don’t give a shit about any of us or our rights. They want us to be reduced to a nation of mental midgets who will accept anything in exchange for their freedom. These people think they are getting justice but in fact, they are getting nothing but big fat totalitarianism by imposters…

  43. This is all well and good Neil, but if the court refuses you ALL discovery, and I mean all, on the claim there is not much you can do but appeal his grant of sj to the other side. I did a qt almost before anyone else was doing them in 2010 with Dave Krieger’s help on my house .. three years later and over 700 filings in my case, the court still has not allowed one iota of discovery. Trust me I know how to do discovery, but we are still facing an uphill battle with judges who refuse to follow the law at all and will give the banks anything they want for any reason they want it–its disgusting

  44. There are laws for the banks and Wall Street but ,they are not enforced. That is because money comes first in the U.S.A. People are brainwashed and worship false idols. These banksters and their friends are hogs who never have enough.

  45. Basically we live in economic Apartheid. There are two sets of laws one for the banks and politicians and one for the rest of us.
    United States of Apartheid.

  46. like this case tho

  47. yes he should stripes, right next to Berni, i mean – would you trust this guy with your money, its a no brainer.

  48. Welcome back brother Neil, now I feel that they got to deal with the “No Standing” issue because at this point it not that banks owned these Notes but a fact that they did not when dealing with Ginnie Mae.

    There is no way the FHA could have $70 billion loss when most all the loans were $100,000 loan loans and were initially underwritten with full documentation. You had a total PITIA payment of $900 being lowered to $500 and these folks where not qualifying for that modification? It was Ginnie Mae was not the lender and by law could not modified the loans that were all those denied and no process loan and not engage categories that resulted in 1.2 million foreclosures. How do you have 195,000 files received and you not even decision the file and simply foreclose?

    Now I would not engage in the Quiet title process if foreclosed, because it shows the harm and if your able file a Federal claim there is treble damage to be had.

  49. Regarding PSA’s, does anybody out there know whether and how much the PSA’s resemble each other? As far as I can tell, they very closely resemble each other.

  50. CNBC reporting this morning that there may be some changes coming soon at JP Morgan because of all of the financial fraud. Yeah right, now that the damage is done,the changes are coming. Word is their COO may be leaving. He should be leaving for a prison cell IMHO. I don’t differentiate between banks,they are all working toward an agenda that flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution and aims to stifle our free will. They all need to be held to account for what they have done..

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: