So more money was funded than needed? What about the investors’ money? The banks took far more money than was used to fund mortgage origination or acquisition — and even when they did it, they knowingly and intentionally and fraudulently violated the terms of the agreement with the lender. See Tier 2 yield spread premium.

These defendants did in fact break the law and they should receive the consequences — but let’s not forget that they were doing exactly what their “victims” wanted them to do — the directive was to move as much money as possible covering over the PONZI scheme.

Occupy Wall Street is dead right. The resistance comes from mythology, spin, PR and plain old strong arm tactics funded with more than $1 Billion spent by the banks in law enforcement, legislation and regulatory agencies (and the revolving door between agencies and the firms they are supposed to regulate).

11 found guilty of massive real estate fraud in Northern Virginia

75 Responses

  1. The whole Joe & mark thing is nauseating.

  2. Mis print …. Should say Joe not Mark …re: Had he paid any consideration to Mark to purchase interest in the Note?

  3. Mark also needs to be Mortgagee of Record at the time of filing his claim. Was He Mortgagee of Record, Had he paid any consideration to Mark to purchase interest in the Note? Does Mark have the Note endorsed over to him? Or is Mark acting as agent for an undisclosed principal? If he is/was acting as agent … he need to cough up the name of the principal and beneficiary because we all know its not MERS! And we have some issues to pick with those who stepped into the shoes of the original lender … don’t we?

  4. If Mark can show you the endorsed note from Joe to Mark, in order for Mark to enforce he still needs to show (Loss) consideration paid to Joe… you are right. Never the less … Joe and Marks problem with the Tier2 YSP is the starter ….

  5. How can Mark come after you … if Mark is Joe’s creditor and Joe is Marks debtor? Mark can not come after you for Joe’s debt owed to him. Do you see Mark listed anywhere in your note or mortgage that say Mark is your creditor? Can Mark show you by way of endorsement of the original note from Joe to Mark?

  6. JG… Who was the depositor into the closing escrow account? Joe or Mark? ACH or Cancelled Check .. shows the relationship. 🙂

  7. “plaintiffs should not be foreclosed from judicial
    remedies before they know that they have been injured
    AND CAN DISCOVER the cause of their injuries.”
    from the case below (yesterday)
    Just what does this mean? It seems to say as appl here that homeowners can’t be tossed for an inability to p r o v e the cause of their injuries. If that’s the case, then one should be able to say I can’t be tossed because the proof I need is solely within the possession of my adversary, and right after “they” disclose / submit all facts and info which do or could bear on this matter as required by law, the court will be able to render an informed decision. A decision without all the facts is either bench law or NO decision imo. Also, imo, reliance on possession of a note is bs; that is not the bar, at least in fed juris.
    Possession of a note at least in federal court is evidence of nothing. It just doesn’t evidence that party’s interest, and rule 17 demands that party is the real party in interest (briefly, having a vested interest mol). In fed juris, imo rule 17 trumps any holder provision of the UCC. Despite what is said, I don’t believe rule 17 could possibly support, say, a thief trying to enforce a note. (and isn’t that what we’ve got here?) A claimant coming to fed court must have the real skin in the game. It could be an agent or a poa, but only if that agency or poa is proven to the appropriate legal standard. When MERS, for instance, was rejected as the claimant and for relief from stay in Nevada, it was as alleged beneficiary, not as agent or poa – for the record. The court properly recognized that MERS had no skin in the game and was not the rpii. Why should that be different for anyone else? And also for MERS added comfort, I hasten to add that MERS claimed to be in possession of the notes (some of the 17 or so) and claimed to be thee holder with rights to enforce. The court said “not”. Why did the court say no, MERS, you’re not thee holder entitled to enforce these notes?
    Same reason other fed juris courts should be saying “not”: prove your skin in the game. How much did you pay? when?

    There are a couple things here which have dragged out ad nauseum with no good solutions: the “MERS” (read, imo, rico-patent-conflict-of- interest- member-self-assignment (including an assgt of the note therein) and the issue of-discovery. NG, love you man, but really? Five years and zilch on break-thrus on discovery? For anyone interested in shoring up her morale for anti-Mers and anti-bs beliefs, re-read Johnson.

  8. kc at 11:10: I certainly agree one may not sell or otherwise transfer rights one never had (which is exactly what MERS and its buds do every day by purporting to have MERS assign dots – MERS may only relinquish its nominal status. If MERS IS the ben, then the note and dot are in fact bifurcated, AZ mdl be damned, frankly. MERS could only be thee ben as the agent of the lender and that didn’t happen because that’s not how “they” wanted it. Without agency, what is left is nominal ben status for MERS,a utility- gag. No, Bill, I’m not quite finished). I guess I’m taking it you say that Joe never had an interest in the note to abandon by whatever form. If Joe funded the loan with his own money though he was under a pre-existing contract which said the minute the loan was made, it was the property of Mark, Joe never had any rights to abandon, sell, transfer, whatever to Mark. If the UCC ever contemplated notes sold prior to their existence, it’s news to me. Doesn’t mean it didn’t and doesn’t; I just haven’t run accross it. Mark may have a contractual thus equitable (??) right to enforce the note.* Just not sure, but at any rate, IF anything financially between joe and mark impacted the borrower’s apr, that seems problematic to me for both of them. But again, just trying to get a handle on whether the note is bogus or not under certain circumstances (outside securitization factors / issues). *It just seems like it’s bogus since the payee named on it actually has no rights having pre-sold them. I’m thnking Joe had to have the rights if only for a minute to sell or transfer, which is where Carie is, I think. .

  9. Joe can not transfer rights to anyone .. he never had to begin with. The successor is limited to the powers Joe had. What rights did Joe have? Can he prove he had them? … Mark has to prove Joe had the right to enforce.. If Joe didn’t have that right .. Mark don’t either. No matter how far they kick the can … its still empty.

  10. The issue is …. Did Joe and Mark have that pre-existing agreement prior to closing? and if so ….. should it have been disclosed? Tier2 YSP

    Did Joe and Mark make representations in the Note and Mortgage that were false/misleading and/or missing to make profit and deceive the borrowers of the true cost of their credit? APR And did the beneficiary have an obligation to disclose it to the borrowers? Those who follow in the footsteps of other wear their shoes. Don’t be a Follower.

  11. the only way the ysp could affect, in my maybe solitary opinion, the apr is when and if the ysp has been contracted for prior to the note’s origination. If I originate a note and THEN sell it and get a ysp, I don’t believe that has anything to do with the apr. If on the other hand, I “earn” a ysp before the ink is dry on the note, I do agree it factors into the apr, the cost of the money to the borrower, per the rules. But regardless, its apples and oranges imo. My querry is about the name on the note when the not-created note has been pre-sold and Joe – by contract with a third party – will never be owed any money because Joe already sold the obligation, here to Mark. .If Joe has contractually abandoned (by pre-sale) his right to payment and thus has no right to payments and has no right to enforce the note, should Joe’s name be on the note? Is it possible Joe could be construed as Mark’s (temporary) nominee?.Securitization and or the fact that Joe used Mark’s money to fund the loan is another story and outside the answer sought here. Well, actually that’s not quite so (maybe?). If Joe used Mark’s money which was contractually to be used to purchase a loan which had been funded with Joe’s money, Joe has tricked Mark, but my question is still about Joe’s name on the note. I think.

  12. Almost Carie, …. Bob loans Andy $210,000 at 2%. Who is the creditor and who is the debtor? ….. Andy loans me $150,000 at 5%. Who is the debtor and who is the creditor?

  13. @JG

    “…a payee who is in fact (by the pre-existing contract) not the party to whom payments are owed.”

    That’s it. They are NOT owed any money—and the system was set up so that they not only get the money—they also get the house.

    And the cover-up “settlements” continue…

  14. @JG …. also see False Claims Act for the Answer you seek. Although you already have the answer. It applies from conception thru FC process.

  15. YSP affects APR

  16. TILA RESPA REG Z… associated business arrangements and YSP. True cost of your loan…..

  17. Enough nonsense….We The People have had enough..we know we were robbed by the FED banksters. Therefore, we demand our titles be cleared and our stolen wealth be paid back in gold bars.

  18. asked another way: If a pre-existing contract makes Mark the party to whom a borrower will owe money, is it a bad act to name Joe as the lender/payee in the note? Is the note a sham ( or ?) when at the moment the borrower agrees in writing to an obligation to Joe, the obligation is factually owed to Mark? disregard securitization just now. Imo have to answer this question first. Obligations may be sold, of course, all day long, but what are the facts when a note recites a payee who is in fact (by the pre-existing contract) not the party to whom payments are owed. I’m not saying this is wrong. I think it’s wrong, but I’m not sure. I’m no authority. If it’s wrong, where to a ‘t’ is this written in black and white or written that it may be reasonably inferred to bar?

  19. Of course nothing they did was legal. The bankster perps were told to rob our Treasury, destroy our Securities and steal our properties. All direct deposit accounts were set up by the title companies/U.S. TREASURY so the FED could rob us into poverty. All the conversions of our Securities were done illegally without our knowledge or consent. All investments were Securities Frauds because these were our Securities, not the FEDS or Wall Streets.

  20. What Corp was used to conceal Joe and Marks relationship! Marks Engraved Registration System

  21. Did Joe and Mark have a pre-existing business arrangement that should have been disclosed to the borrower/buyer under TILA? YSP

  22. Yes John Yes. …. Another example…. Joe sells interest in a note he does not yet exist and never does As in the borrowers didn’t sign at closing or the prequalified buyers didn’t even make an offer on the property that New Century Mortgage sold to the FHA in their names. Oh and these unfortunate buyers bought an FC property on conventional loan 6months later using New Century Mortgage just within 3months of New Century filed for BK. I talk to much sometimes …

  23. e.tolle (or anyone) in ref to john korman’s letter: if Joe has already sold to Mark any right and interest Joe may obtain in a note not yet created, if the note is then made payable to Joe, is doing so bogus; is doing this necessarily inconsistant with TILA?? (looking at stmts one at a time)

  24. At the fourwinds10 link below there is an article entitled Ted Nugent Says He Killed 455 Wild Pigs ……. The animal rights activists cried foul so Ted Nugent did what they do, he found a loophole and called it population control. LOL..He sure has their number.

  25. Where is the law that says foreclosure claims can be brought on “probable cause”? That is a theory, not a law. That is like saying to the court, I think these people owe me money so I want their money or their house. That is extortion. The law says prove status of holder or rights of a holder at the onset of your suit.

  26. If the rule of law is not being followed, virtually anyone can hide behind a law firm, even a lawfirm can file a lawsuit with copies of docs and say you owe them your money or property. That’s is why there are checks & balances. We have no way of knowing who these entities are filing claims on our properties without the legal assignments. There are no legal liens recorded anywhere. Not at the Secretary of State & not at the County Recorders offices. Just fraudulent docs filed everywhere is all I see.

  27. The courts are allowing these cases to be brought on an assumption that this is the “real party in interest” and this debt exists with no proof of claim. That is not legal.

  28. Where’s the lien? A copy of a mortgage & note are evidence of nothing. Anyone can get copies of docs. That is why the law requires you must prove status at the onset of your claim.

  29. Even if a third party had a contractual right of subrogation, which i sincerely doubt, or an equitable right, that contractual or equitable right must first be demonstrated to the appropriate legal standard (preponderance or clear and convincing) and then all amts must be verified. And still I don’t think the (any) right of subrogation is enforceable under/ by way of the Note. (and of course double recovery is forbidden in any kind of case – as far as i know).

  30. For the latest on the scam to steal our Constitutional Republic …

  31. I said that wrong. there is probable cause to believe the other guys have evidence which bears (or could bear) on the matter / our claims.
    this is more accurate than to say “in our favor”.

  32. ” which could be proved in support of the claim.” from Hale v. Burkhardt, 104 Nev. 632, 636 in that case I listed. Just what does this mean? Imo not getting much help from posts here, so in looking to support our claims to survive mtd’s or ones for sj, I believe there is, if nothing else, enough judicially noticeable info out there to support discovery. That JN info/material imo is ‘probable cause’ akin to that for a search warrant in a criminal deal.
    There is probable cause to believe that the banksters are in poss of evidence in our favor, and we want and need and have a right to discovery, which is mol imo the civil equivalent of a search warrant in a criminal case. The only real diff is that the banksters must fork it over as opposed to us going in to get it (as with a search warrant). Even if
    the judicially noticeable material does not support a search warrant aka civil discovery, we are entitled to all facts known to ANYone in support of our positions. Further, when the other guys have info which bears on or COULD bear on our claim, they are in violation of the rules (26 of FRE as I recall) for not forking it over without being asked. Failure to comply with rule 26 is sanctionable. imo. So just exactly WHAT bears or could bear on our claims? Third party payments? A servicer or master servicer or FNMA or anyone’s guarantee or obligation to make payments on the bonds or whatever? One would likely need to be able to recite how those things bear on our positions, of course. NG mentioned a potential claim against homeowners for those guarantees. Maybe. I personally doubt it given they are voluntary risks by third parties, but at any rate, they are not claims which may be made under the Note. period. . .

  33. If the Treasury Department were doing their jobs, defending the Trust for the people’s wealth & property which is THE U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, we would not need to go to trial and we would not be fighting these crooks pro se. This is all the direct result of treason in all branches of government.

  34. If the crooks rescind one contract, they will have to rescind them all. That is why they won’t do it because that would be an admission of guilt. Truth is, ALL of the fraud ridden contracts should have been rescinded, all of the fraud ridden titles should have been cleared to us and all payments should have been returned. There would have been no depression. That was not done because this was an evil plan by the banksters to steal everything from us.

  35. “there is no trial without discovery”. that’s an old maxim of the law. great, one says, but I’m not getting to trial because without discovery, I can’t seem to get past a mtd or one for sj. The ‘mystery’ of discovery needs to be debunked, and one step which comes to mind is to set a Case Management Schedule. Most of us lay people don’t even know about this, so it gets neglected to our detriment.
    I have repeatedly asked (begged?) NG to take on ‘when the facts necessary to prove our case are singularly in the possession of the other guys”, but I haven’t seen anything.
    E. Tolle – took a gander at the article you posted. Looks good so far. thanks

  36. @kc – under at least Upke, NJ,( which discussed respa at length), tender is NOT the first consequence of rescission in my lay opinion. The lender must first return to the borrower ALL things of value given to date by the borrower at closing,and subsequently (all closing costs, interest, principle – EVERYTHING) and THEN and only then must the borrower tender. The servicer in my experience will not do it, which then, also imo, 86’s the need for tender by the borrower..

  37. It is called PAY TO PLAY ….. what Illinois Governor Rod Blago went to prison for. He was also stripped of all of his assets and public pension for not playing by their rules. The County Sheriffs and citizen militias should be recovering our stolen properties for the American people. The DOJ can’t be trusted because they are the imposters who have hijacked our Treasury Department.

  38. “A claim should not be dismissed . . . unless it
    appears to a certainty that the plaintiff is not entitled to
    relief under any set of facts which could be proved in support
    of the claim.” Hale v. Burkhardt, 104 Nev. 632, 636,
    764 P.2d 866, 868 (1988).

    We have previously recognized a distinction between the
    “discovery rule” and the “general rule” of accrual of a cause
    of action for statute of limitations purposes:

    The general rule concerning statutes of limitation
    is that a cause of action accrues when the wrong
    occurs and a party sustains injuries for which relief
    could be sought. An exception to the general rule has
    been recognized by this court and many others in the
    form of the so-called “discovery rule.” Under the
    discovery rule, the statutory period of limitations
    is tolled until the injured party discovers or
    reasonably should have discovered facts supporting a
    cause of action.

    The rationale behind the discovery rule is that the
    policies served by statutes of limitation do not
    outweigh the equities reflected in the proposition
    that plaintiffs should not be foreclosed from judicial
    remedies before they know that they have been injured
    and can discover the cause of their injuries.

    Petersen v. Bruen, 106 Nev. 271, 274, 792 P.2d 18, 20 (1990)
    (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

    this is from

    BEMIS v. ESTATE OF BEMIS, 114 Nev. 1021 (1998)
    967 P.2d 437 – NV SC 1998

  39. eule – I have personally witnessed bid-rigging. The kind that really torks me is that done with the servicer’s participation.Because of the potential for a deficiency judgment against the homeowner as a result of a ‘fixed’ low bid, it surely must have another criminal name as well.

  40. Since our Treasury Department/DOJ has been hijacked by imposters I don’t believe a word they say EULE. The Treasury Department/Department of Justice is not supposed to be Federal. We are all being scammed about everything. Presto changeo the DOJ is now the Federal Government? WTF is the DOJ doing now? Running black ops for the banksters? Who are they now, FINCEN in disguise?! THIS IS STOLEN U.S. TAXPAYER PROPERTY AND THE U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT IS RECOVERING IT FOR THE BANKSTERS & MAYBE THROWING A FEW CRUMBS OUR WAY? This is treason and this is criminal.

  41. @Deb
    Tragically, her greatest thrill in life is to belittle and demean…she only comes here to cackle and scoff. Try to ignore…not worth any thought or energy.

  42. It is the psychopathic mental condition of these control freaks who have hijacked our Treasury that is the problem. Nazi fascists always blame the victims.

  43. They have their communist boot on everyones throat.

  44. Speak for yourselves….this has nothing to do with getting a lousy low paying corporate job working for these crooks or reinventing ourselves….These communists have hijacked our Treasury Department and are holding our wealth, freedom & liberty hostage. That is the real problem.

    In exchange for our freedom & liberty, millions are being forced to accept poverty in a very deceptive form….Low paying jobs, supplemented by shitty corporate controlled healthcare, food stamps, food pantries & charity.

    Get the picture? Communists have hijacked the country.

  45. Christine
    I am veryvery discerning. But i dint know everything for sure- my subject matter is the human condition good and bad. I hate litigation i hate politics and i hust want to ” be” i blog to connect with thise suffering,
    I try not to judge. We do not live in a perfect world but what has happened in this country and the fraud and racketeering is unreal. Dont want to get into why prople sit on their fat lazy bottoms. Csnt make em get up and get busy- for us that would be a sad existence would it not i hate any form of lazy, passing the problem on because someone cant be bothered or the ” im alright jack ” mentality. So, Stop picking on people anyway, i dont give a ratts who is right or wrong ( because i have enough of my own mind to be – discerning and it rhymes with Learning , which we are all learning ) neither do i care who is the smartest or the dumbest – that argument initself is silly.

  46. If the story is no longer available you can google the link.

  47. Yes Deborah, OBAMACARE is a tax and that could be the reason it is given the axe. OBAMACARE, so the story goes, was drafted by Hillary and her communist friends in the democratic underground when Bill was President. No matter who drafted it, that fascist piece of crap needs to be burned at the stake.
    Read about the Lawsuit over healthcare tax that could kill Obamacare….

  48. 🙁

  49. Deb,

    He, himself, doesn’t call it Obamacare. If you go back a few years, this is the name his detractors gave it and all the imbeciles in this country have been repeating ever since. Of note, except for Switzerland and the US, every developed country in the world has universal health care. including your own country. And… people are a hell of a lot healthier. Ever wondered why no one from any developed country is looking to come here and settle down?

    The US is dying of stupidity at an increasingly fast pace. And flaunting it, I might add. Not because of any outside influence but because of its own ignorant population who spends more time sitting on its butt and blogging than actually doing something.

    I thought you were a tad more discerning. Shows how wrong I was…

  50. I don’t know enough about the awfully named obamacare (talk about ego) but stripes refers to it as a tax…what do you think socialized healthcare in uk is- we pay something called national insurance- no free lunch, ever.

  51. If these tyrants, these mini Hitlers and Stalins have their evil way, those FEMA detention camps will be used for those who refuse to comply with totalitarianism. All paid for by us of course. Talk about abuse of the public trust on steroids.

    That is all they know is deception, fraud & abuse of the people. They always find a way to force compliance with all of their fraud. Take OBAMACARE as one example. They passed a tyrannical law and call it “affordable healthcare” and to force compliance with totalitarianism they turned OBAMACARE into a tax.

    NEWSFLASH for the greedy commies…. no one can afford OBAMACARE…..OBAMACARE IS A FRAUD….OBAMACARE IS NOT AFFORDABLE in any way, shape or form. It will destroy our Constitution, our remaining wealth and our Liberty, all of our freedoms will be stolen by these investor thieves at the top of the pyramid scheme.

    The FED needs to be abolished and our Constitution restored.

  52. It does feel like a “stress test”…hence all the FEMA camps…?

  53. It’s a big game by these sadistic bankster lunatics. These imposters are trying to gradually create a tipping point so they can seize everything under martial law. They want controlled chaos.

  54. This is not our Government. They are not working for us. They are all imposters & fictitious payees who are a big club of communist infiltrators. They are simply robbing us with their fictitious debt balloon of fraud and are using us as test subjects to see what we will allow. This is an inhuman “stress test” by the banksters.

  55. The government is guilty of major civil and human rights violations…but the government is owned by the banks…who are also guilty of these things…and they answer to no one… they make the (illegal) rules and we are forced to play by the (illegal) rules they make.

    Rev 2.0…dust off the guillotines!

  56. Fraud in the Factum is what destroys the banksters cases and makes these foreclosures criminal acts.

  57. Rescission wouldn’t fly in my cases. The attorneys told me absolutely no loan rescission. Could be because my cases are absolutely criminal and they would rather wash their hands of ever being a party to this crime scene.

  58. Under rescission, you must tender. Are you going to tender cash or tender back your home? The loan is removed from your credit history as thou it never existed and all parties are restored to where they were before the fraud transaction occurred. You also get back your down payment and all closing fees, all legal fees and payments from the bank. Rescission is a Powerful Tool if applied correctly. Congrats to My Daughter!

  59. These people were put in places of power because they are died in the wool communists. They have no love for this country or its people. That is why nothing they do is legal, moral or ethical. This financial scam and all of these scams are being done by imposters who have one goal, to overthrow our Constitutional Republic and steal everything from us.

  60. “…The homeowner, without consent or knowledge, was converted from a borrower to a securities issuer and the investor was converted from being a part owner in a valid REMIC pool to being the alleged buyer of the security issued by the homeowner. Hence the right of rescission and damages arises not only from TILA but from the SEC rules and regulations. And the time for filing doesn’t start to run until the parties had enough information to either know or where they should have known of the fraud…”

    Yup, so who do we sue, who do we guillotine, and who goes to jail?
    There is no SOL for fraud.
    Problem is, nobody cares about the poor.

    We have to get the truth of all this to the media…oh, never mind…the media is owned by the perpetrators.

  61. If these 11 are guilty they are ALL GUILTY you can not do what the DOJ did letting hsbc go with what amounts to a tiny fine compared to their illegal profiteering and jail others for lesser crimes. I can not believe this is happening.

  62. The following is reprinted without comment save for this…..

    THEY ALL KNOW!!!!!

    From Obama on down through Treasury, Fed, DOJ, and all those idiot AGs stumping with loads of free banker cash….THEY ARE ALL AWARE OF THE FRAUD AND CHOOSE NOT TO ACT!!!!! They are all, each and every one, in my opinion, guilty at the very least of misprision of felony, and need to be held accountable to the citizens of this country. Two and a half years after receiving this letter, not one AG has acted on this information. It’s way past time to jail them all.

    Loan or Investment Contract, By John Korman
    May 16, 2012

    Borrower is actually entering into an undisclosed investment contract, not a loan
    The point, as we have stated here before, is that there were no loans because the money advanced by the investors was subject to a set of documents supporting a bond in which the homeowner was not the payor and where the homeowner never signed. The homeowner was subjected to a set of documents that failed to disclose the real party or the real terms of the entire transaction — a black letter requirement of the truth in lending laws. (TILA)
    The purpose of the transaction was for the investment banks to get money from the investors and to get a signature from the homeowner without connecting the two. The real purpose of the transaction was an investment scheme wherein the intermediaries took everything — the money, the property and the gains from credit default swaps, insurance and government bailouts.

    Thus the intent of the investor to lend money for residential mortgages, and the intent of the homeowner, to get a loan for his home, was never accomplished and was effectively thwarted by the attempt to cover tracks by refusing to document the trail of the money. The actual documents offered in foreclosures document a fictitious trail — one in which no money ever changed hands.
    The homeowner, without consent or knowledge, was converted from a borrower to a securities issuer and the investor was converted from being a part owner in a valid REMIC pool to being the alleged buyer of the security issued by the homeowner. Hence the right of rescission and damages arises not only from TILA but from the SEC rules and regulations. And the time for filing doesn’t start to run until the parties had enough information to either know or where they should have known of the fraud.

    From: John Korman
    934 SW 21st Way
    Boca Raton Florida 33486
    (561) 372-1741
    (561) 350-0828
    February 16th 2011

    This letter is addressed to the Attorney General in each great State of America.

    My name is John Korman. I, as a paralegal who lives in Florida investigated Mortgage Loans for an Attorney who defends clients against foreclosure. The job I did was research the Corporate / Trust Documents [law of the case] filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in reference to the target loan and create an Affidavit based on my finding. Almost every Mortgage loan investigated which was produced by a major Banking Institution between the years 2000 – 2008 was securitized. Securitization is the act of producing an investment vehicle of Mortgage-Backed Securities (“MBS”) using the Borrower’s Mortgage NOTE as the under-lying corpus, as collateral.

    In each and every securitized loan produced by these Banking Institutions, file with the Securities and Exchange Commission certain documents which are mandated, include but is not limited to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, Prospectus, Indenture, 10-K [yearly report], 10-Q [quarterly report], 8-K [current report] Form 15-D and the Servicing Agreements] (herein after referred to as “Documents”), agreed to by the Party’s.

    Reading these Documents, in each investigation to date, the common mandated procedure is as follows; first we have the Lender. Shortly after the Mortgage

    2 of 9

    NOTE documents have been executed [or before the NOTE is executed] the Lender sells [or has already sold] its right, title and interest in this Mortgage NOTE to a third party, an arms length transaction [true sale] to a party known as the Seller. Within thirty [30] days or less the Seller will sell its right title and interest to this Mortgage NOTE to another party known as the Purchaser, also identified as the Depositor. The Depositor agrees to “trade” with a named Trust-Entity, it’s Mortgage NOTE for a predetermined amount of Mortgage-Backed Securities [less commission], these Certificates are then sold to investors.

    Now a really interesting thing happens once the Mortgage NOTE is acquired by this named Trust Entity, witnessed through the use of specialty licensed software which permits investors [or licensed users] access to any “named Trust-Entity”. I can see each Mortgage Loan held by this named Trust-Entity, and I can see its currant status. I can see if the named Trust-Entity is in possession of the Mortgage NOTE documents. I can see if a Mortgage NOTE is thirty (30) days late, sixty (60) days late, ninety (90) days late, or if it is in foreclosure. I can also see how many “tranches” have been created within this named Trust-Entity.

    The analogy to describe what a tranche is [in my minds eye] would be similar to, you giving me one apple, I return this one apple to you as apple juice [different form], and however I manage to create from this one apple, ten additional artificial apples out of thin air and transform them into apple juice. Now this named Trust-Entity has the authority and ability to sell [juice from ten artificial apples] Mortgage-Backed securities in multiples of the underlying collateral by creating multiple tranches within the said named Trust Entity. Within these multiple tranches I find the same Mortgage NOTE to exist, at full face value.

    The last investigation which I just completed within this past week the named Trust Entity held twenty one tranches and the target Mortgage NOTE appeared in each one of those tranches. This one Mortgage NOTE now has the potential of generating twenty one times its face value of this Mortgage NOTE, in Mortgage-Backed Securities sold to investors. Based on the foregoing if a Trust sells these Mortgage-Backed Securities to investors and receives only ten times the face value of the original under-lying Mortgage NOTE [Security] has the named Trust Entity been damaged by the Mortgagor not making the promised monthly payments under the Mortgage NOTE agreement? In other words, if Sam goes to the Bank and borrows a sum of money but Sally pays off the debt can the Bank still claim to be a damaged party because Sam did not make the payments as promised?

    3 of 9

    In the event whereby the Lender knows fore-hand this loan [Mortgage NOTE] will be sold out-right, securitized once executed, the Borrower is actually entering into an undisclosed investment contract, not a loan, per-say. In the not so distant past and throughout our history, prior to securitization, the Maker of the Mortgage NOTE Holds a possessory right to said Mortgage NOTE. Once the debt was discharged the Bank which held this Mortgage NOTE as a “Special Deposit” returned it to the Borrower. Today, with the advent of securitization these so-called loans [Special Deposits] are truly investment contracts [Mortgage NOTE sold out-right to generate profit] and the Borrower is an undisclosed investor with possessory rights to the profits generated from said Mortgage NOTE.

    Because this undisclosed investor [Borrower] is unaware of the moneys due it abandons the right to receive said funds when Borrower / Maker fail to make a claim to said funds within three years. To prove my point the Attorney General needs to request the Servicer, or the Trustee to produce a copy of the 1099-OID Form which was filed with the Internal Revenue Service, and the 1099-A including the 1099-B. These three Forms are filed with the Internal Revenue Service by either the Servicer or the Trustee and will prove the aforementioned allegation, that it is the Borrower that created, and is entitled to the “O”riginal “F’ssue Discount, but the Borrower has abandoned these funds [1099-A] which is now claimed by the Servicer, or the Trustee [1099-B]. In other words, these aforementioned Forms will identify the Bank as the Debtor. The profit made from the invested Mortgage NOTE belongs to the Maker. We live in a wonderful place, if it wasn’t for the deceit.
    Many of today’s so-called Lenders only lent their name to the Mortgage loan transaction. In other words, the Lender did not lend you their money, an undisclosed third party provided the funds for the Borrower making it appear like the Lender / Bank / Broker provided the funds. A group of investors, or a single investor creates what is commonly known as a Special Purpose Vehicle (“SPY”) wired the money to the Lender just prior to Closing.

    The Lender / Bank now acting in the capacity of a Nominal Lender used this SPY money to transact the Closing. Once the Closing was completed the Nominal Lender was paid in full plus a commission, then the Nominal Lender put its name on the Mortgage NOTE. Within twenty-four (24) hours from Closing the Nominal Lender was required to physically conveyed the Mortgage NOTE to the true Lender / Investor. Thereafter this Nominal Lender takes on a new role as the Servicer of the debt, or it may employ a subServicer. The Borrower makes the monthly payments to the Servicer who s/he believes is the Lender, who forwards the payment [less its fee] to the true Lender / Investor[s]. The Homeowner was

    4 of 9

    tricked into thinking he was a Borrower of a Loan, when in fact was a Seller of a Mortgage NOTE into an Investment Trust [SPV]. This Investment Trust has no right to a Mortgage which is used to facilitate the purchase a NOTE, fraudulently procured under the guise of a “Loan”, when in fact it was not a Loan but rather the “Purchase / Sale of a Mortgage Note” facilitating the foundation of these Mortgage-Backed Securities; the true nature of this Transaction was not disclosed to the Borrower either before or at Closing; and this Nominal Lender was paid in full plus a commission for loan it did not fund.

    Question; can a Nominal Lender that did not fund the transaction [Loan], putting its name on a Mortgage NOTE pretending to be the True-Lender, tricking a Homeowner into signing over a Mortgage NOTE in order to secure an Investment Security, thereafter assign a Beneficial Right to a third party, a right which it never Held from the beginning?

    A reading of the Corporate / Trust Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission two constants are apparent; the Original Lender after selling its right, title and interest to said Mortgage NOTE becomes the Servicer of this debt; and the “conveyance” of the Mortgage NOTE, Documents [law of the case] mandate the delivery of the Original Mortgage NOTE, endorsed in blank … without recourse … with ALL prior and intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the Originator [Lender] to the “person” so endorsing to the Trustee. In every investigation that I have personally conducted find there are four parties to the initial transaction, if we exclude the Borrower.

    The “Originator / Lender,” who sells its right, title and interest to said Mortgage NOTE to the “Seller,” the Seller sells its rights, title and interest to the “Purchaser / Depositor,” who sells to the “Trustee in trust for the benefit of the Certificate-Holder[s].” Although the named Trust Entity Documentation [law of this case] mandates this “chain of endorsements” I have yet to witness these endorsements on any Mortgage NOTE.

    Rather I witness an “Assignment” of the Mortgage that purports to convey the NOTE directly to the named Plaintiff. My understanding is a NOTE can not be assigned; it is endorsed from the present Holder / Owner of said NOTE and conveyed to the new Holder / Owner. Instead I am witnessing the Servicer [who was once the Lender] claiming to be the Plaintiff with all the rights title and interest as an Owner / Holder of a Mortgage NOTE, after selling its right title and interest to that same Mortgage NOTE to a third party, at an arms length transaction, viewed as a true sale. The Documents [law of this case] mandate it to be a true sale.

    5 of 9

    I witness assignments [and or endorsements] being filed with the Courts assigning [endorsing] the right title and interest of the Originator / Lender directly to the Plaintiff, passing-over the Seller, Purchaser and the Trustee, when the Plaintiff is a named Banking Institution. The named Banking Institution would need to acquire this said Mortgage NOTE from the Trustee in order to foreclose, [not from the Lender] thus the Trustee’s endorsement would be expected on the NOTE, from it to the named Plaintiff, in a proper chain of endorsement. Instead I witness over and over again where an assignment of the Mortgage will go directly from the source [Lender] to the Plaintiff, as there are no prior and intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the Originator [Lender] to the “person” so endorsing the NOTE to the Trustee.
    If the Trustee is the named Plaintiff acting for a named Trust-Entity would still require the endorsement from the Depositor / Purchaser to the named Trustee in trust for the Certificate-Holder. In my opinion, [non-attorney] this is why there was a rash of “Lost NOTE” claims in the past; the endorsements are missing, however re-establishing a NOTE cures that problem; however re-establishing a NOTE you never Owned, Held or possessed is a criminal act, in my opinion. Not only do I believe this act is a Fraud upon the Court but it is also using the legal system to facilitate a counterfeited financial instrument. The Homeowner who loses their home to foreclosure [95% are uncontested] with the use of a re-established NOTE faces the added threat that the true Owner / Holder may appear at some future date requiring the Homeowner to pay this same NOTE a second time, unless the Order from the Court provides the Defendant protection against such an occurrence.

    However when a Homeowner does not defend their case, lack of funds, or whatever, this protection [should the Real-Party-In-Interest appear at some future date and demand payment for the Original Mortgage NOTE] against paying twice, is often missing from the Final Order for Foreclosure, because the Homeowner lacked the legal capacity to request this protection be included in the Order from the Court, and the Plaintiff will not do the right thing, voluntarily, by including this protection, exparte.

    In the event the Plaintiff does possess and produces the Original NOTE bearing the once wet ink signatures of the Borrower[s], it [NOTE] must contain the endorsements of all the aforementioned parties, otherwise there is a clear break in the Chain of Title. The Chain of Title in every securitized document I have personally reviewed requires an endorsement from the Originator / Lender to the Seller, from Seller to Purchaser and from the Purchaser to the Trustee in trust for the benefit of the Certificate Holder [s], this is in accord with each one

    6 of 9

    of the documents I have reviewed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    These investigations that I have personally conducted disclose that most Trustees over-see dormant, dissolved or unregistered named Trust-Entities. Every named Trust Entity that I personally have investigated filed a Form 15-D with the Securities and Exchange Commission, notifying all parties of its Termination of Registration and suspension of its Duty to File Reports under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 77a et seq., 78a et seq.).
    The Trustee foreclosing on a Homeowner [after filing a Form 15-D] is doing so on behalf of a named Trust-Entity contrary to the INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940, see Section 7, under TRANSACTIONS BY UNREGISTERED INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

    What is really transpiring with these Mortgage loans is [in my minds eye] the Lender is selling the Borrower an automobile that the Lender knows has faulty brakes, and then said Lender takes out an insurance policy on that automobile. Once the automobile is totaled in a crash, the Lender collects on the insurance and still holds the borrower liable to pay the out-standing balance due on the automobile. Look no further than the foreclosure rates here in Florida or your home State, and then look at the record profits being generated by the Banks. How do you think this feat is being accomplished? Are foreclosures a negative force on the economy, because it does not seem to be negatively impacting the major banking institutions.

    Brings me to my final observation, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”), which acts as the purported Mortgagee of record [which we know is not true; as MERS did not loan any money and the Borrowers] do not owe any money to MERS]. MERS usually acts in the capacity as nominee for the Mortgage NOTE Owner / Holder; however, according to the procedural manual produced by MERS, it may only act in such a capacity [nominee] for and on behalf of another MERS’ Member. To the best of my knowledge none of these securitized named Trust Entities are MERS Members, thus bifurcating the Mortgage and NOTE, destroying the security and rendering the Mortgage a nullity.

    When you get right down to it I think we would all agree, the bottom line is, the Creditor is the party with the skin in the game, they are the Certificate Holder[s], they are true investors], Hard-Money-Lender[s]. All Certificate Holders are customers of Cede & Co., being the nominee of the Depository

    7 of 9

    Trust Company (“DTC”), a subsidiary of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. The Entities that purchase these Trust Certificates must purchase them from Cede & Co., or from one of its authorized agents. Seems to imitate the MERS model in so far as Cede & Co. appears to be the central recordation hub were investors trade positions by electronic registration. These named Trust Entity’s Certificates are almost always Held in the “street name” of Cede & Co.

    Within the past month I was engaged to conduct research / investigation into a Mortgage Note foreclosure, Plaintiff is JPMorgan Chase, the Original Lender was Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”). Within this Complaint JPMorgan Chase avers it is the Mortgage NOTE Owner and Holder by virtue of a Purchase and Assumption Agreement facilitated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) after it seized WaMu. Within this Complaint filed by JPMorgan Chase is attached as prima fascia evidence this aforementioned Purchase and Assumption Agreement between JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC which read, [paraphrasing] JPMorgan Chase purchased all of the assets of WaMu, as such is the Owner / Holder of the Mortgage NOTE being foreclosed on [presumptively giving JPMorgan Chase Standing]. However, reading the Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission WaMu sold this Mortgage NOTE out right to a third party [true sale] long before its seizure by the FDIC.

    The only nexus held by WaMu in reference to this Mortgage NOTE in question were its right to Service this debt. In the case styled UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, case number 09-CV-01656-RMC, Document 55, styled DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for the Trusts listed in Exhibits 1-A and 1-B, Plaintiff, vs. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, National Association; and WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION, Defendants; JPMorgan Chase herein pleads, on page 33. of 39;
    “Under the plain terms of that agreement, JPMC did not become WMB’s successor in interest. Since its closure, the FDIC as receiver has controlled WMB. While JPMC purchased all of the assets of WMB, it assumed only specified liabilities: those that had been reduced to a dollar amount on WMB’s ‘general ledger and subsidiary ledgers and supporting schedules which support the general ledger balances.’”

    8 of 9

    I only know of this one case in particular whereby JPMorgan Chase is foreclosing on a property in which it holds no right title nor interest aside from its Servicing right[s] acquired under a Purchase and Assumption Agreement, still to be executed between it and the FDIC. However JPMorgan Chase is telling a Judge in New Jersey it Owns and Holds this particular Mortgage Note by virtue of the aforementioned Purchase and Assumption Agreement acquired from the FDIC. Then in this case, [as sited above] in order to avoid / evade liability now pleads it”… did not become WMB.’s successor in interest.” You’ all know the difference between “avoid” and “evade,” [twenty years]!

    It is my sincere hope the Attorney General of Florida along with the Attorney General in the other forty-nine States investigate JPMorgan Chase’s claim as successor in interest to WaMu, wherein JPMorgan Chase claims to be a Plaintiff, as its foundation points to the Purchase and Assumption Agreement. Equity would call for an Estoppel of all foreclosure Actions in which JPMorgan Chase claims to be WaMu’s successor in interest.

    In closing, these named Trust Entities by-and-large are missing a mountain of Mortgage NOTEs. I have not had the time to do a mean average [as some named Trust Entities hold literally a thousand Mortgage Loans and the calculations must be done manually] however the field marked “Doc” [abbreviation for Documents] either reads “Unknown” or “Limited” in over 50% of these Mortgage Loans [by observation] conservatively. The named Trustee of the named Trust Entity clearly did not do even a reasonable job in receiving the Mortgage NOTEs as mandated under these named Trust Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
    /s/ John Korman

  63. Remember when Obama said what Wall Street did was reckless but not necessarily criminal? When the commander-in-chief openly lies to the people who he claims to represent, there is a serious problem. Now we have AG Holder, the top cop in the country caught lying and covering up again. Remember Operation Fast & Furious? No questions were answered about that crime. An IRS agent, another paid public employee, pleading the fifth to get out of being asked questions that the public who pays their salaries and big fat pensions have every right to ask. These politicians are supposed to be doing the peoples work but they are in fact, doing the exact and polar opposite. It is all a disgrace and it is disgusting.

    One sure thing is they are all being exposed for the imposters that they are. Where is the outrage by the public is the real question.

  64. Like Lanny Breuer implied—if they roll one head the whole financial system will fall apart…

  65. jailing is a business enterprise- for profit, if ever there was a time to jail the guilty and the greedy, their assets should be seized, their ill gotten gains from the labor of the people, thing ,is, who decides, and why is there a problem. The law , is the law, laundering money for terrorist outfits, is laundering money for terrorist outfits, don’t forget that hsbc case, where do we draw the line, if the law is not applied and consequences of crime, not punished accordingly, (and saying don’t do it again, or promise not to do it again has been proven not to work, already) and stating just “because”- the whole world will suffer excuse, then how many more “because,s” are there left..well because- we will suffer regardless, which is the lesser- suffering im talking about, I personally want to see our government hold wall street accountable, but clearly, after all these years and not one head has rolled its synonymous. Actions speak louder than words.

  66. LMAO…..FOX Biz John Stossel having a so called public discussion about austerity with some EMERGING ORDER PRESIDENT dude and some other commie dudes.

  67. Senator Rand Paul said on FOX Biz…there has been no austerity here in America. What a low down dirty lying commie scumbag!

  68. Funny you should say that Fraud in the Factum aces. I told that to the judge when he dismissed my motion to dismiss w/o prejudice for no reason… I told him point blank….there is fraud in factum your honor….he ignored me and he & the Fisher & Shapiro bank attorney railroaded me out of my motion being entered. I told the judge he was violating my rights. He grumbled something undetectable. I told him, I am going to re-file my motion. He told me….no you’re not, the bank is going to file a motion to summary judgment.

    I left the courtroom fuming. I went home and worked on my motion to Summary Judgment. It took me 4 days to get it done & I went & filed it. The day my motion was heard there was a new judge and he granted me my motion. That piece of crap bank attorney was fuming. My hearing is in August and I just found out when I filed my response in support of my motion there is yet another new judge. Welcome to Cook County…!

  69. A Mortgage Cesspool of Crime…SAD

    See also Servicer…AKA, One Who Services a Mortgage/Loan…
    In other words, NOT THE NOTEHOLDER or The Party Who has been HARMED.

  70. @ Stripes…See Fraud in the FACTUM here…
    “Fraud in which the deception causes the other party to misunderstand the nature of the transaction in which he or she is engaging esp. with regard to the contents of an instrument (as a contract or promissory note).” …


  71. @Grover…Highly Unlikely IMHO

  72. By getting into trouble with either party I mean, the bankster party will blame their agent for screwing you, and the people will blame the agent for screwing them. It is a no win situation if you get involved in this fraudclosure mess because when fraud enters a contract, fraud vitiates everything.

    I have heard people buying up fraudclosures and renting out these stolen properties of the people say they are doing these folks a favor by renting to them. Sometimes these people they are renting to are the actual owners who have been duped by the banksters and their rigged legal system. It’s a recipe for disaster.

  73. May be this is the start of jailing them all

  74. The Banksters business model of fraud is turning the entire country into a cesspool of crime. Nothing they do is legal so none of the businesses associated with them are doing things legally either. That is why many attorney’s choose not to get involved in this fraudclosure mess. They are damned if they do the right thing and damned if they don’t. Anyone buying into this fraudclosure scam and hoping to strike it rich are putting themselves at risk of getting into big trouble with either party. There are a lot of people who still haven’t woken up yet. If those people ever do get how badly they’ve been screwed to keep this charade going, or figure out this whole evil plan was devised to steal everything from them and unjustly enrich criminals who want to control them, they better head for the hills.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: