Reuters: BOA Paid Bonuses of Target Gift Cards To Modification Employees For Steering Cases Into Foreclosure, Fired Them If They Didn’t Go After the Foreclosure

SIX FORMER BOA EMPLOYEES TESTIFY THAT BOA MODIFICATION AND FORECLOSURE SPECIALISTS WERE PAID AND INSTRUCTED TO LIE TO HOMEOWNERS, PAID WITH GIFT CARDS IF THEY SUCCESSFULLY THREW THE HOMEOWNER INTO FORECLOSURE AND WERE DISCIPLINED OR FIRED IF THEY FAILED TO TURN OVER THE REQUESTS FOR MODIFICATION INTO THE RIGHT NUMBER OF FORECLOSURES.

IF YOU WANT A MODIFICATION, YOU NEED A LAWYER TO CHALLENGE THE REPRESENTATIONS OF LOST DOCUMENTS AND INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS FOR MODIFICATION. AND YOU ESPECIALLY NEED A LAWYER OR HUD COUNSELOR TO SUBMIT THE COVER LETTER AND THE SPECIFIC PROPOSAL FOR MODIFICATION WITH AFFIDAVITS FROM EXPERTS — (usually absent because the bank doesn’t request it). LIVINGLIES PROVIDES SUPPORT TO ANY ATTORNEY NEEDING ASSISTANCE IN DRAFTING THE COVER LETTER, AFFIDAVITS AND PROPOSAL. CALL CUSTOMER SUPPORT EAST COAST 954-495-9867 OR CUSTOMER SERVICE WEST COAST 520-405-1688 FOR PRICE QUOTES AND REQUIREMENTS. GGKW PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES ONLY IN FLORIDA.

If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our South Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. In Northern Florida and the Panhandle call 850-765-1236. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services.

SEE ALSO: http://WWW.LIVINGLIES-STORE.COM

The selection of an attorney is an important decision  and should only be made after you have interviewed licensed attorneys familiar with investment banking, securities, property law, consumer law, mortgages, foreclosures, and collection procedures. This site is dedicated to providing those services directly or indirectly through attorneys seeking guidance or assistance in representing consumers and homeowners. We are available TO PROVIDE ACTIVE LITIGATION SUPPORT to any lawyer seeking assistance anywhere in the country, U.S. possessions and territories. Neil Garfield is a licensed member of the Florida Bar and is qualified to appear as an expert witness or litigator in in several states including the district of Columbia. The information on this blog is general information and should NEVER be considered to be advice on one specific case. Consultation with a licensed attorney is required in this highly complex field. Garfield is a partner of Garfield, Gwaltney, Kelley and White

Danielle Kelley, Esq. is a partner in the firm of Garfield, Gwaltney, Kelley and White (GGKW) in Tallahassee, Florida 850-765-1236

Our very own Danielle Kelley was quoted in a Reuters article yesterday that laid out in exquisite detail the endemic practice of lying, layering, laddering and forcing homeowners into foreclosure when a modification was better for both the homeowner and the investor. The article is by Michelle Conlin and Peter Rudegeair, Reuters, News Agency. Article carried in New York Times and other periodicals. Story picked up by several investigative reporters for in depth reports on TV, radio and other news media.

Since BOA might be successful in killing story, we produce most of it here:

The full article can be found at: FORMER BANK OF AMERICA WORKERS ALLEGE IT LIED TO HOMEOWNERS

EDITOR’S NOTE:  As we have been saying for 6 years, sometimes alone in the wilderness, this is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact. The entire securitization scheme was a lie, a Ponzi scheme to steal trillions of dollars from the U.S. Economy, and trillions of dollars from other countries around the world.

In order to make it work, the big banks had to set up an infrastructure in which they would lie, cheat and steal, sending the profits off to other jurisdictions and covering up the crimes by using companies at each layer of the scheme who channeled a large portion of investor funds and most of the recovery from insurance, credit default swaps, and government bailouts away from the investors and away from the borrowers.

The essential capstone of the strategy was the foreclosure sale and the expiration of the right of redemption. Without it, the banks could owe as much as $25 trillion back to insurers, credit default swap counterparties, government agencies, government sponsored entities (Fannie and Freddie) and the investors who provided all the money that was used to create the largest liquidity boom in history. And then there were the extra fees for servicing a loan that was deemed non-performing (even though it was the bank who lied to homeowners telling them to stop paying). So far it has been the perfect crime.

And the underpinning of the strategy was that the banks could control the narrative — that it was about borrowers who were intentionally getting into deals they could not afford — when it was just the opposite, to wit: it was the banks acting through many layers of nominees, conduits and intermediaries whose goal was to rid themselves of the money on deposit from investors (money that should have been entirely into a REMIC trust account and never was). Much of the money successfully stolen was in the form of a second tier yield spread premium that was created in the spread between the loans that were promised to investors and the actual loans made to borrowers.

It was all a lie. The borrowers believed the lender was the lender and that the lender would not assume a high risk on a loan that was doomed to fail. The investors believed that since most of them were managed funds who were required to invest only in triple A rated securities that were insured and guaranteed that industry standard underwriting was under way. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

The Banks were lying and paying for others to lie about the property valuation, the safety of the collateral, the existence of the collateral for investors, and the existence of insurance and hedge products for the investors. They lied to investors, they lied to the press, they lied to the government agencies, they lied to the two presidents that were caught in the web of deceit, and they lied to the secretaries of the treasury.

And now, as predicted the tsunami is going the other way as the truth sloshes over all the lies they told. We start with the story of modification of loans which could have resulted on most of the foreclosed homes being modified. Now we have strong evidence from the actual people who worked for BOA and other large financial institutions that their strategy was to use the promise of modification to lure homeowners into default on loans owned by unidentified parties, and stretch out the time so that the hole dug for the homeowner was too deep to get out of, and eventually put a cap on the well that could spray liability all over the mega banks and end their existence.

PRACTICE HINT: WITHOUT EXPERTS IN E-DISCOVERY, YOU WILL BE UNABLE TO WIN YOUR CASES OR GET ENOUGH TRACTION TO FORCE MODIFICATION ON THE TERMS OFFERED BY THE BORROWER. GGKW, IN WHICH DANIELLE KELLEY IS  PARTNER, IS DEVELOPING RELATIONSHIPS WITH PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND FORENSIC  COMPUTER SPECIALISTS WHO ASSIST US ON MOST OF OUR CASES. WHEN YOUR GOAL IS TO WIN RATHER THAN DELAY, IT COSTS MONEY. ANTI-FORECLOSURE MILLS CHARGING LOW MONTHLY PAYMENTS ARE EFFECTIVE AT DELAYING THE FORECLOSURE BUT USUALLY INEFFECTIVE AT STOPPING IT OR EVEN WINNING THE CASE. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

 FOLLOW DANIELLE KELLEY, ESQ. ON HER BLOG

Significant quotes from Reuters article:

Borrowers filed the civil case against Bank of America in 2010 and are now seeking class certification. The affidavits, dated June 7, are the latest accusations over the mishandling of mortgage modifications by some top U.S. banks.

Six former Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) employees have alleged that the bank deliberately denied eligible home owners loan modifications and lied to them about the status of their mortgage payments and documents.

The bank allegedly used these tactics to shepherd homeowners into foreclosure, as well as in-house loan modifications. Both yielded the bank more profits than the government-sponsored Home Affordable Modification Program, according to documents recently filed as part of a lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court.

The former employees, who worked at Bank of America centers throughout the United States, said the bank rewarded customer service representatives who foreclosed on homes with cash bonuses and gift cards to retail stores such as Target Corp (TGT.N) and Bed Bath & Beyond Inc (BBBY.O).

For example, an employee who placed 10 or more accounts into foreclosure a month could get a $500 bonus. At the same time, the bank punished those who did not make the numbers or objected to its tactics with discipline, including firing.

About twice a month, the bank cleaned out its HAMP backlog in an operation called “blitz,” where it declined thousands of loan modification requests just because the documents were more than 60 months old, the court documents say.

The testimony from the former employees also alleges the bank falsified information it gave the government, saying it had given out HAMP loan modifications when it had not.

Mortgage problems have dogged Bank of America since its disastrous purchase of Countrywide Financial in 2008. The bank paid $42 billion to settle credit crisis and mortgage-related litigation between 2010 and 2012, according to SNL Financial.

Bank of America and four other banks reached a $25 billion landmark settlement with regulators in 2012, following a scandal in late 2010 when it was revealed employees “robo signed” documents without verifying them as is required by law.

But problems have persisted. Since 2012, more than 18,000 homeowners have filed complaints about Bank of America with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a new agency created to help protect consumers. Recently, the attorney generals of New York and Florida accused Bank of America of violating the terms of last year’s settlement.

The government created HAMP in 2009 in response to the foreclosure epidemic and to encourage banks to give homeowners loan modifications, allowing some borrowers to stay in their homes.

THE BLITZ

The court documents paint a picture of customer service operations where managers roamed the floor with headsets, able to listen into any call without warning. Service representatives were told to lie to homeowners, telling them their paperwork and payments had not been received, when in reality they had.

“This is exactly what’s been happening to homeowners for years,” said Danielle Kelley, a foreclosure defense lawyer in Florida. “No matter how many times they send in their paperwork, or how often they make their payments, they simply can’t get loan modifications. They wind up in foreclosure instead.”

The former employees said they were told to falsify electronic records and string homeowners along in foreclosure as long as possible. The problem was exacerbated because the bank did not have enough employees handling modifications, adding to the backlog of cases purged during the “blitz” operations.

 

 

243 Responses

  1. Mafia hitman explains how massive amounts of real estate was plundered through HUD foreclosures:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Bs2b

    Above video was posted in this page:

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/12/illuminati-council-of-13-human-sacrifice-denver-colorado/

  2. Appreciate that, Deborah

  3. THE TARP BONUS FOR OUR ROBBERY APPARENTLY PAYS OUT IN TARGET GIFT CARDS IN STORE CREDITS FROM THE CORPORATE CROOKS!

  4. But fugghetabout all the Securities Fraud committed by these imposters says the Chicago City Council…..PLASTIC BAGS ARE THE REAL KILLER!

  5. G-8 leaders say Corporate tax loopholes must be closed reports Fox news.

    Likely because the peasants are calling for refunds and all of their corporate heads on a silver platter.

  6. The paper has no staple marks either. It is pretty incriminating evidence that foreclosure is a big fat scam.

  7. Ian ….. it is a piece of paper that says CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST at the top. It does not say it is a deed and has no accompanying paperwork. It has a property description on it and there is an error in the mortgage document number, the number differs from what is recorded on the public record. In the fc complaint they explained that away as a scrivener’s error and said they were intending to encumber the property. Well that’s a bold faced lie because a scrivener’s error is an error in the script, not the numbers. They also forged our initials because the initials are different than the copy I have from the closing.

  8. lordy poppy-im sorry
    I was all fired up at stuff I discovered in my file I could not see straight, truth- I cant – see straight. sorry its become hostile on here, don’t want to be hostile, no sir. actuslly some great stuff on this thread it has been useful to me regarding the !099a the hsbc claims and the info I seek under FOIA. re the disposition of “certain assets” FDIC transferred.

  9. stripes- if a copy of a page with a property description is not a grant deed (non judicial) or a title (judicial) , then follow up on the statement a d tell us all what each looks like.

  10. They were told by the “free nihilist/attorney” if I were you I would just walk away…..

    My sister is now starting to see what I have been telling her all along, the corruption is everywhere. She lives in (go jump in a) Lake County, Illinois. The judge railroaded them out of their house with no due process. They were sent right to the title company to sign of on their property! Nihilist communist criminal bastards!

  11. They also went to a “free attorney” who told them….your done ….you have about 6 mos. to get out…..MMWAHAHA!

  12. My brother in law went to go see an attorney recently about fighting his eviction and possibly getting a loan mod or write down. The Attorney was rude and told him you cannot possibly qualify and you have been living in _your house_ for “free” for 4 and a half years so you should consider it like you won. MWAHAHA right? My sister & her husband were fraudclosed with no due process in a so called judicial state. That is criminal.

  13. Yahoo….it’s a party in the U.S.A…!

  14. Therefore we are the beneficiaries and they owe us every payment plus clear title…!

  15. The Issuer converted our Securities without our knowledge or consent…..no legal authority. That is criminal.

  16. The mortgage says you are acting as nominee and beneficiary for the lender.. right? Nominee for Who? and You are only beneficiary for the lender should the lender take a loss… right? If the lender does not take a loss and the note has been paid …. who is the beneficiary? If the lender didn’t take a loss… he don’t need a beneficiary, right? So basically if the lender does not take a loss.. the lender has no beneficiary. So the nominee is instructed by the principal to do what exactly … mirror mirror on the wall …

  17. When signing as an agent in any capacity, you have to state your signing capacity, your position as acting agent and for whom you are acting. I ask you again Mers secretary/vp what knott whoo who … finish what you started. *grins*

  18. You can not give it till .. well.. you got it. And when you got it …..you can give it, should you choose to do so… well … you know…. That Signature of the Seller.

    Ut Oh ……

  19. The beneficiary? Oh … and that would be?

    Conversation never happened….

  20. WHOOP THERE IT IS……NIHILIST COMMUNISM (MONSIEUR DUPONT):
    http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/monsieur-dupont-nihilist-communism

  21. Dear Mers VP .. Who authorized you to sign that? Who? Who? Who? The question falls of deaf ears…. Dead Silence.

  22. JG…. You are Hot! Hot! Hot!

  23. Obama and all these rat politicians promoting this HOPE & CHANGE Agenda are NIHILISTS….

  24. NIHILISM FROM WIKIPEDIA ……
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

  25. HOPE & CHANGE IS THE POLITICALLY CORRECT DESCRIPTION OF NIHILISM…..!

  26. To anyone who has lost his home, who was shown as the seller on the re-sale? To anyone who did a ‘short sale’, who was shown as the seller? Who signed off on the short sale agreement for the creditor?

  27. A COPY OF A PAGE WITH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT THE GRANT DEED….IS NOT THE LEGAL ASSIGNMENT ….AND CONVEYS NOTHING……IT IS EVIDENCE OF CONCEALMENT A FELONY…..THAT IS CRIMINAL FRAUD….!

  28. I think KC is saying that I just proved my point. Nothing these people have done or are doing is legal. These people are no more than nihilist imposters to our Constitutional Republic. Their goal is to steal everything from us under a false doctrine. Their communist manifesto. That is how they intend to install their totalitarian dictatorship by “moving forward” and erasing all of their felonies….OH HELL NO THEIR NOT! The rule of law says that is destruction of evidence & concealment of crimes.

    THEY ARE BY LAW, REQUIRED TO RECORD THE LEGAL ASSIGNMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE TRANSFER IN ILLINOIS……THE ILLINOIS LAW OF CONVEYANCES REQUIRES THE LIEN ON PROPERTY BE PERFECTED BY RECORDING THE LEGAL ASSIGNMENT IN SAID COUNTY WHERE REAL ESTATE IS SITUATED…….90 DAYS TOPS SAYS THE TRUST LAWS OF THIS LAND.

  29. May the Wind Fly Beneath Your Wings. Many Blessings To All.

    And to All …

    The End

  30. Deceptive & Nihilistic right?

    NIHILSTIC …….DEFINITION……..(b.) A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and nothing can be know or communicated.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nihilistic

  31. There is no info…..! MWAHAHA!

  32. Check out what these crooks are doing now…. http://www.ccrd.info/

  33. I’m not joining these crooks, these spawns of Satan. I want out of their evil matrix.

  34. The GRANT DEED is the LEGAL ASSIGNMENT!

    Went to the Cook Country Recorder of Deeds website today……they changed the entire format and are concealing our titles to our properties! Time to raise some hell! Go to the recorder of deeds office and tell them you want copies of all of the assignments….!

  35. If you don’t join them … its kinda like beating yourself up. Oh.. I said that already. Silly Me …

  36. You can not beat them .. You must join them.

  37. You been cheated, so mistreated …. when will you be free?

    Please release Me… Let me gO! Set Me Free!

  38. And to follow on JG… Under the terms of the note when the full principal is paid in full …. the beneficiary is who? I Love that Fathers Day T-Shirt! And I tell my nominee what to do, …not the other way around. Its like talking to yourself. I do it all the time …:)

  39. “In addition, we guarantee the full and final payment of the unpaid principal balance of the certiificates on the distribution date in the month of the maturity date specified in the prospectus supplement for the certificates.”

    Is the maturity date, the day the certificates will receive their “full and final payment of the unpaid principal balance” different from that of the
    last payment due dates on the notes? Anyone? Neil?

  40. Glad to hear that, wouldn’t want you to faint…lot of energy on comments to someone else…amazing fighting in the courts with bad guys and worry about “petty” opinions. Jeez!

  41. Forget it poppy
    Or look back at your comment.
    Immover it

  42. Deborah-

    “so poppy what is that for? Becausr you think you know me”.

    Are you now, christine? I don’t get your comment, really? And why would I need to know you? My interest here, is to try and pass information. It seems like everyone here, including myself is treading water. Personal digs, the point? christine does a great deal of that and she is wrong, for doing so…

    You know, I really struggle with some of this. I don’t recollect speaking to you. Cannot fathom all the “instigating’ non-productive.

  43. Each has an agenda no one bloggs for no reason some agendas are for good cause some may not even be aware of their agendas. No one exerts energy doing this for no reason. I know my reasons im vety clear and its not to belittle to disregard to be smarter or right, I think we try to offer something to encourage/ bring snide is unprevoked – so poppy what is that for? Becausr you think you know me.

  44. Sure, well deserved…far too many instances of hurting peoples feelings, with no regard. Could have been worse. Lot of bravery, hiding behind the Internet!

  45. Poppy-
    Snide arnt you.

  46. Aside from this conversation, but goes to another power grab and abuse of power….

    Snowden added that he’s become disillusioned with the public debate over his leak:

    “Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicion-less surveillance in human history.”

  47. What these crooks are doing is stealing our due process laws and giving them legal sounding names like “deed of trust” or “judicial notice.” These are not laws, these are acts of judicial supremacy…

    Non-judicial foreclosures are illegal and criminal. Railroading the American people out of their properties under the guise of judicial foreclosure is also illegal and criminal.

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

  48. Well, thanks Enraged for bringing that to my attention. Coming from you, I’ll take it as a compliment. You are an All-Star…without you, we would all be losing in courts, life and liberty. Thanks karate kid!

  49. The U.S. CONSTITUTION is the Supreme Law of this land…the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, which found its genesis in Section 39 of the Magna Carta, which declared that no land would be taken without some form of due process: “No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised (deprived of land), or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

  50. Hate to say Poppy but… you’ve got problems! Besides being a chronic chamber pot but that comes with the territory.

  51. It’s about human rights? Well not here in America Deborah. In America we have Legal rights that protect our HUMAN RIGHTS….OUR Life, Liberty and Property called the U.S. CONSTITUTION/U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS.

    I am not here to have a pissing match with communists like Christine, you or anybody about the U.S. CONSTITUTION. I am here to speak the truth.

    All anyone needs to do is read that document….THE U.S. CONSTITUTION/BILL OF RIGHTS and they will know nothing these crooks have done or are doing was or is legal and they are all imposters to our Constitutional Republic.

  52. And for tbe record after tranching it for 4 years sttipes i dont know what to believe but ill tell you one thing – Case law. Got case law. And im not an attorney.

  53. Stripes the constitution the constitution- its from the magna carta. One and the same. Its about human rights not christine v stripes. fTL

  54. Had my dealings with christine, ironically that’s my real name, EEEK.
    That’s Enraged, prior life here.

    Have a friend that comes from CA that knows her, personally, from some other legal endeavors. My mother once told me: “if you have nothing good to say about someone, say nothing at all”. Good Advice!

  55. The Chinese are buying up properties like candy in CA, cash…that’s a fact. Anyone gander a guess why? masterservicer is right, whether or not you like him.

    They took the oil in the 70′s
    took the energy in the 80′s
    took the farms in the 90′s
    and take the homes starting in 2000

    This grab is real and complete control is imminent.

  56. I agree Poppy, there is alot of deception here. The truth is simple though, I had no knowledge they were using my autograph as a pawn in their lying fraud games. Now that I know this, the law says I am well within my legal rights to demand they return what they stole and hijacked from me plus monetary damages. I refuse to aid and abet these felons. As to proper pleadings, I am well within my legal rights to tell the courts upon discovery of the fraud, I want out of this scam.

    Christine is just a liar Deborah and a Khazar communist crook. I feel sorry for anyone who believes that demon or any of these demons who are camping out in America and are using and abusing our Constitutional rights for their own nefarious purposes.

  57. Fringe type stuff neidermeyer? I am not naive and I realize the serpent moves more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God has made.

    Not surprising christine left out the big players, Russia, China and all the rest of their comrades in this scam hiding in all the so called governments of the world. Europe, Israel and the Vatican, Canada, Mexico, South America South Africa, India, the Saudis were all in on the biggest financial and military scam in history to steal everything from us and she is blaming the U.S. & the U.K.

    It is the Khazar commies AKA THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN hiding in all nations. They are the spies of the world. They are the eye of Satan and the creators of and the investors in this global scam to steal all of our wealth and freedoms.

    They will never reveal who they are or what they want is to steal everything from us and make us their slaves for eternity.

    They caused the global financial conditions so they could install their global totalitarian dictatorship here in America with OBAMACARE and the microchip.

    What more could ws expect from the crooks who robbed us than for them to blame their victims? They always do.

    Do your own research, the facts don’t lie.

    They are the shadow government, the shadow bank and they are also the imposters hiding in plain sight.

  58. stripes, Proper pleadings? I don’t really know anymore. One thing I do know, the inner sanctum of the banks workings, the judges do not listen too. Particularly in the administrative courts. They can’t, if they say they can, they are lying…

    But, lies are the new truths…everyone in the free world knows the gig and is making money off it. As I pointed out earlier, a house purchase in SC by the bankruptcy court…$9,500 fee for paperwork. Like you, I think it is my job to tell the world, how deep this goes and getting worse by the day. And it is out in the open, for all to see and most people are okay with it, as long as they get theirs in the process.

  59. Please christine
    Im a brit by birth/ geography- all down to A wise man once told me i relate not to gov / bankings interference here or back ” home”. That is what irritates me, the them n us mentality is snobbery period, im not saying fir a second i have any answers but im fighting my corner to right a wrong towards me and what i stand for and if others grew a backbone we might not be so oppressed
    This may sound spacy folks but its about freedom and a humans relentless chasing of that concept to be everything god intended us to be – and that “is the question”. Shakespeare was cool. No offence here, i have right to be here on us soil and protected by the laws of this land which appear to be another umm- reality check. Peace.

  60. Neidermeyer,

    E. ToLLe has been claiming it for over a year now. And the interesting thing is that it all started when Garfield went on TV, as though once he became somewhat more visible, he had to be destroyed. On the other hand, he could have stopped it. Somehow, it goes toward his interest…

  61. Off topic to a point… considering that UK and US have been
    partners in crime in pretty much every bank scandal to date. And you thought you had gained independence from the UK? Think again.

    Sorry Deb. A lot of what we are reading nowadays starts making a lot of sense…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/16/uk-spies-hacked-diplomats-phones-emails_n_3451680.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D330335

    UK Spies Hacked Diplomats’ Phones, Emails, Guardian Report Claims

    By RAPHAEL SATTER 06/16/13 09:12 PM ET EDT AP

    “It wasn’t completely clear how Snowden would have had access to the British intelligence documents, although in one article the Guardian mentions that source material was drawn from a top-secret internal network shared by GCHQ and the NSA. Aldrich said he wouldn’t be surprised if the GCHQ material came from a shared network accessed by Snowden, explaining that the NSA and GCHQ collaborated so closely that in some areas the two agencies effectively operated as one.”

  62. @UKG ,

    Gotta agree with you , it certainly looks like an attempt to influence Google analytics , make the site look like fringe kook paranoia type stuff ,, just did a “word cloud” and it isn’t pretty..

  63. Following one of KC’s bread crumbs . . .

    (15) The term “Commission” means the Securities and Exchange Commission established by section 78d of this title.
    ~~~~
    (4) Broker.—
    (A) In general.— The term “broker” means any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others.
    (B) Exception for certain bank activities.— A bank shall not be considered to be a broker because the bank engages in any one or more of the following activities under the conditions described:
    (ii) Trust activities.— The bank effects transactions in a trustee capacity, or effects transactions in a fiduciary capacity in its trust department or other department that is regularly examined by bank examiners for compliance with fiduciary principles and standards, and—
    (viii) Safekeeping and custody activities.—
    (I) In general.— The bank, as part of customary banking activities—
    (aa) provides safekeeping or custody services with respect to securities, including the exercise of warrants and other rights on behalf of customers;
    (bb) facilitates the transfer of funds or securities, as a custodian or a clearing agency, in connection with the clearance and settlement of its customers’ transactions in securities;
    ~~~~
    (D) Fiduciary capacity.— For purposes of subparagraph (B)(ii), the term “fiduciary capacity” means—
    (i) in the capacity as trustee, executor, administrator, registrar of stocks and bonds, transfer agent, guardian, assignee, receiver, or custodian under a uniform gift to minor act, or as an investment adviser if the bank receives a fee for its investment advice;
    (ii) in any capacity in which the bank possesses investment discretion on behalf of another; or
    (iii) in any other similar capacity.
    ~~~~
    (6) The term “bank” means
    (A) a banking institution organized under the laws of the United States or a Federal savings association, as defined in section 1462 (5) of title 12,
    ~~~~
    (8) The term “issuer” means any person who issues or proposes to issue any security . . .
    ~~~~
    (9) The term “person” means a natural person, company, government, or political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of a government.
    ~~~~
    (10) The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security,
    certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities . . .; but shall not
    include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker’s acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal
    thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited.
    ~~~~~
    (12) (A) The term “exempted security” or “exempted securities” includes—
    (iii) any interest or participation in any common trust fund or similar fund that is excluded from the definition of the term “investment company” under section 3(c)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a–3 (c)(3)];
    (iv) any interest or participation in a single trust fund, or a collective trust fund maintained by a bank, or any security arising out of a contract issued by an insurance company, which interest, participation, or security is issued in connection with a qualified
    plan as defined in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph;
    (v) any security issued by or any interest or participation in any pooled income fund, collective trust fund, collective investment fund, or similar fund that is excluded from the definition of an investment company under section 3(c)(10)(B) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a–3 (c)(10)(B)];
    ~~~~
    (18) The term “person associated with a broker or dealer” or “associated person of a broker or dealer” means any partner, officer, director, or branch manager of such broker or dealer (or any
    person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions), any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such broker or dealer, or any employee
    of such broker or dealer, except that any person associated with a broker or dealer whose functions are solely clerical or ministerial shall not be included in the meaning of such term for purposes of
    section 78o (b) of this title (other than paragraph (6) thereof).
    ~~~~
    (21) The term “person associated with a member” or “associated person of a member” when used with respect to a member of a national securities exchange or registered securities association
    means any partner, officer, director, or branch manager of such member (or any person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions), any person directly or indirectly controlling,
    controlled by, or under common control with such member, or any employee of such member.
    ~~~~
    (excerpts & link below)

    US Code
    TITLE 15 – COMMERCE AND TRADE
    CHAPTER 2B – SECURITIES EXCHANGES
    § 78c. Definitions and application
    (a) Definitions
    When used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires—

    (1) The term “exchange” means any organization, association, or group of persons, whether incorporated or unincorporated, which constitutes, maintains, or provides a market place or facilities for bringing together purchasers and sellers of securities or for otherwise performing with respect to securities the functions commonly performed by a stock exchange as that term is
    generally understood, and includes the market place and the market facilities maintained by such exchange.

    (2) The term “facility” when used with respect to an exchange includes its premises, tangible or intangible property whether on the premises or not, any right to the use of such premises or property
    or any service thereof for the purpose of effecting or reporting a transaction on an exchange (including, among other things, any system of communication to or from the exchange, by ticker or otherwise, maintained by or with the consent of the exchange), and any right of the exchange to the use of any property or service.

    (3) (A) The term “member” when used with respect to a national securities exchange means:

    (i) any natural person permitted to effect transactions on the floor of the exchange without the services of another person acting as broker,

    (ii) any registered broker or dealer with which such a natural person is associated,

    (iii) any registered broker or dealer permitted to designate as a representative such a natural person, and

    (iv) any other registered broker or dealer which agrees to be regulated by such exchange and with respect to which the exchange undertakes to enforce compliance with the provisions of this chapter, the rules and regulations thereunder, and its own rules.

    For purposes of sections 78f (b)(1), 78f (b)(4), 78f (b)(6), 78f (b)(7), 78f (d), 78q (d), 78s (d), 78s (e), 78s (g), 78s (h), and 78u of this title, the term “member” when used with respect to a national securities exchange also means, to the extent of the rules of the exchange specified by the Commission, any person required by the Commission to comply with such rules pursuant to section 78f (f) of this title.

    (B) The term “member” when used with respect to a registered securities association means any broker or dealer who agrees to be regulated by such association and with respect to whom the association undertakes to enforce compliance with the provisions of this chapter, the rules and regulations thereunder, and its own rules.

    (4) Broker.—

    (A) In general.— The term “broker” means any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others.

    (B) Exception for certain bank activities.— A bank shall not be considered to be a broker because the bank engages in any one or more of the following activities under the conditions described:

    (i) Third party brokerage arrangements.— The bank enters into a contractual or other written arrangement with a broker or dealer registered under this chapter under which the broker or dealer offers brokerage services on or off the premises of the bank if—

    (I) such broker or dealer is clearly identified as the person performing the brokerage services;

    (II) the broker or dealer performs brokerage services in an area that is clearly marked and, to the extent practicable, physically separate from the routine deposit-taking activities of the bank;

    (III) any materials used by the bank to advertise or promote generally the availability of brokerage services under the arrangement clearly indicate that the brokerage services are being provided by the broker or dealer and not by the bank;

    (IV) any materials used by the bank to advertise or promote generally the availability of brokerage services under the arrangement are in compliance with the Federal securities laws before distribution;

    (V) bank employees (other than associated persons of a broker or dealer who are qualified pursuant to the rules of a self-regulatory organization) perform only clerical or ministerial functions in connection with brokerage transactions including scheduling appointments with the associated persons of a broker or dealer, except that bank employees may forward customer funds or securities and may describe in general terms the types of investment vehicles available from the bank and the broker or dealer under the arrangement;

    (VI) bank employees do not receive incentive compensation for any brokerage transaction unless such employees are associated persons of a broker or dealer and are qualified pursuant to the rules of a self-regulatory organization, except that the bank employees may receive compensation for the referral of any customer if the
    compensation is a nominal one-time cash fee of a fixed dollar amount and the payment of the fee is not contingent on whether the referral results in a transaction;

    (VII) such services are provided by the broker or dealer on a basis in which all customers that receive any services are fully disclosed to the broker or dealer;

    (VIII) the bank does not carry a securities account of the customer except as permitted under clause (ii) or (viii) of this subparagraph; and

    (IX) the bank, broker, or dealer informs each customer that the brokerage services are provided by the broker or dealer and not by the bank and that the securities are not deposits or other obligations of the bank, by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

    (ii) Trust activities.— The bank effects transactions in a trustee capacity, or effects transactions in a fiduciary capacity in its trust department or other department that is regularly examined by bank examiners for compliance with fiduciary principles and standards, and—

    (I) is chiefly compensated for such transactions, consistent with fiduciary principles and standards, on the basis of an administration or annual fee (payable on a monthly, quarterly, or other basis), a percentage of assets under management, or a flat or capped per order processing fee equal to not more than the cost incurred by the
    bank in connection with executing securities transactions for trustee and fiduciary customers, or any combination of such fees; and

    (II) does not publicly solicit brokerage business, other than by advertising that it effects transactions in securities in conjunction with advertising its other trust activities.

    (iii) Permissible securities transactions.— The bank effects transactions in—

    (I) commercial paper, bankers acceptances, or commercial bills;

    (II) exempted securities;

    (III) qualified Canadian government obligations as defined in section 24 of title 12, in conformity with section 78o–5 of this title and the rules and regulations thereunder, or obligations of the North American Development Bank

    (IV) any standardized, credit enhanced debt security issued by a foreign government pursuant to the March 1989 plan of then Secretary of the Treasury Brady, used by such foreign government to retire outstanding commercial bank loans.

    (iv) Certain stock purchase plans.—

    (I) Employee benefit plans.— The bank effects transactions, as part of its transfer agency activities, in the securities of an issuer as part of any pension, retirement, profit-sharing, bonus, thrift, savings, incentive, or other similar benefit plan for the employees of that issuer or its affiliates (as defined in section 1841 of title 12), if the
    bank does not solicit transactions or provide investment advice with respect to the purchase or sale of securities in connection with the plan.

    (II) Dividend reinvestment plans.— The bank effects transactions, as part of its transfer agency activities, in the securities of an issuer as part of that issuer’s dividend reinvestment plan, if—

    (aa) the bank does not solicit transactions or provide investment advice with respect to the purchase or sale of securities in connection with the plan; and

    (bb) the bank does not net shareholders’ buy and sell orders, other than for programs for odd-lot holders or plans registered with the Commission.

    (III) Issuer plans.— The bank effects transactions, as part of its transfer agency activities, in the securities of an issuer as part of a plan or program for the purchase or sale of that issuer’s shares, if—

    (aa) the bank does not solicit transactions or provide investment advice with respect to the purchase or sale of securities in connection with the plan or program; and

    (bb) the bank does not net shareholders’ buy and sell orders, other than for programs for odd-lot holders or plans registered with the Commission.

    (IV) Permissible delivery of materials.— The exception to being considered a broker for a bank engaged in activities described in subclauses (I), (II), and (III) will not be affected by delivery of written or electronic plan materials by a bank to employees of the issuer, shareholders of the issuer, or members of affinity groups of the issuer, so long as such materials are—

    (aa) comparable in scope or nature to that permitted by the Commission as of November 12, 1999; or

    (bb) otherwise permitted by the Commission.

    (v) Sweep accounts.— The bank effects transactions as part of a program for the investment or reinvestment of deposit funds into any no-load, open-end management investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C.
    80a–1 et seq.] that holds itself out as a money market fund.

    (vi) Affiliate transactions.— The bank effects transactions for the account of any affiliate of the bank (as defined in section 1841 of title 12) other than—

    (I) a registered broker or dealer; or

    (II) an affiliate that is engaged in merchant banking, as described in section 1843 (k)(4)(H) of title 12.

    (vii) Private securities offerings.— The bank—

    (I) effects sales as part of a primary offering of securities not involving a public offering, pursuant to section 3(b), 4(2), or 4(5) of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77c (b), 77d (2), 77d (5)] or the rules and regulations issued thereunder;

    (II) at any time after the date that is 1 year after November 12, 1999, is not affiliated with a broker or dealer that has been registered for more than 1 year in accordance with this chapter, and engages in dealing, market making, or underwriting activities, other than with respect to exempted securities; and

    (III) if the bank is not affiliated with a broker or dealer, does not effect any primary offering described in subclause (I) the aggregate amount of which exceeds 25 percent of the capital of the bank, except that the limitation of this subclause shall not apply with respect to any sale of government securities or municipal securities.

    (viii) Safekeeping and custody activities.—

    (I) In general.— The bank, as part of customary banking activities—

    (aa) provides safekeeping or custody services with respect to securities, including the exercise of warrants and other rights on behalf of customers;

    (bb) facilitates the transfer of funds or securities, as a custodian or a clearing agency, in connection with the clearance and settlement of its customers’ transactions in securities;

    (cc) effects securities lending or borrowing transactions with or on behalf of customers as part of services provided to customers pursuant to division (aa) or (bb) or invests cash collateral pledged in connection with such transactions;

    (dd) holds securities pledged by a customer to another person or securities subject to purchase or resale agreements involving a customer, or facilitates the pledging or transfer of such securities by book entry or as otherwise provided under applicable law, if the bank maintains records separately identifying the securities and the customer; or

    (ee) serves as a custodian or provider of other related administrative services to any individual retirement account, pension, retirement, profit sharing, bonus, thrift savings, incentive, or other similar benefit plan.

    (II) Exception for carrying broker activities.— The exception to being
    considered a broker for a bank engaged in activities described in subclause (I) shall not apply if the bank, in connection with such activities, acts in the United States as a carrying broker (as such term, and different formulations thereof, are used in section 78o (c)(3) of this title and the rules and regulations thereunder) for any
    broker or dealer, unless such carrying broker activities are engaged in with respect to government securities (as defined in paragraph (42) of this subsection).

    (ix) Identified banking products.— The bank effects transactions in identified banking products as defined in section 206 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

    (x) Municipal securities.— The bank effects transactions in municipal securities.

    (xi) De minimis exception.— The bank effects, other than in transactions referred to in clauses (i) through (x), not more than 500 transactions in securities in any calendar year, and such transactions are not effected by an employee of the bank who is also an employee of a broker or dealer.

    (C) Execution by broker or dealer.— The exception to being considered a broker for a bank engaged in activities described in clauses (ii), (iv), and (viii) of subparagraph (B) shall not apply if the activities described in such provisions result in the trade in the United States of any security that is a publicly traded security in the United States, unless—

    (i) the bank directs such trade to a registered broker or dealer for execution;

    (ii) the trade is a cross trade or other substantially similar trade of a security that—

    (I) is made by the bank or between the bank and an affiliated fiduciary; and

    (II) is not in contravention of fiduciary principles established under applicable Federal or State law; or

    (iii) the trade is conducted in some other manner permitted under rules, regulations, or orders as the Commission may prescribe or issue.

    (D) Fiduciary capacity.— For purposes of subparagraph (B)(ii), the term “fiduciary capacity” means—

    (i) in the capacity as trustee, executor, administrator, registrar of stocks and bonds, transfer agent, guardian, assignee, receiver, or custodian under a uniform gift to minor act, or as an investment adviser if the bank receives a fee for its investment advice;

    (ii) in any capacity in which the bank possesses investment discretion on behalf of another; or

    (iii) in any other similar capacity.

    (E) Exception for entities subject to section 78o (e). —The term “broker” does not include a bank that—

    (i) was, on the day before November 12, 1999, subject to section 78o (e) of this title; and

    (ii) is subject to such restrictions and requirements as the Commission considers appropriate.

    (F) Joint rulemaking required.— The Commission and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall jointly adopt a single set of rules or regulations to implement the exceptions in subparagraph (B).

    (5) Dealer.—

    (A) In general.— The term “dealer” means any person engaged in the business of buying and selling securities (not including security-based swaps, other than security-based swaps with or for persons that are not eligible contract participants) for such person’s own account through a broker or otherwise.

    (C) Exception for certain bank activities.— A bank shall not be considered to be a dealer because the bank engages in any of the following activities under the conditions described:

    (iii) Asset-backed transactions.— The bank engages in the issuance or sale to qualified investors, through a grantor trust or other separate entity, of securities backed by or representing an interest in notes, drafts, acceptances, loans, leases, receivables, other obligations (other than securities of which the bank is not the issuer), or pools of any such obligations predominantly originated by—

    (I) the bank;

    (II) an affiliate of any such bank other than a broker or dealer; or

    (III) a syndicate of banks of which the bank is a member, if the obligations or pool of obligations consists of mortgage obligations or consumer-related receivables.

    (6) The term “bank” means

    (A) a banking institution organized under the laws of the United States or a Federal savings association, as defined in section 1462 (5) of title 12,

    (B) a member bank of the Federal Reserve System,

    (C) any other banking institution or savings association, as defined in section 1462 (4) of title 12, whether incorporated or not, doing business under the laws of any State or of the United States, a substantial portion of the business of which consists of receiving deposits or exercising fiduciary powers similar to those permitted to national banks under the authority of the Comptroller of the Currency pursuant to section 92a of title 12, and which is supervised and examined by State or Federal authority having supervision over banks or savings associations, and which is not operated for the purpose of evading the provisions of this chapter, and

    (D) a receiver, conservator, or other liquidating agent of any institution or firm included in clauses (A), (B), or (C) of this paragraph

    (8) The term “issuer” means any person who issues or proposes to issue any security; except that with respect to certificates of deposit for securities, voting-trust certificates, or collateral-trust certificates, or with respect to certificates of interest or shares in an unincorporated investment trust not having a board of directors or of the fixed, restricted management, or unit type, the term “issuer” means the person or persons performing the acts and assuming the duties of depositor or manager pursuant to the provisions of the trust or other agreement or instrument under which such securities are issued; and except that with respect to equipment-trust certificates or like securities, the term “issuer” means the person by whom the equipment or property is, or is to be, used.

    (9) The term “person” means a natural person, company, government, or political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of a government.

    (10) The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security,
    certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or in general, any instrument commonly known as a “security”; or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker’s acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited.

    (11) The term “equity security” means any stock or similar security; or any security future on any such security; or any security convertible, with or without consideration, into such a security, or
    carrying any warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase such a security; or any such warrant or right; or any other security which the Commission shall deem to be of similar nature and consider
    necessary or appropriate, by such rules and regulations as it may prescribe in the public interest or for the protection of investors, to treat as an equity security

    (12) (A) The term “exempted security” or “exempted securities” includes—

    (v) any security issued by or any interest or participation in any pooled income fund, collective trust fund, collective investment fund, or similar fund that is excluded from the definition of an investment company under section 3(c)(10)(B) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a–3 (c)(10)(B)];

    (15) The term “Commission” means the Securities and Exchange Commission established by section 78d of this title.

    (19) The terms “investment company”, “affiliated person”, “insurance company”, “separate account”, and “company” have the same meanings as in the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a–1 et seq.].

    (37) The term “records” means accounts, correspondence, memorandums, tapes, discs, papers, books, and other documents or transcribed information of any type, whether expressed in ordinary or machine language.

    (40) The term “financial responsibility rules” means the rules and regulations of the Commission or the rules and regulations prescribed by any self-regulatory organization relating to financial
    responsibility and related practices which are designated by the Commission, by rule or regulation, to be financial responsibility rules.

    (41) The term “mortgage related security” means a security that is rated in one of the two highest rating categories by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization, and either:
    (A) represents ownership of one or more promissory notes or certificates of interest or participation in such notes (including any rights designed to assure servicing of, or the receipt or timeliness of receipt by the holders of such notes, certificates, or participations of amounts payable under, such notes, certificates, or participations), which notes:

    (i) are directly secured by a first lien on a single parcel of real estate, including stock allocated to a dwelling unit in a residential cooperative housing corporation, upon which is located a dwelling or mixed residential and commercial structure, on a residential manufactured home as defined in section 5402 (6) of title 42, whether such manufactured home is considered real or personal property under the laws of the State in which it is to be located, or on one or more parcels of real estate upon which is located one or more
    commercial structures; and

    (ii) were originated by a savings and loan association, savings bank, commercial bank, credit union, insurance company, or similar institution which is supervised and examined by a Federal or State authority, or by a mortgagee approved by the Secretary of Housing
    and Urban Development pursuant to sections 1709 and 1715b of title 12, or, where such notes involve a lien on the manufactured home, by any such institution or by any financial institution approved for insurance by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to section 1703 of title 12; or

    (B) is secured by one or more promissory notes or certificates of interest or participations in such notes (with or without recourse to the issuer thereof) and, by its terms, provides for payments of principal in relation to payments, or reasonable projections of payments, on notes meeting the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (ii) or certificates of interest or participations in promissory notes meeting such requirements.

    (46) The term “financial institution” means—

    (A) a bank (as defined in paragraph (6) of this subsection);

    (B) a foreign bank (as such term is used in the International Banking Act of 1978); and

    (C) a savings association (as defined in section 3(b) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act [12 U.S.C. 1813 (b)]) the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    (47) The term “securities laws” means the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 [15 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.], the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. 77aaa et seq.), the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–1 et seq.), the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b et seq.) [15 U.S.C. 80b–1 et seq.], and the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (15 USC 78aaa et seq.).

    State Opt Out
    Pub. L. 103–325, title III, § 347(e), Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2241, provided that: “Notwithstanding the amendments
    made by this section [amending this section and section 24 of Title 12, Banks and Banking], a note that is directly
    secured by a first lien on one or more parcels of real estate upon which is located one or more commercial structures
    shall not be considered to be a mortgage related security under section 3(a)(41) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
    [15 U.S.C. 78c (a)(41)] in any State that, prior to the expiration of 7 years after the date of enactment of this Act [Sept.
    23, 1994], enacts a statute that specifically refers to this section and either prohibits or provides for a more limited
    authority to purchase, hold, or invest in such securities by any person, trust, corporation, partnership, association,
    business trust, or business entity or class thereof than is provided by the amendments made by this subsection. The
    enactment by any State of any statute of the type described in the preceding sentence shall not affect the validity of
    any contractual commitment to purchase, hold, or invest that was made prior thereto, and shall not require the sale or
    other disposition of any securities acquired prior thereto.”

    Definitions
    Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(5) [title III, § 301(b)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–451, provided that:
    “As used in the amendment made by subsection (a) [enacting sections 206A to 206C of Pub. L. 106—102, set out below], the term ‘security’ has the same meaning as in section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77b (a)(1)] or section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78c (a)(10)].”

    Pub. L. 106–102, title II, § 206, Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1393, as amended by Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, § 742(b),
    July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1733, provided that:

    “(a) Definition of Identified Banking Product.—Except as provided in subsection (e) [sic], for purposes of paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c (a)(4), (5)), the term ‘identified
    banking product’ means—

    “(1) a deposit account, savings account, certificate of deposit, or other deposit instrument issued by a bank;

    “(2) a banker’s acceptance;

    “(3) a letter of credit issued or loan made by a bank;

    “(4) a debit account at a bank arising from a credit card or similar arrangement;

    “(5) a participation in a loan which the bank or an affiliate of the bank (other than a broker or dealer) funds, participates
    in, or owns that is sold—

    “(A) to qualified investors; or

    “(B) to other persons that—

    “(i) have the opportunity to review and assess any material information, including information regarding the borrower’s
    creditworthiness; and

    “(ii) based on such factors as financial sophistication, net worth, and knowledge and experience in financial matters, have the capability to evaluate the information available, as determined under generally applicable banking standards or guidelines; or

    “(6) any swap agreement, including credit and equity swaps, except that an equity swap that is sold directly to any
    person other than a qualified investor (as defined in section 3(a)(54) of the Securities Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78c
    (a)(54)]) shall not be treated as an identified banking product.
    “(b) Definition of Swap Agreement.—For purposes of subsection (a)(6), the term ‘swap agreement’ means any
    individually negotiated contract, agreement, warrant, note, or option that is based, in whole or in part, on the value
    of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodities,
    securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices, or other assets, but does not include any other identified banking
    product, as defined in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a).
    “(c) Classification Limited.—Classification of a particular product as an identified banking product pursuant to this
    section shall not be construed as finding or implying that such product is or is not a security for any purpose under the
    securities laws, or is or is not an account, agreement, contract, or transaction for any purpose under the Commodity
    Exchange Act [7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.].
    “(d) Incorporated Definitions.—For purposes of this section, the terms ‘bank’ and ‘qualified investor’ have the same
    meanings as given in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78c (a)], as amended by this Act.”
    Pub. L. 106–102, title II, §§ 206A—206C, as added by Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(5) [title III, § 301(a)], Dec. 21, 2000,
    114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–449, and amended by Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, § 762(a), (b), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1759,
    provided that:

    “SEC. 206A. SWAP AGREEMENT.

    “(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), as used in this section, the term ‘swap agreement’ means any agreement, contract, or transaction between eligible contract participants (as defined in section 1a(12) of the Commodity Exchange Act [7 U.S.C. 1a (12)] as in effect on the date of the enactment of this section [Dec. 21, 2000]), other than a person that is an eligible contract participant under section 1a(12)(C) of the Commodity Exchange Act, the material terms of which (other than price and quantity) are subject to individual negotiation, and that—

    “(1) is a put, call, cap, floor, collar, or similar option of any kind for the purchase or sale of, or based on the value of, one or more interest or other rates, currencies, commodities, indices, quantitative measures, or other financial or interests or property of any kind;

    “(3) provides on an executory basis for the exchange, on a fixed or contingent basis, of one or more payments based on the value or level of one or more interest or other rates, currencies, commodities, securities, instruments of indebtedness, indices, quantitative measures, or other financial or economic interests or property of any kind, or any interest therein or based on the value thereof, and that transfers, as between the parties to the transaction, in whole or in part, the financial risk associated with a future change in any such value or level without also conveying a current or future direct or indirect ownership interest in an asset (including any enterprise or investment pool) or liability that incorporates the financial risk so transferred, including any such agreement, contract, or transaction commonly known as an interest rate swap, including a rate floor, rate cap, rate collar, cross-currency rate swap, basis swap, currency
    swap, equity index swap, equity swap, debt index swap, debt swap, credit spread, credit default swap, credit swap, weather swap, or commodity swap;

    “(4) provides for the purchase or sale, on a fixed or contingent basis, of any commodity, currency, instrument, interest, right, service, good, article, or property of any kind; or

    “(5) is any combination or permutation of, or option on, any agreement, contract, or transaction described in any of paragraphs (1) through (4).

    “(b) Exclusions.—The term ‘swap agreement’ does not include—

    “(1) any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities, including any interest therein or based on the value thereof;

    “(2) any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange registered pursuant to section 6(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78f (a)] relating to foreign currency;

    “(3) any agreement, contract, or transaction providing for the purchase or sale of one or more securities on a fixed basis;

    “(4) any agreement, contract, or transaction providing for the purchase or sale of one or more securities on a contingent basis, unless such agreement, contract, or transaction predicates such purchase or sale on the occurrence of a bona fide;

    contingency that might reasonably be expected to affect or be affected by the creditworthiness of a party other than
    a party to the agreement, contract, or transaction;

    “(5) any note, bond, or evidence of indebtedness that is a security as defined in section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77b (a)(1)] or section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78c (a)(10)]; or

    “(6) any agreement, contract, or transaction that is—

    “(A) based on a security; and

    “(B) entered into directly or through an underwriter (as defined in section 2(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77b (a)]) by the issuer of such security for the purposes of raising capital, unless such agreement, contract, or transaction is entered into to manage
    a risk associated with capital raising.

    “(c) Rule of Construction Regarding Master Agreements.—As used in this section, the term ‘swap agreement’ shall be construed to include a master agreement that provides for an agreement, contract, or transaction that is a swap agreement pursuant to subsections (a) and (b), together with all supplements to any such master agreement, without regard to whether the master agreement contains an agreement, contract, or transaction that is not a swap agreement pursuant to subsections (a) and (b), except that the master agreement shall be considered to be a swap agreement only
    with respect to each agreement, contract, or transaction under the master agreement that is a swap agreement pursuant to subsections (a) and (b).

    “SEC. 206B. SECURITY-BASED SWAP AGREEMENT.

    “As used in this section, the term ‘security-based swap agreement’ means a swap agreement (as defined in section 206A) of which a material term is based on the price, yield, value, or volatility of any security or any group or index of securities, or any interest therein.

    “SEC. 206C. NON-SECURITY-BASED SWAP AGREEMENT.

    “As used in this section, the term ‘non-security-based swap agreement’ means any swap agreement (as defined in section 206A) that is not a security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B).”

    [Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, §§ 762(a), (b), 774, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1759, 1802, provided that, effective on the later of 360 days after July 21, 2010, or, to the extent a provision of subtitle B (§§ 761–774) of title VII of Pub. L. 111–203 requires a rulemaking, not less than 60 days after publication of the final rule or regulation implementing such provision of subtitle B, Pub. L. 106–102, §§ 206A–206C, set out above, is amended: (1) in section 206A (a) in the material preceding paragraph (1), by striking “Except as” and all that follows through “that—” and inserting the following: “Except as provided in subsection (b), as used in this section, the term ‘swap agreement’ means any agreement, contract, or transaction that—”; and (2) by repealing sections 206B and 206C.]

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/pdf/uscode15/lii_usc_TI_15_CH_2B_SE_78c.pdf

  64. And now it’s the missing story of Jesus…and the lost prophecies of Nostradamus … and the aliens are coming.

    Nah…

    it’s time to reboot the scam and try and get everyone to believe new lies like they aren’t all really demons from hell who want to conquer the world called the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN just like Jesus and the prophets warned.

    Don’t believe them or their affordable healthcare story. OBAMACARE is a well organized spy ring, the eye of satan who work for …the Synagogue of Satan. Nothing they do is ever legal, moral or ethical.

    It is all an evil control freak investor plan by the Synagogue of Satan who want to steal everything from us.

  65. That’s right.. these demons from hell want to keep everything they stole and hijacked and what they really want is every American to suffer for their crimes against them until the day they die. These demons from hell are AKA THE ENTITLEMENT PEOPLE.

    The truth is…when thieves get caught THE LAW SAYS they have to BE SHUT DOWN……….GIVE BACK WHAT THEY STOLE…….PAY FINES.. & GO TO PRISON….NOT PAY FINES AND CONTINUE THEIR CRIME SPREE!

  66. Most of that case I linked is a very dry read regarding the 25B settlement. Anyone not a serious scholar interested in that aspect and courts’ jurisdiction regarding servicer practices might skip thru it. I particularly liked the RICO discussion about three quarters thru (“C. RICO CLAIMS”). The thrust of the class-a complaint is that borrowers were systematically overcharged for inspections, “miscellaneous fees and servicer advances”. I cannot even begin to imagine how long it took that judge to write this decision on the mtd. I’d kill to know what he knows! Kudos to the attorneys. They had to know a whole lot of it, too, and it looks like it was Battle Royale.

  67. Sue all the greedy fuggers … the 8 largesse illuminati bankster families. Every freaking one. The entire satanic thirteenth bloodline of greedy, human and animal sacricing, blood guzzling vampires and demons. They are the so called aliens who are in reality….all demons from hell. Every last one of them.

  68. Because a money flow from everything wasn’t enough for them and having retail store fronts as well just did not fulfill their greed…. ….they want all of our properties and businesses and livelihoods as well. That’s right, the greedy fuggers want to steal it all from us. Then that’s not even enough….what the greedy bastards really want is to control every aspect of our lives through OBAMACARE and microchip everyone to their fictitious debts and spy on their slaves they created. They hide behind corporate logos like AMERISOURCEBERGEN….but make no mistake, they are the fourth Reich Nazi commie control freak Khazar fuggers.

  69. The Mcdonalds, the Reynolds, the Disneys, and of course last but not least the van ecks….They are all greedy fuggers.

  70. Yepeeeee!!!! That ought to make up for a whole house lost “through some sort of servicing abuse”! What a sick joke…

    Ohio foreclosure victims to receive settlement checks averaging $1,480

    By Rick Armon
    Beacon Journal staff writer

    Published: June 4, 2013 – 06:13 PM

    Foreclosure settlement checks are coming and will be bigger than expected.

    Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine announced Tuesday that Ohioans who lost their homes through foreclosure will receive about $1,480 each through the National Mortgage Settlement.

    The checks will be mailed between Monday and June 17, he said.

    Overall, Ohioans will split more than $48 million.

    “The National Mortgage Settlement concluded that mortgage servicing was so broken in this country, nearly everyone who lost their home to foreclosure suffered some sort of servicing abuse,” DeWine said. “While the settlement can’t make Ohioans who lost a home to foreclosure whole, this compensation can provide some relief to those facing financial hardship.”

    The settlement was finalized last year with the country’s five largest mortgage servicers after investigations into mortgage fraud and abuse. It set aside $1.5 billion for 1.7 million borrowers nationwide who lost their homes from 2008 through 2011.

  71. Time to really peel back the layers of the onion.

  72. Whoa ho maties looks like the pirate ship is finally under attack. Like I said everyone should be filing lawsuits against these imposters but I really think we should be going after individuals. The Congress people the Senators and the house members, the Treasury Secretaries and the FED heads past and present….all of the investors in the IMF, the large institutional investors like George Soros and the Van Duyns and the Krupps, the Scheiffs, the rothschilds, the rockefellers, the duponts, the Lazards..and all the dirty fuggers..they are the real crooks here.

  73. What keywords are you referring to UKG? You truly are out of your freaking skull.

  74. This is fun. DC denies JPMC’s motion to dissmiss. Read with your morning coffee and have a nice day!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/147888333/Ellis-v-JPMC

  75. this is definitely a keyword attack by the stripper.

    NEIL!!! WAKE UP!!
    ZZZZZZZ

    Solly, I don;t mind when you correct me

  76. MTG BONE CONNECTED TO THE LIEN BONE AND LIEN BONE CONNECTED TO THE DEPOSIT BONE AND DEPOSIT BONE CONNECTED TO TH E ZERO COUPON BONE AND ZERO BONE CONNECTED TO THE 50 MONTH TERM BONE AND ACCELERATION BONE CONNECTED TO SHORT SELLER PRICE MANIPULATIONS AND …futures pricing fraud connected to the Grand Jury Bone …and

    DUDE! LMFAO ROFL

    that really straightens me out.

  77. THAT’S RIGHT MASTERSHEISTER….READ IT AGAIN & AGAIN…CREDIT LENDING IS ALL A SHAM…A WEALTH STEALING RACKET …..A PONZI SCHEME FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMIE INVESTOR CONTROL FREAKS AT THE TOP OF THE PYRAMID SCHEME…..THE SO CALLED “LARGE INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS.” LYING SCUMBAGS!

    PLEDGING WHAT YOU DON’T OWN IS CRIMINAL….FELONIOUS…..IT IS GRAND THEFT LARCENY….!

  78. Screw Fannie Mae and all of the so called GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES….they are foreign nationalist criminals. They are agents for the two faced lying commie fuggers.

  79. We The People should consider that fraudclosure filing an open Act of War against us. Demand to see the trustees receipt or hand them their NOTICE OF DEFAULT & DEMAND FOR PAYMENT.

  80. The FED banks are fascists who have hijacked our Treasury Department and are hiding the traitor’s at the U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT…….they are the thieves WHO ARE working for the commie politicians and stealing everything from us and handing it to themselves and their communist criminal friends here and around the globe.

    That is why they want no discovery of WHO the “real party in interest” is. They are communists and are the investors in this scam to steal everything that WE THE PEOPLE paid for.

    Ask the Plaintiff to see the trustees receipt or tell the judge you would like to subpoena the escrowee from the title company and you will get mean evil stares in your direction. Let them know this isn’t some small issue ….we aren’t pussy footing around. They may smell sex and candy here … but we aren’t here for that. It is are our legal right to know who these imposters are and demand to know why proof of claim was not attached at the onset as the law requires. WHY….? That is a criminal act against us.

  81. Even in good ol’ california where you say an attorney for a trustee reoresents that party only, imo he could still be found guilty of third party breach of fidiciary. Now that’s definitely a lay opinion based on some cases I read a while back about 3rd party B of F.

  82. from fnma:

    “We also issue mortgage-backed certificates, receiving GUARANTY FEES for our guaranty of timely payment of scheduled principal and interest on the certficates. We issue mortgage-backed certificates primarily IN EXCHANGE FOR for pools of mortgage loans from lenders. By issuing mortgage-backed certificates, we further fulfill our statutory mandate to increase the liquidity of residential mortgage loans…..”

    jg: dang. I didn’t know that. Ya know, MS, if you did, you might have said it in English.

    “Fannie Mae Guaranty

    We guarantee to certificate holders, on each distribution date:‚an amount equal to the borrowers’ scheduled principal payments for the related due period, whether or not received, plus‚an amount equal to Month’s interest ON THE CERTIFICATES. For fixed-rate pools, we guarantee payment of interest at the fIxed pass-through rate stated in the prospectus supplement. (jg: this is not necessarily the rate on the faces of the notes imo – ANYONE?) For adjustable-rate pools, we guarantee payment of interest at the variable pool accrual rate minus the aggregate amount of any deferred interest. Deferred interest is added to the principal balance of the mortgage loans.

    In addition, we guarantee the full and final payment of the unpaid principal balance OF THE CERTIFICATES on the distribution date in the month of the maturity date specifed in the prospectus supplement for the certificates. jg: in addition to the guarantee and a repurchase which may only be necessitated thru the date of this maturity date, does this differ from the last scheduled payment on the note(s)?

    If we were unable to perform our guaranty obligations, certifcate holders would receive only the payments that borrowers actually made and any other recoveries on the mortgage loans in the pool from sources such as insurance, condemnation and foreclosure proceeds. If that were to happen,delinquencies and defaults on the mortgage loans would directly affect the amount of principal and interest that certificate holders would receive each month.”

    Please tell me someone in this act has got a handle on this part of the equation. My understanding is limited to FNMA guaranteeing payment of the certificates (not sure now how that compares to the note rates – seems troublesome if it’s different) and to fnma being able to
    repurchase or take back or whatever the heck to end that guarantee.

  83. Dick Cheney making himself look like a Nazi and a traitor for defending these unauthorized spy agencies AKA THE EYE OF SATAN.

  84. Proper pleadings? After these crooks entered and plead FELONIES, what is deemed proper?

  85. I am not and never have been employed by any of these crooks nor have I ever knowingly invested in any of their scams.

  86. Yawn…I still don’t understand how this plays in administrative court, trying to get to trial…where’s the paper trail from your own loan? Does it matter what banks usually do or don’t do, when it is about what happened in your loan/case…the paper trail must be evidenced. Much of these advanced discussions are way down the road and again, MUST be tied to your situation and plead properly, or the information bears no relevance to the relief you are asking for. IMHO

  87. What bait you slimy investor shill…..? The truth is the truth so suck it up you freaking coward!

  88. OUR MONEY WAS LENT by the U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT to the FED by DIRECT DEPOSIT to an escrow account set up by the TITLE COMPANY AGENT OF THE U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT. There you will find your pass through, tax exempt entity….your fictitious trust.

  89. STRIPES YOU ARE A BANKING SHILL …WELL YOU TOOK THE BAIT A$$HOLE AND NOW REVEAL YOURSELF ….omg SUCKER !

  90. The homebuilder or homeseller did not get paid in Certificates they were paid in MONEY …..I put $100,000.00 dollars in CASH on both of my properties.

    People – look at what this person is saying
    Read it again and again

    Stripe is letting it out of the bag – read this —
    read it again and again

  91. stripes, on June 16, 2013 at 7:17 pm said:

    Your right – I’m sorry /scratch everything I said …please ! …

    Ok thanks

    peace

    Goodnight

  92. The pledge of bank assets to secure the deposits – The pledge of the assets to secure a deposit, in origin probably a joint product of depositors ‘misgivings and bank competition for funds

    The pledge of bank assets to secure the deposits

    NOT IN FAS 140 AND DE-RECOGNITION …PHISHING

    EXAMINE THE FOLLOWING FIRST :
    Off shore deposits, Tier 1 capital related to Washing of assets
    Min capital contribution levels versus Over Collaterallization
    Hair cut used to form early re-coupment by reinstatement
    ignoring contra assets accounts, de recg of Accretion bonds fixed debt pricing versus forward pricing, offset to Short title …etc !

    MTG BONE CONNECTED TO THE LIEN BONE AND LIEN BONE CONNECTED TO THE DEPOSIT BONE AND DEPOSIT BONE CONNECTED TO TH E ZERO COUPON BONE AND ZERO BONE CONNECTED TO THE 50 MONTH TERM BONE AND ACCELERATION BONE CONNECTED TO SHORT SELLER PRICE MANIPULATIONS AND …futures pricing fraud connected to the Grand Jury Bone …and

    NG “We can make a fortune off
    what this guy is saying …NG
    NG NGGGGGGGGGGGG!”
    zzzzzzz ZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzz

  93. And I will go into any court and testify to that FACT….!

  94. In your picture M.S. you really look a one eyed, one horned, lying purple people eater.

  95. Really M.S..? THAT’S ..BULLSHIT…….and here’s why……The homebuilder or homeseller did not get paid in Certificates they were paid in MONEY …..I put $100,000.00 dollars in CASH on both of my properties.

    The crooks are sore losers who never thought they would get caught and don’t want to play by their own rules…

    Well, I happen to believe in an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Not their classical conditioning nonsense that says let us fix our fraud for you.

    NO…! PAY US BACK WHAT YOU STOLE & HIJACKED YOU CROOKS AND THEN GO TO PRISON…..!

  96. An attorney’s failure to comply with the SEC Standards may result in SEC proceedings seeking money penalties and/or injunctive relief, including prohibiting the attorney from practicing before the SEC. However, the noncompliance does not give rise to a private right of action against the attorney. [17 CFR §§ 205.6, 205.7]

    See safe harbor rule and 501D under commissions 1933 act promulgated by SEC jurisdiction over private placements

  97. comments – Under California law, an attorney for the trustee of a trust represents only the trustee—not the trust’s beneficiaries. [Borissoff v. Taylor & Faust, supra, 33 CA4th at 529, 15 CR3d at 738; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sup.Ct. (Boltwood) (2000) 22 C4th 201, 209, 91 CR2d 716, 722; Fletcher v. Sup.Ct. (American Cancer Soc.) (1996) 44 CA4th 773, 777, 52 CR2d 65, 67—merely representing trustee (or executor) does not create attorney-client relationship with trust beneficiaries]

    *** Not CA jurisdiction–argument should shift to In Res

  98. Debt collectors are not in the wrong – not at all .

    They did nothing wrong …You – you gave them the right to pursue a entry of order and execution …

    its you not them that’s held accountable for something you fell into – you took the bait .

    My good friend Mers told me -Hey they can’t do that —-And I said go away Mers I hate you Mers ….

    Mers said but look , they cannot do this …you and I have standing ….and you said no way Mers …Mers has no standing ….

    and Mers said ….whatever….

    ———————————————————————-
    Celebrate fathers day – buy a MersCorp

    ” I HATE my NOMINEE”
    Shirt for Dad!

    registerclaims@live.com
    ———————————————————————-

    Some fool will spend his entire summer building a boat ….day and night building and building …then the rains come and who tries to jump on board ….the lender …he say’s Noah take me with you …..

    Noah say’s no pass ….sorry ……your drowning…and what —you want me to save you ?

    They took the oil in the 70’s
    took the energy in the 80’s
    took the farms in the 90’s
    and take the homes starting in 2000

    …stop him someone -please …stop him Now. He wants us to believe these are not a conventional mortgage. (a few people here hired me -AND NEVER HEARD A WORD xxoo

  99. johngault., on June 16, 2013 at 3:23 pm said:
    usedkarguy and anyone else interested, please read this and weigh in.

    WHY John G . Your research is nolo weak …..nothing on the internet can assist you – nothing ….your phishing

  100. Deutsche(-line of credit from foreign national bank, not Wells
    Fargo) and the title company could have stood in as a lender on a note with a different payee. nobody is the wiser if the borrower never saw the doc.

    Ah nope ….

    first -borrower received a mortgage
    second – lender wired the money
    third – WRONG The lender did not wire the money !!!!

    The funds used to make the new loan were paid in certificates. You people are grasping at straws …if your were not there you will always be guessing . Ill go into any court and testify to this as FACT

    registerclaims@live.com

  101. Correct error…Perfection of the Security.

  102. The trusts need to be created first by Acceptance and Consideration…..physical Delivery and Acceptance to the trust and Recordation of the Securitg is Perfection and is evidenced by the Trustees Receipt. They have just 90 days from the closing to perfect the lien.

  103. The real problem in America is too many people confuse opinion with fact. Well the facts don’t lie. Investment is not ownership nor is it an entitlement program because WE THE PEOPLE pay for everything upfront at the Origination. I call it American exceptionalism at its best. All of these theories are just nonsense by idiots and control freaks.

  104. usedkarguy and anyone else interested, please read this and weigh in.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/148212493/Are-These-Passive-Trusts-and-if-So-What-Does-That-Mean

  105. LL seems to allow links – in one comment at a time! So to link 5 cases, say,, need to do so as five comments.

  106. **** = http://www (work-around to posting links on livinglies)

  107. February 26, 2013

    Supreme Court Sides with Debt Collector in FDCPA Case

    Plaintiffs that lose lawsuits claiming violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) may be liable for costs to their defendants even if the case was not brought in bad faith, so ruled the Supreme Court Tuesday.

    In a 7-2 majority decision, the Justices ruled for a debt collector in the case Marx v. General Revenue Corp. The question before the Court was whether a defendant in an FDCPA case is entitled to costs should they win the case, even if the case was not initially brought by the plaintiff in bad faith or for the purposes of harassment.

    The case was closely watched by the ARM industry for obvious reasons. But it also attracted plenty of attention from other quarters. The FTC, Department of Justice, and the CFPB filed a joint amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Marx, with a DoJ representative actually joining oral arguments in the case.

    The action was originally brought by a student loan debtor who claimed General Revenue violated the FDCPA by sending an employment verification fax to her job while attempting to collect the debt. A federal judge found that General Revenue’s actions did not violate the FDCPA because the fax was not a “communication” under the law and dismissed the case. The district court judge in Colorado awarded the company $4,543 in costs, despite the absence of a finding that Marx had brought the case “in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.”

    Although the FDCPA claim decision was also presented to the Supreme Court, the Justices elected to hear arguments only about the awarding of costs.

    Adam Plotkin, of Adam L. Plotkin, P.C. – a law firm defending General Revenue in the case – said that by declining to consider the FDCPA “communication” question before it, the Supreme Court left the appeals court opinion as the highest court in the country to have ruled upon this issue.

    “The Marx court, the Tenth Circuit Court, ruled that if you don’t convey information about the debt, you don’t have a ‘communication’ under the FDCPA, and therefore there is no third-party disclosure under the FDCPA,” said Plotkin. “By applying the express definition of ‘communication’ as it is set forth in the FDCPA, the Marx Court stuck a dagger in the heart of Foti.”

    Reaction to Tuesday’s decision from the ARM legal community has been swift and very positive.

    “We are hopeful this important decision will assist in reducing the incentive for frivolous and meritless allegations filed by consumers against its members,” said ACA International CEO Pat Morris in a statement.

    Don Maurice, an attorney who wrote an amicus brief in support of General Revenue on behalf of the National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys (NARCA) wrote on his blog Tuesday, “The decision provides some relief to defendants in FDCPA cases that are successfully defended. It can be very difficult to satisfy the standard of ‘bad faith and for the purpose of harassment’ when attempting to recover costs and attorneys fees.”

    “The hope is a litigant will think twice before asserting a questionable FDCPA claim,” Maurice later told insideARM.com. “There are far too many FDCPA suits premised on marginal factual or legal claims which, if litigated, would likely fail. While these suits may not be brought in bad faith, they still tie up our clients’ important resources.”

    The Supreme Court’s seven-justice majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor dissented.

    ****.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/debt-collection/supreme-court-sides-with-debt-collector-in-fdcpa-case/

  108. Yes Yes Kalifornia,! But the second time …. oh boy! Risky Business! 🙂

  109. Attorneys as “debt collectors” under Fair Debt Collection Practices
    Act:
    An attorney who regularly collects debts on behalf of another (even a creditor client), is a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA, 15 USC § 1692 et seq.). A “debt collector” faces various prohibitions on the manner in which debts may be collected, and a “debt collector” who acts with knowledge that an act is prohibited may be subject to damages and substantial monetary penalties. (Liability may be avoided, however, if the act was unintentional and resulted from a “bona fide error.”) [15 USC § 1692a(5),(6); see Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA (2010) US , , 130 S.Ct. 1605, 1608–1609 —“bona fide error” no defense to attorney’s erroneous interpretation of Act; and comprehensive treatment of the FDCPA in Ahart, Cal. Prac. Guide: Enforcing Judgments & Debts (TRG), Ch. 2]

  110. E-Tolle Comments plus KC comments =Splat with a Cherry on Top!

  111. e.tolle – you crack me up: commander-in-thief! Whether one agrees or not, it’s still funny! Thanks for the laugh.

  112. I missed one … Most Important!! 🙂

    Judicial problem arises upon a demand FROM the receiver of the closed bank for return of the collateral, without an offer to restore the deposit in full.

    “Splat”

  113. usedkarguy – okay, I believe judges don’t want to know or deal with they’ve been ruling in favor of the wrong guy. But, what I am saying is even IF the loans got there, the trusts may not own real estate, and certainly not after a cut-off date. THAT changes everything……

  114. With spelling corrections… 🙂

    The pledge of bank assets to secure the deposits – The pledge of the assets to secure a deposit, in origin probably a joint product of depositors ‘misgivings and bank competition for funds, is a phenomenon characteristic of the post-war period. With but few exceptions, the courts considering the problem have declared invalid the pledge given to secure a private deposit, and since the depression, the current of authority has likewise definetely swung towards a severe restriction of the device as applied to public funds. Recent disapproval of both forms of the practice is reflected by two decisions in the present term of the Supreme Court, the other strictly limiting to statutory authorization the right of national banks to give for deposits of govermental units. The Judicial problem arises upon a demand fo the receiver of the closed bank for return of the collateral, without an offer to restore the deposit in full.

  115. SEC Standards of Professional Conduct:
    As mandated by the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (15 USC § 7245), the SEC has promulgated rules setting forth minimum standards of conduct for attorneys “appearing and practicing” before the SEC “in the representation of an issuer.” [17 CFR § 205.1 et seq.]

    Preemption of conflicting state laws governing lawyer conduct:
    The SEC Standards are intended to preempt conflicting state law: “Where the standards of a state or other United States jurisdiction where an attorney is admitted or practices conflict with (these Standards), (these Standards) shall govern.” [17 CFR § 205.1]

    Comment:
    The State Bar has issued an “Ethics Alert” stating that the SEC position conflicts with California attorneys’ duty of confidentiality. However, the State Bar has not taken a position on whether the SEC standards preempt California law. The Ethics Alert is available online at the State Bar Web site (www.calbar.ca. gov).

    Limited to attorneys representing “issuer” clients “appearing and
    practicing” before SEC:
    The SEC Standards apply to attorneys representing “issuer” clients “appearing and practicing” before the SEC. [17 CFR § 205.1]

    “Issuer” client:
    An “issuer” is a company whose securities are registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 USC § 78a et seq.) or that is required to file reports thereunder, or that has filed a registration statement that has not yet become effective under the Securities
    Act of 1933 (15 USC § 77a et seq.). [17 CFR § 205.2(h)]

    The term “issuer” also includes any person controlled by an issuer, where an attorney provides legal services to that person on behalf of (or for the benefit of) an issuer, regardless of whether the attorney is employed or retained by the issuer. [17 CFR § 205.2(h)]

    “Representation of an issuer”: Representing an issuer means
    “providing legal services as an attorney for an issuer, regardless of whether the attorney is employed or retained by the issuer.” [17 CFR § 205.2(g)]

    Appearing and practicing” before the SEC means:
    • transacting any business with the SEC (including communications in any form);
    • representing an issuer in an SEC administrative proceeding or investigation, inquiry, information request or subpoena;
    • providing advice regarding U.S. securities laws or SEC rules or regulations regarding any document that the attorney has notice will be filed with or submitted to (or incorporated into any document filed or submitted to) the SEC, including providing advice in the context of preparing any such document; and
    • advising an issuer whether information or a statement, opinion or other writing is required under the U.S. securities laws or SEC rules or regulations to be filed with or submitted to (or incorporated into any document filed or submitted to) the SEC. [17 CFR § 205.2(a)(1)]

    Exceptions:
    Attorney providing legal services to an issuer with whom they do not have an attorney-client relationship, or non-appearing foreign attorneys, are not “appearing and practicing” before the SEC. [17 CFR § 205.2(a)(2)]

    Supervisory attorneys included:
    Attorneys supervising other attorneys appearing before the SEC are deemed to “appear and practice” before the SEC. [17 CFR § 205.4]

    includes attorney hired to investigate possible securities violation: An attorney retained by an issuer to investigate “evidence of a material violation” by an issuer is deemed to “appear and practice” before the SEC. [17 CFR § 205.3 (b) (5)]

    Attorney’s duty to report evidence of material violation: An attorney
    representing an issuer must report to the chief legal officer and/or the chief executive officer “evidence” of a material violation of the securities laws or breach of fiduciary duty or similar violation by the issuer or any of its agents. [17 CFR §§ 205.2, 205.3 (a),(b)(1); see SEC Release No. 33–8185 (Feb. 6, 2003)]

    “Evidence of a material violation”:
    “Evidence of a material violation” of securities laws or similar violations (above) is “credible evidence, based upon which it would be unreasonable, under the circumstances, for a prudent and
    competent attorney not to conclude that it is reasonably likely that a material violation has occurred, is ongoing, or is about to occur.” [17 CFR § 205.2(e)]

    Chief legal officer’s duty to respond to reporting attorney:
    Upon receipt of a report of evidence of a material violation, the CLO must cause an inquiry into such evidence and take all reasonable steps to cause the issuer to adopt an “appropriate response” (as defined in 17 CFR § 205.2(b)), unless the CLO determines that no material violation has occurred. The CLO shall advise the reporting
    attorney of the result (i.e., “appropriate response” or no material violation). [17 CFR § 205.3(b)(2)]

    Where reporting to CLO/CEO “futile”:
    If the attorney reasonably believes it would be futile to report the evidence to the chief legal officer and/or chief executive officer, or if the attorney fails to receive an “appropriate response” (see above), the attorney may report “up the ladder” to the issuer’s audit
    committee, or to another committee of independent directors, or the full board. [17 CFR § 205.3 (b)(3),(4)]

    Alternative procedure for issuer with legal compliance committee:
    An issuer may establish a “qualified legal compliance committee” comprised of no fewer than two independent directors (at least one of whom is a member of the audit committee) having the authority and responsibility to investigate and (if necessary) report a material violation of securities or similar law to the full board and the SEC. An attorney representing an issuer with such a committee need report
    a violation only to the committee, and is not required to take any further action. [17 CFR §§ 205.2(k), 205.3(c)]

    The “snitch” rule:
    The SEC standards permit an attorney to reveal to the SEC, without the issuer’s consent, confidential information related to representing
    the issuer to the extent the attorney reasonably believes necessary to:
    • prevent the issuer from committing a material violation likely to cause substantial injury to the financial interest or property of the issuer or investors;
    • prevent the issuer from committing or suborning perjury or committing any act likely to perpetuate a fraud on the SEC in an SEC investigation or administrative proceeding;
    • rectify the consequences of a material violation by the issuer that caused (or may cause) substantial injury to the financial interest or property of the issuer or investors in the furtherance of which the attorney’s services were used. [17 CFR § 205.3(d)(2)]

    Conflict with State Bar Act: The above provision directly conflicts with the attorney’s duty of confidentiality under the State Bar Act (Bus. & Prof.C. § 6068(e), ¶ 7:24 ff.). However, the SEC rule is intended to preempt the conflicting duty under California law.

    Consequences of attorney’s noncompliance:
    An attorney’s failure to comply with the SEC Standards may result in SEC proceedings seeking money penalties and/or injunctive relief, including prohibiting the attorney from practicing before the SEC. However, the noncompliance does not give rise to a private right of action against the attorney. [17 CFR §§ 205.6, 205.7]

    SEC sanctions for unprofessional attorney conduct:
    The SEC has authority to censure or bar an attorney from appearing before it based on a finding that the attorney has engaged in unethical or improper professional conduct, including violation of State Bar disciplinary rules. [Altman v. SEC (DC Cir. 2011) 666 F3d 1322, 1325–1326 (attorney permanently barred from practicing before SEC where attorney sought severance package for client in exchange for client’s untruthful testimony in SEC proceeding, in violation of New York State Bar disciplinary rules)]

  116. The pledge of bank assets to secure the deposits – The pledge of the assets to secure a deposit, in origin probably a joint product of depositors’misgivings and band competition for funds, is a phenomenon characteristic of the post-war period. With but few exceptions, the courts considering the problem have declared inbalid the pledge given to secure a private deposit, and since the depression, the current of authority has likewise definetely swung towards a severe restriction of the device as applied to public funds. Recent disapproval of both forms of the practice is reflected by two decisions in the present term of the Supreme Court, the other strictly limiting to statutory authorization the right of national banks to give for deposits of govermental units. The Judicial problem areis upon a demand fo the receiver of the closed bank for return of the collateral, without an offer to restore the deposit in full.

  117. Hey you e.tolle guy! Haven’t read your comment yet – just wanted to say good to see you (although I’m happy to know of your green grass).

  118. K – interesting case law. Any links?

    “lawyer for trustee found liable to trust beneficiaries as aider and abettor of trustee’s tortious conduct;”

    As to the attorney, another name for this is third party breach of fiduciary also aka aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary. imo. There was a granddaddy case of third party breach a few years ago with “green” as part of one party’s name. I had it. It disappeared. I’d appreciate any links and anything else you can say about the cases you cited.

    Is MERS breaching its fiduciary (if any, that is) to its principal when and if it allows someone to execute an assgt of the deed of trust to someone other than the note owner? Has MERS breached its fiduciary when and if the notes were transferred to non-members and no assignment was recorded? The last principal of MERS would have to defend himself if the borrower brought any action on the contract.
    These aren’t homeowners’ claims, just things that crossed my mind, and not for the first time.

    Don’t really mean to distract from K’s case law, bur not having read them, can’t say too much else just now.

  119. “MERS is being called the “original” lender/creditor by the foreclosure companies.”

    Right you are carie, and this is one of those fronts where we need to hit them, especially the mill clowns who just keep coming out of that little clown car in front of the clown courthouse not afraid of tossing tied balloon documents upon the court.

    “A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt…”

    The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer is a violation of the FDCPA for which Congress has determined that statutory damages are appropriate.

    A thousand here and a thousand there adds up for folk like you and me. Not so for the banks, who have the full backing of the United States Treasury and the Commander-In-Thief. Watching Les Misérables recently made me painfully aware of how, once again, we face the daunting task of attempting to right the inequities swallowing us whole, while the populace snores, content with their cheap Walmart bread and asinine TeeVee circuses, brought to them by their owners and handlers, the 1%.

    Christine is right on, this country is toast. And stripes is a D-for-brains.

  120. johngault said…..As to the .switcheroo on the 1099 – It’s all about the alleged assgt of the credit bid. . So far it looks to me like this is done because the trust may not own real property (long and short of that one). Even if B were under contract with H to buy the loan, B still couldn’t make a credit bid in H’s name, I wouldn’t think. I’m also thinking they either
    1) disagree or 2) B actually owns the loan and the bid in the trust’s name is fraudulent…..

    I have yet to see a 1099, but as to the credit bids, this is what the judiciary is afraid of. The false credit bids from non-creditors are the noose. securitization-fail creates a case for that cause, and judges can’t stand to hear that they have been incorrectly ruling against the people of their county, and can’t save face.

  121. These acts against us are being carried out by the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN. No need to look any further than there. Their spy agencies are THE EYE OF SATAN.

  122. Everything that has happened so far is encoded in that book. That book said their first act against us would be against New York City by a Muslim that wears the turbin, it will be carried out by the eye of Satan. They will fire missiles and big buildings will fall down. It talks about their manufactured financial crisis would bring about a new blood on the doorpost.

  123. There was warning a while back from inside the Vatican …..When they tell you everything they are doing is to protect your peace and security there will be no Security… Do not trust Russia and China. Russia will try and foment a world wide revolution. There would be something significant that will happen that will cause the people to take up arms against it.

    I do believe these things have come to pass. It is all written in the book THE THUNDER OF JUSTICE by Ted and Maureen Flynn copyright 1993.

  124. No matter how you try and sell fraud it always comes up fraud because when fraud enters a contract fraud vitiates everything.

  125. There are no trusts and there are no trust assets because the title company agents of the U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT failed to carry out their fiduciary duties and secure the collateral liens.

    That is criminal on many levels.

  126. I have plenty of case law as well that supports the issue of the fidicuary duties of the title companies/U.S. Treasury Department must be carried out as the law requires.

    I can dig it up if you crooks want to go there.

    If the trust never existed and there are legal claims on property you will be hard pressed to find case law that supports FRAUD.

  127. if you owe me 50k and Barry owes you 150k and hasn’t paid you,
    could you “sell” or “give” me the loss – not the obligation, the loss – in exchange for the 50K you owe me so I get the 150k write off? I doubt it. Left field? Maybe, but maybe not. Just a thought.

  128. hmmm…the 1099 is for debt forgiveness allegedly. Well, i’m pretty darn sure if you owed me 100k and have only paid 50k, i can’t just elect to write off the other 50k and 1099 you. The reason I’ve always thought that one can’t is because one has to make an attempt to collect before resorting to a tax deductible write-off (and here as anywhere, a 1099 and its corresponding loss must be on the SAME books).. As to a dot, the first act to attempt to collect is to go for a deficiency judgment (or dun? have to think about this one) and in at least one-action states, that means by implementing judicial foreclosure. If not by jud f/c, then in a separate suit where allowed by law (check your states for one-action rule and deficiency judgments).

    The servicing agreement may authorize the servicer to make a credit bid on behalf of the trust for all I know (tho I sincerely doubt it), but even so, it seems to me the bid would have to be made specifically ‘by the servicer on bahalf of the trust’ or some such, not as if the bid is
    being made in the servicer’s own right. At the f/c auctions I’ve attended, the auctioneer just says “X amt by the beneficiary”.
    I think it’s possible if not likely the ultimate tell on this debacle is going to be about that credit bid, right after better minds than mine actually
    get on it (hint, hint). The bids need to be challenged – yesterday. And I’m still standing at the trusts can’t own real estate and all that that means, including considering that the successful credit bidder is the party to whom the dot trustee issues his dead. On info and belief,
    know one even knows who the real seller is on a short-sale. I can almost promise the grantor is not a trust. The seller is hidden in layers (shock, right?).

    I don’t believe the notes if they ever were are yet negotiable under article III, that is, I don’t believe the trusts could endorse the notes to anyone else, even tho I can’t fully support it….yet. Whether or not any repurchase contract lends itself to a finding of negotiability, I also don’t know, but no question gets no answer generally (second hint). Since the handful – comparatively – of attorneys representing homeowners today apparently don’t have time to research all the issues relevant here, my humble suggestion is they collectively hire 3rd year law students -part timers – and say “you take this” and “you take that”.
    these are lay opinions

  129. KALIFORNIA…..A trust is created when the trustee fulfills their fiduciary responsibilities. That never happened and that is a CRIMINAL ACT that is apparent on the face of the titles and all of the documents.

  130. Representing trusts:
    A trust is not a legal entity. A trust is a “fiduciary relationship with respect to property.” [Moeller v. Sup.Ct. (Sanwa Bank) (1997) 16 C4th 1124, 1132, 69 CR2d 317, 321, fn. 3; Borissoff v. Taylor & Faust (2004) 33 C4th 523, 529, 15 CR3d 735, 738]

    Trust assets are held by a trustee for the trust purposes and on behalf of the trust beneficiaries.

    The trustee may be authorized to employ attorneys to assist in administration of trust affairs, in which event an attorney-client relationship exists between the attorney and trustee (in the trustee’s representative capacity). [See Moeller v. Sup.Ct. (Sanwa Bank) (1997) 16 C4th 1124, 1130, 69 CR2d 317, 320; Lasky, Haas, Cohler & Munter v. Sup.Ct. (Getty) (1985) 172 CA3d 264, 285–286, 218
    CR 205, 218]

    Generally no attorney-client relationship with beneficiaries:
    Under California law, an attorney for the trustee of a trust represents only the trustee—not the trust’s beneficiaries. [Borissoff v. Taylor & Faust, supra, 33 CA4th at 529, 15 CR3d at 738; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sup.Ct. (Boltwood) (2000) 22 C4th 201, 209, 91 CR2d 716, 722; Fletcher v. Sup.Ct. (American Cancer Soc.) (1996) 44 CA4th 773, 777, 52 CR2d 65, 67—merely representing trustee (or executor) does not create attorney-client relationship with trust beneficiaries]

    Compare — duties to trust beneficiaries:
    An attorney representing a trustee “assumes a relationship with the beneficiary akin to that between trustee and beneficiary.”
    [Morales v. Field, DeGoff, Huppert & MacGowan (1979) 99 CA3d 307,
    316, 160 CR 239, 244; Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 CA4th 1093, 1103–1106, 3 CR2d 236, 241–243 —lawyer for trustee found liable to trust beneficiaries as aider and abettor of trustee’s tortious conduct; Wolf v. Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp (1999) 76 CA4th 1030, 1040, 90 CR2d 792, 798—trust beneficiary may bring action against third party to recover property transferred to third party by trustee in breach of trust;
    but see Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield (1991) 231 CA3d 692, 701–704, 282 CR 627, 632—issue of duty owed to nonclient third party beneficiaries involves judicial weighing of policy considerations.

  131. carie – in my strictly lay opinion, what you said about the 1099 is
    a cause of action for a suit along the lines of “lying now or lying then”.
    Trying to think how it could be legitimately poss for abc trustee (say) to be the alleged lender/ben, use a credit bid to foreclose, and then another party hits the homeowner with a 1099, which long and short, of that part imo is waived by non-j forelosure (v judicial) in the first place. In order to avail oneself of a 1099 and its loss when it comes to a dot, pretty sure the claimant has to get a deficiency judgment first.

    As to the .switcheroo on the 1099 – It’s all about the alleged assgt of the credit bid. . So far it looks to me like this is done because the trust may not own real property (long and short of that one). Even if B were under contract with H to buy the loan, B still couldn’t make a credit bid in H’s name, I wouldn’t think. I’m also thinking they either
    1) disagree or 2) B actually owns the loan and the bid in the trust’s
    name is a fraud.

  132. So tell me do you got trust? Oh hell no they don’t.

  133. What more can we expect from this crew of imposters fraud? Distribute fraud and collect on their fraud is all they do. They have no consciences because they believe the lie is sacred.

    You can’t trust or believe a word they say. Servicers are no more than billing and payment collection agencies. What they won’t tell us is nothing they are doing is legal and they are collecting for the the imposters, the commie investors in this MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SCAM.

    We shouldn’t be tied to the whipping post. They should all be hanging from the lampposts.

  134. The word “lender” means absolutely nothing anymore.

    MERS is being called the “original” lender/creditor by the foreclosure companies.

    The trustee of the MBS is being called the “current” lender/creditor by the same foreclosure companies.

    Then the 1099A tax form you receive after foreclosure states that the SERVICER is the lender…and the servicer shows the loss…

  135. But the medical establishment will tell you they do not know what is the underlying caus of epilepsy. They can in Juvenile epilepsy tell you what triggers it but not what cures it.

    That is a lie because if they know what the underlying cause is, they can cure it as well.

    They would rather push psych meds on people to treat the symptoms than cure the illness because there is more money in the treatment for the pharmaceutical industry, the medical establishment and their investors.

    The doctor’s are suppose to heal the sick yet they took their hypocrite oath so they can lie with a good conscience.

  136. All of their fraud is in the coding. There fingerprints are even in our DNA now because they are always playing God.

    I found some startling medical research done on epilepsy.

    The medical research study concluded that the DISTRIBUTION OF EFHC1 TO THE WHITE POPULATION CONFIRMS THE HIGH LEVEL OF GENETIC HETEROGENEITY ASSOCIATED WITH JUVENILE MYOCLONIC EPILEPSY.

    Evil right?

  137. Is that what freedom means to you jg? Agreeing with liars, felons, frauds & cheats?

    You certainly have a right to your opinion even if it is unamerican. I also have as much of a right to mine. Free speech is unlimited in America under the First Amendment right?

    The First Amendment is not limited to what is politically correct or moral.

    The skinheads and the communists abuse our freedoms all the time right in our faces and no one bats an eye.

    Well the people are waking up to this politically correct sham and it’s their way or the highway bullshit and the tables are slowly turning.

    People are finally standing up and telling these imposters to shove it because they are all liars and they are all full of shit.

  138. I think it will be bbq TBTF and all their fraud this Father’s Day… Happy Father’s Day!

  139. You can’t expect people to be nice when satanists have hijacked the country. Can you name any nice satanists off the top of your head jg? These people are evil. They rob us to send our sons & daughters to war to steal for them. They give our kids the abortion pill as an alternative to being responsible. Now IMHO that’s crass and offensive.

  140. Wooops…meant to say you get crass and the morning after pill.

  141. Good jg because I am sick of the lies and I meant to be crass and politically incorrect. That is the result when immoral people hijack a country. You get to crass and the morning after pill.

  142. Pssst.John…the sales pitch is a flop.

  143. stripes – until the boss says otherwise, you can and wll continue to disagree with commentors thru the use of crude comments. Whatever, but I found your analogy to the morning – after abortion pill crass and offensive.

  144. Bare naked title was what they came up with to explain why MERS is called the nominee of the lender in the dot, while that same instrument
    later describes the rights if not obligations of an agent, a relationship they sought to avoid. The dot said MERS could exercise those rights or obligations (if) by ‘law or custom’. There was neither. They meant to create both.

  145. Snap out of their program jg…you’re frightening. I think you may need a morning after pill to abort the mission.

  146. In a psa I read, it said the secn trustee didn’t have to warrant that what was to be done (transfers of the loans to the trusts) got done. Can anyone more familiar with psa’s tell me if he’s seen that? Do sec’n trustees make the distributions to the investors? If so, the accounting would tell them there have been guarantee,servicer-advances, primary obligor, co-obligor, what-not payments made, right?

  147. I think MERS is a bare naked transvestite and Anderson Cooper is interviewing MERS right now on CNN.

  148. I think obama is the little pewter ballerina the way he is always dancing around the truth. Lies always catch up to the liars.

  149. CNN keeps showing Anderson Cooper interviewing a transvestite. It looks like they may have finally ran out of lies. Time they all took a bow and gave us back what they stole.

  150. kc – i agree with your second para, except mers claims to hold bare naked title to the interest granted in a contract.. What is granted in the contract to the ben is rights. No one holds ‘bare legal title’ to rights created in a contract, not even the true ben. One HAS them or one doesn’t. Imagine you’re playing monopoly. All of a sudden a little pewter ballerina shows up as a playing piece. It’s not part of a monopoly game, right? That gang just made up a piece which doesn’t exist. If you have the right to jump b-a naked off the Empire State Bldg, think I could own bare naked title to that right? If MERS has anything at all, it ain’t ‘bare naked title’.

  151. They are liars, they are all actors and they are all full of shit!

  152. What a bunch of well paid actors huh? (With our stolen money). That Andrew Ross Sorkin HBO farce TOO BIG TO FAIL……Paulson was a better actor in real life then the actor. He should be on the Actors studio…..him Blankfein and Immelt. Lying scumbags..!

    There won’t be any loan recissions under TILA because there were no loans made by the FED and TILA is a big fat fraud & a big fat farce. The FED BANKSTERS ….& THE POLITICIANS POCKETED ALL OF OUR PAYMENTS….AND ROBBED THE U.S. TREASURY & STILL ARE.

    Lou Dobbs said Bernanke has done a great job at the FED….YES TRUE…HE DESERVES THE OSCAR THIS YEAR FOR BEST ACTOR IN THE SUPPORTING ROLE OF THE REAL LIFE ROBBERY OF AMERICA CALLED TOO BIG TO FAIL.

  153. The U.S. Treasury was the Depositor into the banksters coffers and they never lent a dime. Hank Paulsons head on a pole would be appropriate.

  154. The problem with that argument KC is there is no trustee of the Securities because those who were entrusted with our titles, the care of our Securities, failed to perform their Fiduciary duties in the care and taking of the instruments.

    They recorded the Property deeds…the mortgages…but not the Issuers Securities because the Issuers never Performed on the contracts ….created the Securities by paying due Consideration to the Treasury before they converted the instruments..No legal assignments existed so no transfers of the titles were legal. The mortgage backed securities were not their securities and were backed by nothing but our unauthorized signatures, our autographs.

    The title companies could not perfect the collateral liens because we were not given a loan because the contracts were destroyed upon conversion of the instruments, the FEDS DEFAULT… and the trusts were never set up.

    The direct deposit accounts set up by the title companies were used as a siphon from the Treasury to the FED and kept open as escrow accounts for property tax purposes or insurance purposes ….wink….wink… The title companies were used as shell trusts that were fake, they were frauds used to give the illusion that trusts existed. This was the the biggest scam in history. Everything was an illusion for the benefit of the investors at the top of the pyramid scheme.

    It was the perfect tax exempt safe haven for the crooks because they gave the illusion that the trusts existed. That these Securities were safe in a vault somewhere and the banks and their investors could racketeer with our Securities under the guise they owned and controlled them.

    It was all an illusion. A work of fraud and fiction and all those fees we paid to indemnify the title co agent/escrowee were fraud. The entire HUD 1 SETTLEMENT SHEET and those stupid right to cancel forms and TILA were a complete farce to make us believe we signed those contracts and we were a party to a financial transaction when in fact we were being set up to fail and robbed by all of these sheisters.

    Got rope?

  155. kc said:
    “deed of trust by its very nature is a three-party instrument, whereby the trustee holds “legal title” to the property, the beneficiary holds the so-called “beneficial title,” and the homeowner in possession holds “equitable title.”

    Sorry. that’s not true. The beneficiary in a dot holds NO form of title. A beneficiary has the rights created in the instrument, but no form of title
    But, yes, there are only two: equitable and legal. One of two things happen, generally, with a dot (well, supposed to). The borrower pays off the loan and when he does, a reconveyance is issued which quiets title in his name only. If the borrower doesn’t pay, the trustee acting as a disinterested party (gag) quiets title in favor of the successful bidder at sale. Quiet title basically means both forms of title (equitable and legal) are re-united in one party.

    As to bare naked title, the more appropriate argument, in my opinion, is that there is no such thing as bare naked title to a contract, which is the argument one of the justices of the OR SC was looking for in oral arguments in Niday. I’m sorry to report that I thought the homeowner’s attorney missed a golden opportunity. MERS and its pals have done such a swell job selling such an absurd notion, some of us are falling in line on that one.

  156. BBQ Ribs for Fathers Day Here to UKG. MMM
    Happy Fathers Day to All Fathers and Grandfathers!

    I’m not shocked by your statement about the funding. Seems feasible but lets let MS explain it. What do you say MS? Were the title companies the real lenders to us and the debtors for duechbag creditor?

  157. ” (b) the debtor is legally released from being the primary obligor under the liability either judicially or by the creditor. Therefore, a liability is not considered extinguished by an in-substance defeasance.”
    Defeasance (as to financial transactions)
    The setting aside by a borrower of cash or bonds sufficient to service the borrower’s debt. Both the borrower’s debt and the offsetting cash or bonds are removed from the balance sheet. In securities trading, where a clearing house becomes counterparty to each side of a trade, after the trade has been agreed. This is necessary to facilitate netting, and reduce counterparty risk exposure. The term has become popular recently, because of the growth of central counterparty clearing services in European cash equities markets
    The debtor is the seller, the party who (gave/sold/transferred) the loan to the Depositor. there was a residual (carry, or gain on sale) value, a servicing right, enhancement by pmi (Triad, now chapter 11), swaps (Bear, BK), Citigroup is the Securities underwriter (big writedowns andultimate seller), TARP bought the swaps on the M7/8/9’s, loan was still tracking on BLMBRG post-HAMP, and yes, i sued them for fraud, Racketeering, etc etc.
    the Baiter continues to evade answering my question because he wants like 5G plus expenses. can’t blame him for trying………

    cooked ribs on the smoker today. hungry.

  158. deed of trust by its very nature is a three-party instrument, whereby the trustee holds “legal title” to the property, the beneficiary holds the so-called “beneficial title,” and the homeowner in possession holds “equitable title.”

    MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument.”

    Without going into detail about the fiction of splitting title and about each type of title, suffice it to say that there can be no more than one “legal title” to a single piece of property. What that means is that when the homeowner as grantor (while retaining “equitable title”) conveyed the “legal title” to his property to the trustee under the deed of trust, there was no “legal title” left in any of the remaining interests (which are the homeowner’s equitable title and the creditor’s beneficial title).

    Thus, the language in the deed of trust that “MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted” is a nullity because the “interests granted” involve (1) the grant of the legal title to the trustee and (2) the grant of beneficial title to the creditor (by virtue of the trustee holding the legal title “for the benefit” of the creditor). There can be no conveyance of the “legal title” to both the trustee and to MERS. Since the trustee’s ownership of the legal title is undisputed, that leaves no legal title to be held by MERS. Thus, MERS holds absolutely no interest, legal, beneficial, or otherwise under a typical deed of trust from the very beginning (or, in legalese, ab initio).

    Thus, MERS’ designation as “nominee” and its resulting position under a typical deed of trust is much weaker in non-judicial states than most people (including judges) believe

    Bear with me UKG… I have a lot of homework and a call to make on Monday, it was right under my nose and I missed it, that is why I always double check and triple check my work. OCD MS

  159. I never gifted anything to these crooks or vice versa. There are no laws that support gifting as a legal claim for anything of value anyway. They are trying to contrive moral values as an excuse for their criminal acts. These crooks have no moral values and that is a proven fact.

  160. Back in january there was some discussion here about wamu, the fdic, jpmc, and no there being no assgts to jpmc.. Think it started with a post about a case in MI. Anyone know what is going on with assignments in MI for those loans? The usual?

  161. @KCand the Sunshine Band: the lack of endorsements on any of the notes allowed them to place multiple times and nobody can be held liable: originator, seller, depositor, sponsor, trustee, as per PSA MLPA REMIC. nobody endorsed anything. Solly says the RES was used to finance multiple stock transactions. unsecured borrowing. using the home to finance multiple transactions, i.e. stock swaps, and ultimately using the cash from investors to buy, and parking the liability in the QSPE as in ENRON.
    You have reminded me that the TITLE company took a sight draft from Deutsche(-line of credit from foreign national bank, not Wells
    Fargo) and the title company could have stood in as a lender on a note with a different payee. nobody is the wiser if the borrower never saw the doc.
    Now, I know Solly can answer this in a statement instead of a riddle, but KC, you take a crack at it.

  162. In-Substance Debt Defeasance

    A provision in a loan removing it from a balance sheet if cash or a portfolio is set aside for debt service. Usually, defeasance occurs when a borrower owns a portfolio of Treasury securities whose coupons are used to service a debt. When the borrower has set aside sufficient assets to cover the debt, the debt does not need to be recorded on a balance sheet.

  163. How do you steal money from someone who does not have any ?

    Give it to them. (And that’s what the fuckers did.)

  164. This Statement requires that a liability be derecognized if and only if either (a) the debtor pays the creditor and is relieved of its obligation for the liability or (b) the debtor is legally released from being the primary obligor under the liability either judicially or by the creditor. Therefore, a liability is not considered extinguished by an in-substance defeasance

  165. Any conventional loans over 80% ltv required mortgage insurance. To get such insurance, a copy package of the file had to be sent to the m.i. company (PMI, MGIC, whomever). The m.i. co might approve or turn down, or it might come back with conditions which differed from the underwriter’s at the big guy’s. All had to be dealt with. The cost of the insurance had to be borne by the borrower, tho the lender was the insured. That insurance did not cover the entire amt of the loan – it only covered it down to a certain percentage of that amt.

    To avoid additional underwriting by m.i. companies, (cough, cough), lender’s came up with the “self-insuring” loans. They somehow insured them (pooled insurance accounts?) themselves and avoided that add’l underwriting. This as you can see DID allow them to avoid add’l underwriting. I don’t believe these loans were eligible to be sold to F or F, but not sure.
    Then the banksters realized they could make even more dough by
    using a 2nd with a first. and they were able to avoid insurance altogether, I believe. F & F limited the amt of a 2nd, again I believe, which could be paired with a first. I don’t believe F and F would buy a first it it had a second on it which made the total loan to value 100%. F & F may have limited the 1st and 2nd combination to 90%, or that may have changed so the mucks could get bigger production bonuses.

    Banksters discovered that 2nds, especially high loan to value 2nds, could command outrageous fees and rates. After all, the appraisal supported the loan, right? From there, it must have seemed like a natural to anyone without a conscience to start making FIRST mortgages with ridiculous teaser rates and fees, since they must have had to find homes for the riduculous 2nds already. Once they found places to sell those heinous loans, the die was cast and someone else was going to bear the brunt of these acts.
    Humor me and let me say this again: Some of us did in fact use our homes for ATM’s, and not only got on board this train, but ran to catch it. But people with lending licenses are regulated by laws against predatory or otherwise garbage loans. They are charge with knowing if we are likely to repay our loans. In short, whether they like it or not, an appropriate way to view this is that they are charged with saving us from ourselves. And not only did they not do this, they encouraged us to go down what they knew to be a disastrous pass – for us and others, and in so doing brought this country to its knees and additionally brought shame to this country.

  166. PS – the notes were not endorsed in blank. The little guy endorsed them specifically to the big guy.

  167. FYI: john

    Mine wasn’t sold, had no place to go, not funded, per transcript DE Federal Bankruptcy Court.

    We have an amended repurchase, supposedly from Credit Suisse, faxed from DMD office, on a Sunday at 6:02 p.m. EST…what? Credit Suisse needs to use a dental office in NJ to submit their repurchase agreements? New Century has some very interesting circumstances playing out.

  168. Last year I said i heard that before loans could be sold to a trust, they have to be seasoned for six months by borrower payments and in no other way. I haven’t been able to confirm that. I also said I heard the banksters came up with their own unlawful way to get around the seasoning requirement, but -big surprise- I can’t remember what that was.

  169. well, just in case someone wants to hear something which may be instructive, something very basic in case you’re a person who doesn’t know, and also because I seek to avoid unpleasant chores (!):

    the little mtg cos and brokers originated loans using the program guidelines provided by the big guys, like b of a, wf, cw, aurora, and so on. The big guys underwrote the loans acc to those program guidelines.and funded them thru the title co., generally. Whose funds were used is a debate here at LL. In the ‘old days’, the loans were funded by way of the big guy’s credit lines. The credit line provider retained a lien (but did not own the loans) on the loan until it was paid off, generally by sale to Fnma or Fhlmc or an RFC, a none-govt purchaser of loans. Loans which exceeded F or F’s loan limits went to an RFC kind of co. Loans which did not conform to F or F’s guidelines also went to an RFC type co. What was considered exotic then is a far cry from what exotic turned into (got a pulse?)
    .
    B of A, et al took the loans orig’d by small cos / brokers and the ones their own retail offices originated and pooled them. In the ‘old days’, fnma and fhlmc et al were the guys called “investors”. The big guys pooled the loans into bundles of 5 million or so and sold them to fnma and fhlmc. To sell to any of the agencies, one had to be an approved seller-servicer, and the small guys didn’t cut it. VA and FHA guaranteed and insured loans, respectively, and the certificates of guarantee or insurance were generally issued in the names of the guy on the note. The guar and ins ultimately guar’d or ins’d the loan to its ultimate owner. FHA and VA did not buy the loans. GNMA may have purchased these loans.

    In underwriting these loans, the underwriter has to check everything, including the g.f.e, the Reg Z, the credit side of the package, and the collateral side of the package – the appraisal. The U/W also has to review the title report and any exceptions. If a loan were approved, theoretically all passed muster. (One point ‘m trying to make here is that the big guys underwrote and funded these loans and therefore signed off on everything, including the appraisal and the TIL Reg Z).

    The loans were sold to F or F or RFC or someone by the big guys, generally servicing-retained by themselves. The loans were sold but the big guys retained servicing because servicing is big bucks and F & F don’t service loans. This means there is a likelihood that if B of A was the first servicer of one’s loan, the little guy used B of A’s loan program and B of A underwrote, approved, and likely funded that loan.

    Their contracts with F & F et al generally had buy-back provisions to a time certain. First payment defaults were a guarantee of a buy-back. Some companies, like maybe RFC, wouldn’t buy certain “non-conforming” (read less stringent guidelines) loans until they had been seasoned for a time certain, generally six months, but sometimes 2. This meant an RFC wouldn’t buy the loan until the borrower had made six payments. This is called seasoning.

    When the little guy sold the loan to the big guy (which purchase was prearranged), the little guy (a real officer of the little guy) executed an assignment of the dot to the big guy and this was recorded immediately after the dot. The title cos. were generally the guys who handled recordation. The little guy had to have a corporate resolution on file with the big guy which informed the big guy of whom at the little guy was authorized to bind the little guy for the corporate assignment of the dot. No one would have accepted an assignment done by a third party who alleged to be a nominee or agent of the little guy, even if that third party had been named as a nominee in the dot and then in the same instrument, despite being called a nominee, his duties described were that of an agent.
    They wouldn’t have, believe me, but if they had, they would have wanted a copy of the governing agreement between the little guy and the third party.
    The place of signing the note is always on a note, because in my strictly lay opinion, it determines which state’s version of the UCC controls the instrument. Trust law has changed that, apparently, or has added another layer to enforcement laws, and complex, and thus imo unfair if not unconscionable, ones at that.

    To the best of my knowledge, all subsequent transfers of the note were evidenced in public record by the concurrent execution and recordation of the assgts of the deeds of trust. Every once in a while, when a loan portfolio was sold, a bulk assignment was executed and recorded. This could have been done with securitization – IMO -,but wasn’t. One of the reasons, I newly believe, was because passive trusts have no way to enforce these loans, another story for another day. Anything expressed here is an opinion as always.

  170. Einstein’s brain shows uncommon features….

    http://allgoodread.typepad.com/first/2012/11/einsteins-brain-shows-uncommon-features.html

  171. If the link is blocked you can google it. Apparently Einstein’s brain was missing part of the Sylvian fissure. That may give one the ability to think outside of the box. That missing part of the Sylvian fissure allows the nerves in the brain to connect better.

  172. Why do the brains of geniuses differ from others? Why did J.F.Ks brain disappear? What might they really be hiding from us? Food for thought.

    http://en.wikipedia/wiki/Albert_Eistein's_brain

  173. Oh, the broker for all to see, Anchor Mortgage, SC and CA…the owner, who will not return my contact: Dante Campanelli…there is a complaint on Scribd about him too. Buyers Beware.

  174. Right KC, plenty of them. It’s time to collect!

  175. Let me add this: my son just went to buy a short sale in SC, a $200,000 home (maybe the right price, never followed through, a fixer), with $50,000 down, through the bankruptcy court…closing terms and fees: $9,500 for the bankruptcy trustee, $6,840 for the broker, $895.00 underwriting fee, $795.00 commitment fee, FHA, supposedly (credit score is very suspect by the broker, refuses to let us see it, suspicious) $168.75 for 360 moths of PMI ($60,750.00 Total)…Interest rate 4%, until you add all of the fees, it pops to to 7%. The predatory lending is still going on…even through the courts.

    And further after looking at multiple properties, the banks, servicers and lawyers (using their own investment companies) are using the Internet to artificially keep prices high, in some cases they will never appraise, the banks are very slowly pushing the foreclosures out to stabilize and trick the market, paying real estate agents 1% (some cases it takes up to a year to close) and using places like HUBZU (Ocwen, Altisource, one in the same), HomePath, to submit bids and playing with them (to long to explain), pushing realtors out of the game and they are taking over the “entire” process…this is not good, for anyone, except them!

    Needless to say, my son asked me, I emailed the broker and told him what a thug he was, he told me to watch my tone, really, you are systematically lying and stealing money under false pretenses, and this IS a predatory situation, bet you wouldn’t dare say that to me and my sons face, creep!

  176. Its like a hot potato that nobody wants to get caught with.

  177. Some of those Free Gift Boxes say Warning….. Claims/liability exceed any profit. Get Rid of It! Gift it Back!

  178. They were gifted a gift without consideration with liabilities.

  179. Oh they do own something Poppy… its called liabilities.

  180. It’s all good, but when in Administrative court, prior to trial…these guys are duping everyone. They own nothing, have no rights to anything and generally debt collectors. The rules for that are very simple and they are lying when they say they are more. IMO…have seen nothing to prove otherwise. The judges are out of their authority too…all bullshit, trickery at its highest level. See it over and over…

  181. When you put WHEN With the timing … (that’s where MS comes in). ROFLMAO! When you pay it off …. then and only then do you get title to grant .. ut umm… Oh .. like ..aa… DIL or aa SS or aa CFC or just not grant anything at all. After all it is paid off.

  182. The truth is the Treasury Dept is D.O.A….

  183. Until death do us part….AMEN.

  184. The warranty deed, the owners title insurance policy trumps the grant deed.

  185. The FED and their banks are lying and covering up for these communist imposter politicians and that includes Bernanke. It’s not the FED banks/servicers that are stealing everything from us in fraudclosure court, they are a smokescreen. It is the commie politicians who have hijacked our Treasury Department and are directing this robbery of the American people. They are all invested in this Nazi scam and we are all paying for it.

  186. Hey Poppy, the Grant Deed comes first. You can not grant something until you have that right to do so. You don’t get that right til when? when? What was it that Gal said in the Depos Neil posted? Good Attorney! Patriotic kinda Fella! I Like Him!

  187. I have no problem with that comment…in fact in my Complaints and Motions, under the “legal” definition and Homeland Security definition, they are traitors, committing treason and I say exactly that. Not that they care, but the definition speaks for itself!

  188. The Title Companies/U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT should be defending our titles. That is their job that WE THE PEOPLE entrusted them with and pay them to do. What do we have instead? HIGH TREASON……Instead we have those entrusted with our Securities, our wealth and properties, hiding behind the scenes as a third party debt collector for these imposters. They are not just traitor’s they are COWARDS……Telling judges to just take everything from us. It is egregious, heinous and felonious at every level but the real scum are hiding in Congress & the Senate and in both houses.

    AGENDA 21 COMMUNISM HAS HIJACKED THE FREEIST NATION ON EARTH……!

  189. They lie, lie, lie…even the DOT designation is wrong. If the originator has not tied the “debt owed” to the property. And how can they do that with “lines of credit” they borrowed on our behalf, took the money to keep the company afloat and don’t know where the money was used? DAH…no securitizations, no trusts, in some cases no funding at all…these judges are just are nuts, as the lawyers, trustees and bankersters….originators are NOT lenders, now get them off the deed, your Honor! Then you have the contractual issues, when borrowing money for another party, JEEZ, this is not rocket science judges….

  190. So if a suit/claim is brought against the title, the Trustee will defend it. So if I bring a claim against the holder/servicer for the Trustee(plaintiff) and the Trustee has to defend it? Now that’s funny!

  191. To Defend a claim brought against title, it would reason there would have to be a claim/suit to defend. Right? Ok, BOA slandered our title but they have not brought a suit against it? No claim to defend.

    So I file QT (have to have a court order to reverse 3 slanders/clouds). So make sure I name all known and unknown parties recorded and non recorded as defendants. And who defends my title for me? Indemnify Who?

  192. What PSA are the trusts working off of – collecting for? None…
    The game: distance yourself…get far, far away.

    Administrative courts have no subject matter jurisdiction to hear UCC claims, commercial claims, hence your 12 (b)(6)…remove the case to Federal Court, IMHO

    After “pledging” your loan, selling it multiple times…quiet title is a crap shoot. No guarantees there.

    The words are not what they mean; hence “holder”, I can your car title doesn’t mean I own the car…

    Servicer, sure I can service a debt, a customer, doesn’t mean I am a servicer as the legal definition, regarding a trust.

    Creditor, oh yes, you mean “debt collector” don’t you? State jurisdiction…and where did you get that note, Pulease….

    Owner, Hmmmm, owner of what, a copy of a note?

    All bullshit, perjury and hearsay, your Honor!

  193. The servicers are the beneficiaries of fraud and that’s it. The Servicers have no legal authority to even collect any payments from us.

  194. That is like saying we will rob the country and then after the robbery we will make it legal but, only for us. Complete B.S. Looks like some type of Resolution that makes robbery & fraud legal for crooks to rob us from a remote location. That’s never gonna fly if you know the truth.

  195. so, Solly, their idea of relief is……what?
    they’re not giving anybody anything. Fraud is the claim.
    You are hinting at the ignorance of….who?
    The Trustee?
    The Securities Underwriter?
    The bookrunner?
    The servicers are THE unltimate beneficiaries of foreclosure, are they not?
    The malfeasance of all involved and the lack of endorsements on the notes say what? NO SURRENDER OF CONTROL OF THE ASSET?
    A pledge instead of a sale and the district manager told the company that the merchandise was sold when it wasn’t?

  196. Another farce KC. That has no legal legs in our courts. That is an ex post FACTO piece of garbage.

  197. It is their common theme. Stay united in this theft until the people are left broke and homeless in the land their fathers conquered. Greed and Jealousy are dangerous emotions. The khazars always wanted to see our Constitution fail because that is the only thing keeping them from their ultimate goal of world domination.

  198. Deborah wynn,

    They are dying to give you relief and your suing them for what …no stress my closest of allies – think ponder , evaluate re evaluate but you not I call the industry scammers , cooks thieves and seminarians

    Your right – peace !
    Its too nice a day to be doing this ….

    Now we return you to your program

    I got scammed, I found a robo signor, I have a phony assignment, Eddie Munster lied to me…Ahhhhhhhh!

  199. The truth is: everyone was aware of what was going on at BOA, Wells Fargo, CITI, etc…self-interest. If you believe people signed a contract to pay BOA and defaulted, it is not that difficult to understand and of course the threat of job loss, with little or no education.

    Doesn’t make it right, for sure, but happens all the time. For me, sure I signed paperwork for a loan; however, the hidden truth, withheld by BOA and others about the contract modifications done after the fact, I didn’t agree to, is the issue and very carefully crafted, buried.

  200. the best thing you can do for your health and I say this to all is calm the f down. stress IS the killer, it is the one thing that will manifest every dis-ease under the sun.

  201. I am in the mood to talk and to share the innermost secrets with all interested mischief- makers …..Ask your question (hurry _ i got as feeling they going to bring me down here in a few …)

    My point is what your seeing is not what you get –
    but you wont let go of over 150 years conventional mortgage lending….appraisals assignments notes endorsements -moot null -Hobo Cigs…all immaterial arguments ….

    Robo Signatures- AG Bait
    False Assignments – The grant deed prevails over assignments
    Assignments – for what ….and of course “Phony Endorsements”-

    MersCorp is every national charter.
    Every national charter is a trustee.
    Loans are granted /conveyed irrevocabley
    Trustee holds the legal title thru Mers and
    equitable title as Trustee

    What is an assignment for – see gratuitous promises, gratuitous assignments, etc all part of Short title…

    Caution – your entering a civil matter like a lost traveler in the middle of the Sahara trying to get home for dinner …..its tough !

  202. @KC
    Thanks for the info. There should be more people like you, with integrity. Seems to be lacking nowadays.

  203. Interesting. Everything I’ve written is public information. So what you are saying is: Keep it hidden with continued secrecy? This is all true.

  204. exposetherotteneggs, YES, the employees (majority) were in the dark, when they became aware.. they either joined them or were deemed disposable. I was disposable, but I have had a couple of offers to get my pay … for a signature of course. NOPE!

  205. So you are saying that most employees were in the dark and unaware of the fraud?

    For alll my consternation I cannot avoid a well constructed question that requires a more in depth response.

    If you would – please

    Supermarket sued for spoiled beef sold as fresh.

    Did the stock boy know
    Did the stock boy care (lazy)
    Did the stock boy take orders

    Did the stock boy manager know
    Did the stock boy manager really care (lazy)
    Did the stock boy manager take orders

    Did the stock boy know and his manager not while the store manager knew
    Did the stock boy care (lazy)and the manager not know
    Did the stock boy take orders from the manager

    Did the stock boy and general manger not know
    Did the stock boy not care (lazy) and asst manager try tostop
    Did the stock boy take orders from the district manager

    Did the general manger not know and district manager go off the regional managers orders
    Did the asst manager and the stock boy not care (lazy) and lied to the department manager
    Did the stock boy have a relationship with the store amanger and both disliked the department manager

    Who takes orders from the department manger …the person overseeing the stock boys

    Do department managers take orders from the district manager if the store manager is derelict ….

    At this point your mile and light years away from getting to the top brass and determining if directors have redress culpability or etc etc

    Fraud fraud you say – Caution here Ching $$ ching …

    You wont beat the meat in a fraud claim -not in this matter –
    you bought it ,
    now eat it!

    Sad but true !!!

  206. …have recently been in contact with a former IndyMac/One West Bank employee: Escalation specialist, Juniper Tide-Stain Kiaune, who worked for HSBC and is currently working for BofA as a customer relationship manager/appeals specialist.

    INDY MAC BANK – HOLD-CO FDIC RECEIVERS
    ONE WEST BANK – SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS TO AWARDS
    BOFA – SELLER AND OBLIGOR TO BOND HOLDERS
    HSBG BANK – INSTITUTIONAL US WAR BOND ISSUERS

    Quote – your about to enter a world of another dimension …dimension of sight and sound …you’ve entered the non comply-lite Zone

  207. @masterservicer

    The Truth is the Truth. Simple as that. When working for a company in which you are aware of wrongdoing and you continue the wrongdoing you are just as guilty as the business you are employed by. So you are saying that most employees were in the dark and unaware of the fraud?

  208. The solutions exist. They are being implemented in many parts of the world. One community at a time. One act of courage at a time.

  209. He responded “unfortunately I cannot comment on this loan. As I recall I was mentioned in the lawsuit, therefore One West Bank attorneys can answer any questions you may have.”

    ONE WEST BANK IS AN AWARDEE (HELP ME Lord help ME)

  210. well well well, get them all riled up and filled with lender hatred ,,,,that’s right ! Forget the fact a guy in long beach gets $165,000 cash for keys (long Beach) and another $450,000 credit (Walnut Creek)

    The $450,000 credito was against a $650,000 Value and another $50,000 Cash for keys (No Cal) and another $3,000 cash ,,,,Yes $3,000 cash ….after one and a half years….and the keys back to home.

    * Attack BofA employees that’s right (boiler room contractors )
    * Attack Bof A modifications (The sold the loans for Christie Alleys sake)
    * How can u modify a loan or be culpable for bogus mod’s if you SOLD the loan .

    I was one of them and can tell you – YOU EVEN KEEP THE EMPLOYEES IN THE DARK

    NG – Your setting yourself up for a prep walk before a GJ with the damage you caused this industry…and to my effort …..

    Survey says – The editor is clueless

    registerclaims@live.com

  211. When we were going through the modification process with IndyMac we heard so many different excuses. It was really so obvious that if we weren’t going through it, it would be laughable. I have recently been in contact with a former IndyMac/One West Bank employee: Escalation specialist, Joseph Kiaune, who worked for HSBC and is currently working for BofA as a customer relationship manager/appeals specialist. After the bank sold our home of 17 years at a foreclosure auction I contacted the Ca. AG’s office and they contacted IndyMac. Joseph Kiaune called and said” There were errors re: your loan, we will rescind the sale and give you your mod back.” That day we had an appointment with an attorney to possibly sue the bank. From that point our attorney (we retained that day )was in contact with Joseph Kiaune. He told her exactly what he had said to me. We have emails stating he was working on a rescission and would let us know in 5 business days. Within this time our attorney was in constant contact with Kiaune . After a month of stalling our attorney contacted the flipper and was told no one from the bank ever contacted him re: a rescission, shortly thereafter the flipper took us to court and we were evicted. When I recently contacted Joseph Kiaune I simply asked him if he could share with me what really happened re our loan, (he was named on our complaint against the bank) since he was not working at IndyMac and the lawsuit was over. He responded “unfortunately I cannot comment on this loan. As I recall I was mentioned in the lawsuit, therefore One West Bank attorneys can answer any questions you may have.” And that he could be of no further assistance.” I do understand why he cannot tell me the truth as he is working in the banking industry. We knew he was brazenly lying and we were lied to the whole time because during this whole 2 1/2 year process of insanity the bank had no intention of working with us to get a loan mod, even after we had a trial mod, 4 payments and paid 2 payments for a Freddie mac back up loan mod. Such a Fraud. Such a Crime. Needs to stop.

  212. The best thing you can do for your health is organic fruits and vegetables (LOTS of “greens”), nuts, seeds, etc. NO processed crap, NO dairy, NO gluten products, NO white flour, NO white sugar, etc….I just bought a NutraBullet the other day and went on a strict regimen and I feel great and have already lost 10 pounds without even thinking about it—just following the NutraBullet recipes…also, watch the documentary “Hungry For Change”—and EAT your medicine!!! No more doctors!! Well, maybe just a few…;)

  213. Christine i hear you
    But im not hoing to even attempt to eat the elephant. Got enough on my plate for now .

  214. Them…. If you don’t you will not receive your pay
    . Me … still not paid.
    aha … they did it to their own employees and contractors knowing if they did not comply they would become a victim also of FC themselves. They mistakenly assumed my pay was support money… . it was Grandma’s spending money, but that’s ok. Grandmas Grandpa and Grandma took care of Grandma. 🙂

  215. @ Deb… Nothing has changed… business as usual or loss of your job and/or vendor contract.

  216. Deb,

    I wasn’t referring to you. As far as i am concerned, Stripper is a non-issue and a non-entity.

  217. And Deb,

    This foreclosure situation was artificially created to prevent people from doing exactly what more and more are doing: free themselves from Monsanto-bought government’s interference and its life-and-death rights over its citizens. When citizens no longer financially support big business, government can only crumble since it is bought and paid for by… big business.

    Growing food goes against Monsanto and Co. Using natural remedies and actually getting cured of illnesses goes against big pharma. Recycling rainwater goes against that enormously profitable business that water has become. Any wonder all of it has been declared “illegal”?

    When a country of less than 5% of the world population detains 25% of the world inmate population, you know that it has been completely bought and corrupted. The choice people are faced with is go along or fight. Well, there is 3rd choice that more and more rich Americans are opting for: moving out and obtaining other citizenship. (Bachmann comes to mind. Too bad she didn’t want to give up her seat. But she’s working on regaining that Swiss citizenship as we speak. That’s why she announced she wouldn’t run anymore.)

    Nothing happens in a vacuum.

    http://offgridsurvival.com/rainwaterillegal/

    Government Makes Rainwater Illegal

    Filed under News, Police State July 27, 2012 Posted by: Rob Richardson

    In news that seems like it came straight out of Bizzaro World, a Man in Oregon has been sentenced to 30 days in jail after authorities say he had the nerve to collect rainwater.

    Yep, RAIN WATER IS ILLEGAL.

    As bizarre as it sounds, I guess it really shouldn’t be a surprise. We have covered numerous stories of how the government has been chipping away at the rights of land. From survival gardens being seized to the land owners in California who are being forced back on to the grid, people’s rights as land owners are being shredded by local, state and federal governments.

    In the latest abuse of power, a man in Oregon has been sentenced to 30 days in jail and ordered to pay a $1,500 fine for collecting rainwater on his own land. Gary Harrington was convicted of nine misdemeanor crimes for filling his three man-made reservoirs with rainwater and snow runoff. The state of Oregon claims the water that fell from the sky, is owned by them and the Medford Water Commission.

    Outlawing Rain Water

    It just doesn’t get any crazier than this. What’s next charging us for the air that we breathe?

    How we ended up in a place that allows the government to tell us what we can or can’t do on our own land is crazy in and of itself, but for the government to claim they now own the water that falls from the sky is almost beyond belief.

    LET THE WATER WARS BEGIN

    As unreal as it may sound, at least 9 states have made it illegal to collect rainwater on your own land. Utah, Oregon, Colorado and a number of other states have passed rainwater laws that either limit or all out ban the collection of rainwater. Apparently, it’s alright for mega corporations to take it, bottle it and then sell it to the public for profit; but if you should try to collect any for yourself – You might need a lawyer!

    In this video from 2008, a Utah News Channel highlights the problem.

    This issue has nothing to do with saving the environment.

    In fact, a number of independent studies have all proven that letting people collect rainwater on their properties actually reduces demand from water facilities and improves conservation efforts. But therein lies the problem. Not only is this about controlling the people, but what lies at the heart of this problem seems to be money. If the government allows people to collect their own rainwater, how would the local water facilities charge the public for water?

    Water has become big business. In fact, water is one of the fastest growing industries in the world today. Americans spend billions of dollars each year on bottled water – not counting the billions that go to government agencies – and this resource is quickly becoming one of the most politicized resources in the world.

  218. Kc
    Same principle re the appraisers you play or you get no pay – from any one / blacklisted.

  219. Christine my intention is not to shoot the messenger things you say get my attention actually except wHen you argue with stripes.
    But ill tell you this i pay my taxes because. Sometimes you gotta loose a battle to win a war susta.

  220. Them bad boy attorneys fudging the amount owed. As in the account history, payments and payoff just for starters. Then they get unsuspecting improperly trained employees who need paychecks to act as MERS VP under a corporate resolution. AKA they snooker the employees to Play or Get No Pay. Yep .. been down that road. LPS… bad bad bad . I am still waiting for a copy of that corporate resolution,…. you know the one giving rise and authority for the VP of MERS to sign.

  221. BOA/Countrywide, funny, just a tidbit: my loan on their ledger from Blank Rome in 2012; Dated; 1986, with subsidence insurance (mining perils, I’m near the water, still in place in 2012) was originated in 2005. The house was built in 1986 and the trustee is the VP of the original lender in 1986…Now, BOA really? Looks like a refinance to me, where legal title was never passed…

  222. “We start one house/ homestead at a time because its the principle behind our right to own land to ” cultivate” and reap the benefits for our labor”

    Actually Deb, in many states and counties, it is forbidden. You may not grow food in your yard (I got a few tickets because of that. Still doing it though… What is the worst that can happen? I got no money. Big deal!) So, what good is it to “own” land. As far as reaping the benefit of our labor, we voluntarily give a good chunk of it to the IRS, so that agencies can be created and private contractors paid to come after us when all we want it eat well and be merry.

    People still voluntarily pay the taxman though. Except that in more and more cooperatives, employees/co-owners have decided not to complete a W4 form and not to send monthly money. The IRS can do nothing about it. Neither employee nor employer can be held liable for it. And that’s what I’m looking for all the time: that kind of good news that tells me there is a way other than sit in front of a computer blogging all day long.

    Here is what your taxes are used for. That ordinance about not growing food was voted by people i helped elect. As A Man says… never more!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrN76N4qWUM

    Anything you stop feeding will die eventually.

  223. Shooting the messenger won’t kill the message. And since people don’t want to take responsibility for themselves, nothing will change anytime soon. Do you want money and high returns from your Monsanto and big pharma investments or do you want healthy food? Do you want an individual car that gulps oil and spits out CO2 or do you want a healthy body, trimmed by walking and taking adequate public transportation?

    America is dying of the Me-first mentality. Attacking me ain’t gonna change that. All I am doing is observe and report. Nope. Not optimistic for this country’s future… Any idea why so many rich Americans are moving out while opening the doors to all the refugees under the Geneva Convention? Simple answer: those are the only people who have it so worse that they’re willing to come here. Funny thing, though… more and more of them end up returning to what they left. America stopped being what it was cracked up to be a long time ago. And now, it is so obvious that it cannot be ignored any longer.

    Denial is a terrible disease…

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/09/americans-health-mortality-illness/1818903/

    Americans have a “pattern of poorer health” than people in other wealthy countries, a new report shows.
    Health

    Americans live sicker and die younger than people in other wealthy countries — and the gap is getting worse over time, a new report shows.

    Men in the USA have shorter lives than men in 16 developed nations. American women also fall near the bottom of the list, living 5.2 fewer years than Japanese women, who live the longest.

    “The tragedy is not that the United States is losing a contest with other countries,” the report says, “but that Americans are dying and suffering from illness and injury at rates that are demonstrably unnecessary.”

    Most of the difference between male Americans’ longevity and that of their peers is due to deaths before age 50, with many problems rooted in poor childhood health, according to the report, published online Wednesday.

    These poor outcomes are especially depressing, because the USA spends twice as much on healthcare — about $9,000 per person — as other industrial countries, says Gerard Anderson of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who was not involved in the report.

    Well-educated Americans — with medical insurance and healthy habits, such as avoiding tobacco and obesity — are still sicker than their peers abroad.

  224. Christine
    We start one house/ homestead at a time because its the principle behind our right to own land to ” cultivate” and reap the benefits for our labor/ alternative has never worked goes against natural law of human need to be free from interference like what has slowly and insidiously happened over decades and the manipulation of sheeple, and thanks to our governments corruption ( im being kind)
    ” cleaning house” is not near good enough needs fumigation, but must start with the people and our courts and we need those great attorneys to step up and make history a better story.

  225. Remember the talk of the 90 day ” trigger event”. Aka point of no return
    However if these sub prime loans were already in false default- which would explain a lot but none the less must be proved and guess who has the burden of proof .. Well back to ” you cant modify what you do not own” this means they concealed and deliberately hold informaton that if known to the court the outcome would be a huge legal problem for thr banks and here we ate again. Theres a bigger wheel turning behind the curtain.

  226. “Wild West” is right—Where are the GUILLOTINES??

    Revolution 2.0

  227. Amazing… Every single layer of the financial system has been corrupted to such an extent that it is completely beyond repair. No wonder no one does anything about it! Where would one start? This is not a situation that will be resolved by a government or any taxpayer funded agency. And it certainly will not be resolved by individual countries. it has to start at the individual level by people walking away from it. In fact, in many parts of the world, people are doing just that: walking away from the collapsed systems. They’re becoming self-employed at record numbers and reevaluating their priorities. They’re rebuilding communities, creating cooperatives and taking ownership and control of their resources and their lives. They are shunning governments, which explains exactly why governments are so intent on using force to try and stop it from happening. And they’re finally getting the idea that the best way to kill anything is to stop feeding it. They stop indulging those unworkable systems. And some of them are willing to risk their life doing so by spilling the beans on how bad it has become.

    The doers, those who have finally understood that they are the saviors they’ve been waiting for all along, will come out on top. Even if they have to sacrifice a lot to get there. The bloggers and screamers won’t fare so well. Eventually though, the latter will die off as a breed as more and more people move on and rebuild outside of the insanity.

    I personally am very optimistic about the future. Not so much about this country though…

    Everything is Rigged, Vol. 9,713: This Time, It’s Currencies

    By Matt Taibbi
    POSTED: June 13, 11:35 AM ET

    I’ll get into this in more detail later (I’m on deadline for a magazine feature), but this story just landed. Given the LIBOR story, the Interest Rate Swap manipulation story, the Euro gas price manipulation story, the U.S. energy price manipulation story, and (by now) countless others of the “Everything is Rigged” variety, this screams out for immediate notice. Via Bloomberg:

    Traders at some of the world’s biggest banks manipulated benchmark foreign-exchange rates used to set the value of trillions of dollars of investments, according to five dealers with knowledge of the practice . . .

    Employees have been front-running client orders and rigging WM/Reuters rates by pushing through trades before and during the 60-second windows when the benchmarks are set, said the current and former traders, who requested anonymity because the practice is controversial. Dealers colluded with counterparts to boost chances of moving the rates, said two of the people, who worked in the industry for a total of more than 20 years.

    This time the rates allegedly being rigged are in the foreign-exchange or “FX” markets, meaning that if this story is true, it would almost certainly trump LIBOR for scale/horribleness.

    As one friend of mine who works on Wall Street put it, “It’s endless! This is the biggest market in the world.” Bloomberg suggested the story is just the tip of the iceberg:

    “The FX market is like the Wild West,” said James McGeehan, who spent 12 years at banks before co-founding Framingham, Massachusetts-based FX Transparency LLC, which advises companies on foreign-exchange trading, in 2009. “It’s buyer beware.”

    The $4.7-trillion-a-day currency market, the biggest in the financial system, is one of the least regulated. The inherent conflict banks face between executing client orders and profiting from their own trades is exacerbated because most currency trading takes place away from exchanges.

    Again, more on this later. But the key thing here is the, uh . . . well, the consistent leitmotif of all these stories. One after another, it’s the same thing: Insiders rigging benchmark rates, shaving money from basically everyone on earth, systematically and over periods of many years. It’s the ultimate taxation-without-representation story – crazy stuff.

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/everything-is-rigged-vol-9-713-this-time-its-currencies-20130613#ixzz2WImnaEQ5
    Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

  228. Oops typo ( what new i know) Meant FDCPA. Thsnk you

  229. Another great job by Obama-holder and congress. Great job guys.

    NEVER AGAIN

  230. If the law re frcpa was applied thus satisfying the statute of frauds we might get through – there is a reason that needs to be satisfied otherwise amyone with a piece of paper with your name on it can claim a right to collect- anything they say it is
    Which is exactly what they are doing.

  231. Yup
    Mine was Duesche Bank National Trust Company polling service agreement 4-1-07
    Got 2 modifications
    Then servicer HOMEQ was taken over by OCWEN
    I offered after BK7 what they stole the house for in the false credit bid with a demand in writing for clear title & they refused to put that in writing claiming the modification guarantees it upon completion of agreement knowing that they were declared unsecured in the BK schedules

  232. ummm- they are all going unpunished so far, including their council- who know also that they are assisting them, for money, a crime against humanity, innocent people around the globe got used and abused- to embezzle their assets their homes do you not think their belief system- is being challenged, the TRUST HAS GONE (excuse the pun) like the saying goes, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cant fool all of the people all of the time, Neil is right there will be big business for decades for the good attorneys who want to stand by what their lifes work is supposed to be about, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing etcI

  233. [About twice a month, the bank cleaned out its HAMP backlog in an operation called “blitz,” where it declined thousands of loan modification requests just because the documents were more than 60 months old, the court documents say.]

    I think you meant to say 60 days … I had read “more than 50 days” from another source…

    Who would want a modification from these crooks ,,, time to burn it all down. Time for the top (executive branch) to decapitate the banking world and install new kings…

  234. And there you have it…drum roll! BOA go unpunished as we speak…

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: