We hold these truths to be self evident: that Chase never acquired any loans from Washington Mutual and that Bank of America never acquired any loans from Countrywide. A review of the merger documents approved by the FDIC reveals that neither Chase nor Bank of America wanted to assume any liabilities in connection with the lending operations of Washington Mutual or Countrywide, respectively. The loans were expressly left out of the agreement which is available for everyone to see on the FDIC website in the reading room.
With the exception of a few instances in which the court pointed out that Chase only acquired servicing rights and that Bank of America may not have acquired any rights, judges have been rubber-stamping foreclosures initiated by Bank of America (or entities controlled by Bank of America like Recontrust) under the assumption that Bank of America must be the owner of the Countrywide mortgages. The same is true for judges who have been rubber-stamping foreclosures initiated by Chase under the assumption that Chase must be the owner of the Washington Mutual mortgages. After all, if they don’t own the mortgages then who does? The answer is that in nearly all cases either BofA nor Countrywide and neither Chase nor WAMU owned the loans and their financial statements prove it.
Not only have the judges been rubber-stamping the foreclosures and participating in a scheme that is correcting our title records nationwide, the entry of judgment against the borrower and for Bank of America or for Chase completes the theft of the investors money that was used for exorbitant fees, profits and bonuses and then finally for the funding of the origination or acquisition of loans. The fact that the REMIC trust was ignored in both form and content has also been the subject of the defective rulings from the bench. Not only have the courts ruled against the borrowers and for the banks, they have even ruled against the presentation of evidence that would have shown that the investors were being stripped of their expected lien rights and then stripped again on their expected return of principal and interest, and then barred by collateral estoppel from ever bringing it up.
Since most of the foreclosures have emanated from Bank of America and Chase it is a fair assumption that most of the foreclosure sales were void because no valid bid was received in exchange for the deed. The property is still owned by the original homeowner In any case where a credit bid was submitted by Bank of America or Chase on any loan in which either Countrywide Mortgage or Washington Mutual was involved. I might add that the Federal Reserve in New York is completely aware of these facts and is steadfastly refusing to reveal the truth to the public or even to the homeowners whose homes were illegally and wrongfully foreclosed by Bank of America and Chase for a loan where both Bank of America and Chase and their chain of affiliates had been paid multiple times on a loan receivable account owned by the source of the funds, to wit: the investors who thought they were buying mortgage bonds from a funded legally organized REMIC trust.
CAVEAT: The courts are mainly concerned with finality. In many states there may be a statute of limitations to challenge a void deed from an auction sale. Check with an attorney who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located before you take any action or make any decision.
It seems crazy to think that someone could apply for a loan and get the benefits of funding without ever being required to pay it back to the lender. But that is exactly what is happening as a result of defective court decisions. The lender consists of a group of investors including pension funds that are now underfunded as a result of the civil and possibly criminal theft of funds by Bank of America and Chase or the investment firms acquired by them.
Homeowners are being forced to pay Bank of America and Chase rather than the investors who actually advanced the funds. Bank of America and Chase actively interfere and Stonewall whenever a borrower or an investor seeks to peek under the hood to see what is in the box. There is nothing in the box. The deal was always between the investors and homeowners. The bank’s lied. They pretended that they were the lenders when in fact there were only the intermediaries. The result was that all the payments received from borrowers, government, the federal reserve, insurers, guarantors, co-obligors, and counterparties on credit default swaps went to the accounts of Bank of America and Chase rather than to the investors.
By holding back the money, Bank of America and Chase, just like other banks created the illusion of a default and since they had created the illusion of ownership of the default they took the money instead of handing it over to the investors. You read the lawsuits that have been filed by investors against the investment banks that sold them worthless mortgage bonds issued by an empty asset pool you will see that they allege affirmatively that the notes and mortgages are unenforceable.
That makes it unanimous! Both the lender and the borrower agree that the documentation is defective and unenforceable. Both the lender and the borrower agree that the lender should get paid. And both the lender and the borrower agree that the lender is entitled to be paid only once for the money advanced by the lender. And both the lender and the borrower agree that the banks are holding trillions of dollars in money that should have been used to pay off the account receivable owned by the investors.
With the lender paid off or where the account receivable has been reduced by payments to the banks who were acting as agents of the investors but breaching their duties to the investors, the amount payable by the homeowner as a borrower would be correspondingly reduced or eliminated. In fact, under the requirements of the federal truth in lending act, the overpayment is due to the borrower for failure to disclose the true facts of the transaction. In fact, under federal law, treble damages, legal interest, attorneys fees and costs probably also apply.
Filed under: AMGAR, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer | Tagged: agent and principal, Bank of America t, Chase Bank, countrywide, FDIC, JP Morgan Chase, statute of limitations, Washington Mutual |
I just reviewed the P and A between FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual and Chase. Schedules 3.2 and 3.5 clearly show that all loans owned by WM at the time were purchased at book value by Chase. I really wish that Neil would provide a copy of, or link to, the documents he’s referencing. C’mon Neil, I can’t even find the merger documents between BofA and Countrywide; how about a few breadcrumbs for the peasants.
@robert wade
poked around doj website. found the consent judgment but there are no exhibits spelling out what the banks are specifically consenting to. so where are the exhibits?
INHO-this is where it started and this is where it should END please pass on
your cal,l your country, your life, ultimately you freedom, if they take down the American Nation the rest of the world will be a piece of cake for them
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAw_RnoDmM0&list=PLTiC6sh3wTi4ebS6Gt2fCjEJL7QLK0xfz&noredirect=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFFhRq3Gqds&list=PLTiC6sh3wTi4ebS6Gt2fCjEJL7QLK0xfz
Peace-walk carefully do your own research-seven50 agenda21 weather wars…due you diligence
save your own life… stand strong against totalitarianism , they, the perpetrators are looking to close this subject and your existence
YOUR CALL AND ONLY YOUR CALL Blessings 2 all, fight the good fight
Boy, some people here really thrive on being nasty…shame.
Anyway…
“…from coast to coast it’s impossible to get a ruling that will stick across the board, and the criminals continue to rake in record profits at the expense of us all…”
Yes, E. Tolle. That is the problem…and it won’t change until—as you put it—Rev.2.0.
I meant to say Eric,not Bob. G
Trespass Unwanted
For this comment posted her by Bob, I hear you.
“I remember news at the time B of A saying we want the loans but not the responsibilities of them.”
The way that works and why it has worked for the banks is in Money as Debt part two.
See what’s been shown to you, or truly see what’s going on.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Life, Corporeal, Free and Independent State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
The appeal is under 2 rulings of my 60b motions – thats two under rule 60b from AZ district court .
Its all in my 60b motion
9th circuit usca. Case 12-16192
I stand in truth. The law is what it says it is.
If they follow the law the secutitization scheme does not exist. There is no security basis and the know it That is why the underwriter Lloyd’s of London pull all their assets out if Europe 10-1-11 When it all shakes out Madoff looks like a good guy since he actually never made a trade and these guys really never had a true creditor mortgage transaction
Sent from my iPhone
Trespass Unwanted is exactly right, and she should not only NOT be banned from or modded off this site, she should be a featured blogger. As we are all finding out, and as Neil is beginning to acknowledge, the problem is not how to find the one argument or legal theory or bit of case law that will let us keep our houses, because as Neil and Weidner and others have pointed out, THE JUDGES DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW, so none of that matters. If the judges did follow the law, we wouldn’t be in this mess and it would’ve been over with a long time ago and the banks would’ve failed.
What Trespass is onto is some next level shit. She is looking past this fraudulent system in which we’re told the absolute lie that banks or governments create money. That’s not true now and it never has been–people and their labor create and give value to everything that passes as “money.” She is trying to point out that it is the system itself that is the problem and that any attempts to navigate within this failed fraudulent system are ultimately only a distraction and will come to naught.
She writes very clearly and directly and I for one always look forward to her comments. The things she talks about are not hidden or secret, they’re just not well-known or popularly acknowledged. And they’re not well-known or popularly acknowledged because the information she is writing about WILL take down the system, and the very system that should (and eventually will) be taken down is what the judges who don’t follow the law are feverishly trying to protect.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/25191/000089882208000107/exhibit21.htm
found link on SEC site re bank of america merger docs
I still cannot find on the FDIC site the merger docs for BoA…is there a link?
The “extreme” censoring of the dialogue here.Good Lord. I mean who decides what is relative, even venting over situations? Neil, this is your blog…are going to allow a few people to decide every tidbit of content, as they have not the where with all to read it or not and move on! All of this behavior is damaging the blog, not just stripes…
so few attempting to decide what is relevant and what is not…what’s the difference between that and every other entity trying to control all of us? None I say, same behavior, intolerance and spite, just on a smaller scale!
My piece and I am gone too. You few have it all figured out, I guess we’ll hear about your success in the NY Times…NOT!
Excellent Neil, excellent. How can they continue to get away with foreclosing… it boggles the mind.
How to get past the Bank’s argument that the homeowner lacks standing to challenge the term of the PSA. See this case: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20130326_0000823.NIL.htm/qx
Federal case in IL. So the judge found for the bank, dismissing the defendant homeowner’s challenge to the terms of the PSA and the chain of title arguments. However, at the very end of the decision, the judge says that she is satisfied that the the mortgage and note were properly assigned to the trust at its inception.
Lack of Standing because the homeowner was not a 3rd Party Beneficiary to the PSA…the judge contradicted herself, here. If the investors hadn’t funded the trust, there wouldn’t have been any money to fund the homeowner’s loan. Therefore, the defendant was a third party beneficiary to the PSA/Trust.
Moreover, if mortgagors lack standing because they are not third party beneficiaries to the PSA/Trust, then investors ought not to be able to sue the banksters for making loans to borrowers who were unlikely to repay the loans (NINJ loans), or for violating standard underwriting procedures in the making of the loans, because the investors were not third party beneficiaries to the mortgage loan contracts.
And consider that being a third party beneficiary is not the only way for one to obtain standing. Being a third party obligor ought likewise to confer standing, inasmuch as the mortgagor has a stake in the outcome of litigation that violated the terms of a contract under which the mortgagor may have become an involuntary obligor to parties to the PSA/Trust.
That’s how I would argue it.
I remember news at the time B of A saying we want the loans but not the responsibilities of them. A fraud loan was placed on my home from Sierra pacific but behind the scenes WAMU was involved so in one month Sierra Pacific Mortgage claims sold the loan to WAMU in the beginning of 2007. This fraud loan they created in my father’s name paid my Wells Fargo mortgage off. I never sold my home and never asked for a loan so I have refused to pay this loan for almost 7 years now. I will either do a quiet title case or something else; get the fraud deed of trust off my home. I found state laws for a second mortgage on a home statute of limitations is 6 years.
Im just saying leave tu alone.
Not opening a debate.
I agree that the stupid ” im right yoir wring” childish waste of perfectly good blogg space should stop. Im grateful for the giid posts of caselaw info smd rulings and neils expertese and im very grateful stripes was removed. Thats all.
Joe Banister commenting on the IRS “phony” scandals. A guy with moral courage (in short supply in this country…) who has spent the last 10 years explaining that most people do not have any income as defined by the Constitution, i.e., capital invested that generates gain.
The income tax is not unconstitutional. It only applies to a small portion of society… who just happens to have stashed away enormous sums in offshore accounts while people here trade their time for the ability to make enough to survive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9EFqB6o0fY&feature=youtu.be
Educate yourself and understand that paying the IRS is participating in the collapse of this country.
Bob,
Read my 5:09pm. Really interesting case on securitization. And thanks for the P.O. tip.
Don’t waste your time on those who lost for want of a decent fight and come here to lecture everyone while acting as badly as the rest of the losers. It seems to be a recurrent theme. As I keep saying, nothing happens in a vacuum. With such engines running their mouth from morning to night because they’re “entitled” and they are exercising their “freedom of speech” at the expense of those who would like to exercise their “freedom of listening”, it should be no wonder this country is in such dire straights…
The me-myself-and-I mentality coupled with “look-at-me, look-at-me” can only bring a country so far.
I’m not saying that TU is stripes. This is the problem here. Very few people possess Critical Thinking Skills 101. Reread my prior post.
TU, however, is either another lunatic, or is channeling Stripes. In either case, TU should be shown the door.
You see, TU, nobody gives a damn about your religious views and exhortations. That’s not what this blog is for. People here want useful information that will help them save their homes. I’ve seen nothing that you have posted that would lead anyone to conclude that you possess such information.
No one is bullying you. You’re just on the wrong playground if what you intend to do is to keep on posting in the future is what you’ve posted in the past.
If this were a private website rather that a rented one from wordpress, people like TU, Stripes, Marilyn Lane and Carrie would be banned from the get-go by the mods.
I can verify TU is not stripes. I see. Been “reading ” this site almost since birth.
youtube Money as Debt
If you want to see, if you are (seeking) see-king.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Life, Corporeal, Free and Independent State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
I AM that I AM, and I SEE you.
I know who your are. You can choose any name to post under and I can see you.
So you do what you are paid to do and serve who you serve, but you will not be a different God nor Creator as we are One.
What you see is a reflection of what you project and want to be seen by others. You are no magician, you can only convince people who need someone to lead them, to follow you.
I’m sure it is not in your interest for me to let people know that they do not have to ‘register’ with your system to let you ‘lead’ them to slaughter by your deeds and comments and direction.
I bring something you either don’t comprehend or choose to ignore.
Love is powerful.
I bring no harm, injury, fraud, trespass, nor deception.
I bring truth.
One who attacks what I bring show others who they are.
You show them what you bring.
You post at different times under different names but the core energy of you follows you.
What you hear in your “sound like comment” is what you are choosing to project to others as what you state you hear, but it’s not ‘truth’.
Anyone reading that comment should question whether anything else you have disclosed with such confidence and assertion is ‘truth’ and as such should they be following your guidance or moving in the direction you are pointing.
For those who can see, it’s time to wake up and see.
This blog is not populated by only people who want to ‘help’ you.
For the record, all of Stripes prior posts were removed, so anyone who never saw Stripes postings would not know how Stripes posted, including in all caps.
Those that have seen Stripes posts and have seen mine would know the difference. Those that have read the contents of Stripes posts and mine would know the difference.
You carry no control here and neither do I. We are equal. We are One. I am not your enemy and neither are you mine.
You know I am not your enemy. So what is the bullying for?
I cannot change my vibrations to meet yours at your level and I can tell the vibrations of my post affect you greatly.
You can continue to serve who you serve and skip my posts but you are paid not to. You must respond to me and attack my postings when they deviate from the purpose you are placed here to create.
There is a reveal from a paid internet shill on the internet.
The shill exposed how they were given talking points and how they were to troll blogs and discredit people.
They are an extension of the mass media programming and are supposed to guide the visitors to the blog to ‘think’ a certain way about certain topics.
You do what you have to do under whatever names you have to do it. I will not trespass on your work.
An equal has no power over an equal.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Life, Corporeal, Free and Independent State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
Tip of the Day…Off Topic, but useful.
Document shredding. Can be very time consuming and/or expensive to have an outside party do it. Nevertheless it has to be done on occasion.
So here’s the tip. Bring your docs to the post office. They have blue trash bins in the lobby that are key locked so that none but authorized personnel can access the contents. Big slots for docs and papers on top. All the stuff inserted gets hauled away and schredded by commercial operators. Post office is more than happy to have you bring your stuff in. Gives them another reason to exist.
@ Trespass Unwanted…you know, you’re starting to sound awfully “Stripes-like” here. I can almost see the progression and where it is going to lead, and what we can expect to be treated to shortly.
This blog should have separate forums. One for serious players who have something meaningful to contribute, and others that act as a kind of break room or water cooler station, where folks can just go to blather on and B.S. their opinions of the world, society, the universe, their health issues, pets, etc., etc.
youtube money as debt
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Life, Corporeal, Free and Independent State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
Banks don’t loan any money.
Money as Debt series shows the living male/female (made in the image of the Creator), is who’s life energy is used to sign a document and give it energy; is how money is created.
The bank uses that which is created, put the value on a paper called a check, and another bank in their closed system accepts that paper for value.
The living man promises to labor to pay back what ‘he/she’ created with interest, but the living male/female was not aware the interest was not created by the banks.
So two people wanting a $100 loan, the bank allows them to ‘create’ that amount by their signature, the bank brings it into existence on paper and gets their promise to pay $107.
$200 is created, but $214 is owed.
Whoever pays the $107 first is considered credit worthy and the other defaults or files bankruptcy hoping to protect their access to what they used the $100 to purchase.
Banks cannot loan depositor’s money, they leverage (monetize) the money that was created and there is the illusion they have more money than they had ‘seeded’ their account with to become a bank.
When banks are fined, it’s hopeful it forces them to call in that monetized asset off their balance sheets, a sort of deleveraging, but I don’t know. If they are too big to fail, and people ‘not’ giving them ‘more’ of our labor would cause them to collapse, then how can they pay a fine and still remain in existence. If they ‘need’ the money where is it coming from when people ‘supposedly’ are deadbeat and defaulting.
As much as we study the fraud, they are a step ahead.
We all know with the best paid attorney, if he doesn’t argue the perfect case, the homeowner will be robbed on a technicality. (He should have raised this argument here, or shouldn’t have stated that complaint there, kind of b.s.)
No matter what you find out, including that the other side won’t provide documents for discovery, that the other side doesn’t have the note, that the other side sold the note, that the other side didn’t have standing to foreclose, that the other side is MERs or some other servicer that has long closed their doors and were bankrupt when the case was even filed, etc and so on, the judge is still ruling the final decision.
Some spend years fighting when the true test was NOT who was the better fighter, but who is still ‘fighting’ in a world where people claim to want peace. A test.
Some people fight, get stays, get delays, get dismissed without prejudices (so the other side can refile again), get kicked out of their job, can’t pay anyone anything, get refiled, and end up without the very thing they spend their life fighting for.
Some fight, get the mod, get kicked out of their job, get kicked out of their home.
Some fight, get the stay, bankruptcy is over, the action commences, get kicked out of the home.
Some fight, file bankruptcy, get kicked out of the home during bankruptcy.
I can go on and on, and I’m being real.
There is an ulterior motive we aren’t seeing, and they judges that are ruling in favor of ‘some’ owners is the same as allowing some people become professional basketball players when most are turned away, or allowing some people to work at a fortune 500 company when some are turned way, or some people attend a specific college when some are turned away.
There is no ‘guarantee’ no matter what you know, or your attorney does. Think of criminal cases too, where the one accused loses the initial case and has to ‘appeal’ the decision to get justice.
How much time and money and life does anyone have fighting ‘ghosts’ of the system?
Money as Debt, if you can absorb you funded the loan with your promise to pay it back.
Foreclosure is not the right word, that would mean the real creditor is in the courtroom demanding a remedy for a transaction gone bad, but someone else, not a party to the transaction, is coming up demanding you pay on your promise and you didn’t make your promise to them, they sold your promise and allowed someone to service your payments to them and funnel it to whoever they sold it to.
As far as I’m concerned, we can stand in court all day and deny the debt is owed, but as long as we recognize it as a foreclosure instead of an attempted theft, or extortion, or racketeering case, we have already ‘lost’ in my book.
I am not going to ‘fight’ someone to keep what is mine. If want it and I say ‘no’, and I tell the ‘referee’ (judge) they can’t have it, it doesn’t belong to them, and the referee (judge) gives it to them, then I’ve been robbed.
Plain and simple.
It’s the majority’s inability to truly see the world and the transactions as they are, but their group mentality ability to see what the media and others are showing them telling them to see, that’s allowing this ‘ponzi’ scheme called foreclosure to continue to go on.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Life, Corporeal, Free and Independent State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
Neil where you wrong is the deal could never be between the borrower and the investor because the investor not a lender and is not regulated to lend. It no different if a loan shark advanced the money it not legal for them to be lending.
The banks did fund the loans I believe because it was a short term commitment and once the loan were placed into the pools the monies were return to the lenders. You got trillion dollar asset banks with big deposit, so to think they could not float a few billion each month is crazy.
Wells Fargo who has now stopped wholesaling and doing most outside business but with Berkshire in which Warren Buffett is like the biggest shareholder Wells Fargo has. But as you talk about that Chase did not purchase the Washington Mutual Bank loans, which I believe to be true, but what not known about the WaMu government insured loans are the 1.3 million that Wells Fargo started servicing with the Jul 31, 2006 mortgage servicing agreement.
Wells Fargo is still servicing these loans and acting as if they purchase these loans but did not. The borrowers all think that Wells Fargo purchase these loans but they did not as I have a letter from them admitting they did not purchase the loan and Ginnie Mae is the investor.
As you continue to catch on to the fraud, yet if you would have read these post over a year ago you would have already have know this fraud in the pooling. Just this weekend I been writing hard about the Federal Reserve being involved in this crime because they are the one who have purchase the Ginnie Mae Mortgage Backed Securities and is benefiting from the fraudulent foreclosure and the false insurance claims.
2yrs ago I submitted a whistle-blower claim to the fact that the Ginnie Mae MBS pool is a Ponzi scheme and the servicers/lender have been submitting and collecting Federal Government insurance money claims.
investors get to borrow money from the bank- for virtually free if not free, to put their money into the bank- the bank play with their money, that they reaped rewards from the investments they made and the bank then re lends them the money for another investment at almost free or free to do the same- so why would the investor bite the hand that feeds- banks get to do their balance sheet tricks and libor manipulation and launder for drug cartels and terrorist organizations and they get a little fine and a pathetic promise to not do it again, and they of course do, and they are told again- now don’t you do it again ok, and they say ok, and the fine is about 2 months profit (per Matt Tiabbi) for doing it again- have I got this wrong? so hence not many complaints from the big investors.
There is no difference other than the city cares about the homeowner
Sent from my iPhone
Excellent reversal of CitiMortgage foreclosure, successor BY MERGER to ABN AMRO. This is a good case for anyone dealing with banks that merged at some point during the loan.
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/12/2013/2013-ohio-3316.pdf
It’s really impossible to make the kind of sweeping statements Garfield has been making all along with a straight face in this 50-state country, with hundreds of counties and thousands of judges. Read cases in your state and your county and stick with it, unless they all suck and always favor the banks. Then you need to expand…
More and more states doing this:
RICHMOND, Calif./LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The city of Richmond, California, said on Tuesday it will use its power of eminent domain, if necessary, to seize “underwater” mortgage loans to keep its residents in their homes, becoming the first U.S. municipality to adopt such an approach.
The northern California city, long plagued by poverty and crime, sent notice to the holders of more than 620 underwater home mortgages in the city, asking them to sell the loans to the city. It would buy the mortgages for 80 percent of the fair value of the homes, write them down and help the homeowners refinance their mortgages.
In the event the owners of the loans would not cooperate, the city would seize the loans using eminent domain, Mayor Gayle McLaughlin said.
A mortgage is underwater if its unpaid balance is greater than the fair market value of the home.
Richmond, where nearly half of its homeowners are underwater, plans further such actions in the future, officials said in a conference call with reporters Tuesday.
“Residents here in Richmond have been suffering for years thanks to the housing crisis Wall Street created and which Wall Street refuses to fix,” said McLaughlin in a statement.
Numerous groups, including the National Association of Realtors, the American Bankers Association, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, have already voiced fierce opposition to using the threat of eminent domain to buy mortgages.
“It is very, very discouraging to see a municipality begin the process,” Timothy Cameron, managing director and head of SIFMA’s Asset Management Group, said in an interview. “What this does is destroys the contractual rights of investors along with their trust and confidence in the capital markets. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lawsuit is filed by investors, quite frankly.”
This ruined the United States of America……..So sick of it all. I’m not the same person I was 4 years ago…..I’m forever damaged by this….
This is exactly why those securitization cases do not succeed. Too much information about pass through, trustee and what not.
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2013/2013-ohio-3340.pdf
“Here, the final indorsement on Paul Gray’s note is a blank indorsement. Therefore, the holder of the note is the person in possession of the note. The Grays assert that SPS is in possession of the note and, therefore, SPS, not US Bank, is the holder of the note. If SPS is the holder, as the Grays contend, then US Bank has neither an interest in the note nor standing to sue on the note.”
Constructive possession means the holder of the note or his agent. They handed both to the appeals court on a silver plate, removing all questions as to standing.
No statute of limitations on fraud, Neil.
I have cleared my karma. Some vibrations are too low to respond to including the comment, ie. elexquisitor, about drivel.
From where I’ve been, not having the home is not the biggest thing in the world for me. I don’t care how many people feel the need to jump on that fact. It is known I’m one of the early thefts and I made it clear I went in as if I was a friend or family member who did not know what I knew and was trying to protect their right.
Where someone sees a loss, that’s all they see.
There is more to this that I will not discuss nor disclose.
After all these years, the banks felt the need to keep me on a list and send a check. So there is something that was done that makes a difference.
After all these years, I’m living life.
I can see who serves who. Anyone can work for ‘a side’ and get online and post nonsense about ‘what would help’ and if they had the know how, they could post ‘how to get started on that’ or ‘where to look’ or ‘where to begin’, or they can send the uninitiated running in circles looking for the elusive material.
I could post that I have been ‘fighting’ for my home for so many years under another name, and would that be true? Would the things I say about my battle be real?
We are all anonymous here, but what is real is what is typed carries a vibration of truth or lies. So no matter what someone types onto the blog, One who has tuned into the Universe can feel the truth or the lie.
I’m just saying there’s a lot of lies and deception being posted under the guise of ‘helping those still ‘fighting’ for their homes and….and…and….I see you…no matter what name you choose to post under at different times of the day.
You are who you are…and your frequency stays with you no matter what you post and no matter what name you use.
And yes, Trespass Unwanted has multiple meanings, but some people don’t know when they commit a trespass and that carries it’s own penalties so rack them up. I’m not the one who gets paid from them, but I apparently have a good magnet for someone’s spiritual growth. I don’t mind. As long as I don’t do what is done to me, I don’t carry the karma of the one doing the doing.
Smiling and waving.
The Creator in me is the ‘same’ creator in you.
Which means all attacks are against ‘self’.
Gregg Braden Holographic Universe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4N08QMwylE
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Life, Corporeal, Free and Independent State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
Very interesting reversal and remand on many different grounds. Mother dies. Father dies intestate after having negotiated a loan modification. Son assumes payment without approaching probate court and falls behind in payments. Bank moves for foreclosure.
Who really owed what to whom?
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/4/2013/2013-ohio-3308.pdf
It is very simple answer The mortgages were satisfied if it can be called a mortgage which is doughtful & it is all unsecured debt no matter how you look at it since the first transaction was fraudulent any way you look at it
Sent from my iPhone
MERS Need s to be dissolved ad ruled by the ny judge that it is not a sufficient business model but a straw hat This was opinion in 2007 or 8
Sent from my iPhone
Bob G. writes:
“A. Where are the lawsuits? We need the case cites so that we can see this stuff for ourselves.
B. Where are the decisions, orders and judgments in the investor cases that confirm that the notes and mortgages are unenforceable?
C. If such decisions, orders and judgments existed, I would think that this would be a nationwide showstopper for the banks, and it would be news everywhere. But apparently it is not.”
Yves Smith addressed this issue a couple of years ago, when she said, “You won’t find any case law, and for good reason. In general, structured credit litigation is a cutting edge of the law (as opposed to real estate law, which is very well settled) AND the issues that this post focuses on are only now coming before the courts.”
As to Neil’s argument above concerning BAC/CW and Chase/WAMU, the PSA’s are quite specific about the mortgage loans that go into the Trust. § 2.01 goes into great detail about the documents that must be delivered and the form they must take. Here is an example from §2.01(b)(i), which requires delivery of notes:
If the Mortgage Loan was acquired by the Responsible Party in a merger, the endorsement must be by “[last endorsee], successor by merger to [name of predecessor]”.
Those instructions, along with the PSA’s further death sentence as to no blank assignments, would seem to settle for good the lack of enforceability of these notes by Chase or BAC.
But hold the presses….
With the recent decision by Judge Mariana Pfaelzer to dismiss BofA as a defendant in the case of Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial Corp., et a, a difference of opinion has emerged among jurists over whether BofA should bear successor liability for the debts of its new lending subsidiary. Judge Eileen Bransten in New York state court held that bond insurer MBIA could proceed with claims against BofA as the successor-in-interest to Countrywide under the theory that the bank’s purchase of the subprime originator constituted a de facto merger. Judge Pfaelzer, on the other hand, has now ruled in California District Court that the plaintiff pension funds could not make such a claim, and has dismissed BofA from the lawsuit.
So, as is usually the case in these matters, the law is all over the place, from coast to coast it’s impossible to get a ruling that will stick across the board, and the criminals continue to rake in record profits at the expense of us all. More foam for the runways.
This, on the other hand, should become really interesting… As far as i can recall, all the lawsuits filed by counties in MA, CA and other states ultimately settled out of court. This one in IL appears to be moving on.
My question remains the same though: who pays for MERS legal expenses? And who will pay for the verdict of the last-minute-court-steps-settllement?
Lopinot denies MERs, lenders’ motion to dismiss
July 25, 2013 12:17 PM
By Ann Maher
Lopinot
Lopinot
St. Clair County Circuit Judge Vincent Lopinot has denied a motion to dismiss Mortgage Electronic Recording System (MERS) and 20 lenders from a suit that alleges the defendants conspired in a shadow mortgage system set up to avoid transparency and evade county recording fees.
State’s Attorney Brendan Kelly sued in May 2012 alleging the defendants’ recording system effectively eliminates the ability to track the purchase and sale of properties through the traditional public records system, in violation of state statute. The five-count complaint also alleges unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, deceptive trade practices and consumer fraud.
Kelly hailed Lopinot’s decision.
“Banks are an essential part of our system of credit that sustains the economy, but they shouldn’t be above the law,” he said in a statement. “A line has to be drawn and if this is where it must be drawn so be it.”
(Specifically, the complaint alleges: When a MERS member makes a home loan to a borrower, the MERS member obtains from the borrower a promissory note naming the lender as promisee and a mortgage instrument naming MERS as the mortgagee. In the mortgage, the borrower assigns his right, title and interest in the property to MERS, and the mortgage instrument is then recorded in the local land records office with MERS as the named mortgagee. When the promissory note is sold (and possibly re-sold) in the secondary mortgage market, the MERS database purports to track that transfer. As long as the parties involved in the sale are MERS members, MERS remains the mortgagee of record. Designating MERS as the mortgagee of record purportedly excuses MERS members from publicly recording mortgage assignments between themselves and, thus, from paying recording fees required by statute).
In a 12-page order entered July 12, Lopinot focused his opinion on a defense argument that Section 28 of the Illinois Conveyances Act does not create a statutory duty to record assignments of mortgages.
Bryan Cave attorney Rhiana Luaders, who filed the defense brief, had argued that recording statutes are “permissive.
Lopinot disagreed. He wrote that the Act “does in fact require the filings of assignments of mortgages.”
“The Court also finds that any agreements that prohibit the recording of assignments are null and void under Section 28,” he wrote.
Lopinot also disagreed with a defense argument that the state’s attorney lacks standing to bring suit.
He wrote that the state’s attorney has the authority and duty to prosecute civil and criminal actions as well as to recover money for the county.
“This constitutional power of the State’s Attorney to bring suits in matters of public interest has been broadly interpreted in Illinois,” he wrote.
The broad grant of standing and power provided the State’s Attorney by statute is intended to mirror that of the Attorney’s General’s common law grant of power, he wrote, especially when applied to the “protection of the public purse.”
Lopinot’s order comes five months after a joint motion to dismiss was filed by MERS, Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, CCO Mortgage Corporation, EverHome Mortgage Company, Regions Bank, First Collinsville Bank, FirstCo Mortgage Corporation, First County Bank, Commerce Bank, UMB Bank, Midland States Bank, Citi Mortgage, Suntrust Mortgage, MERSCORP, Inc., HSBC Finance, Bank of O’Fallon, SunTrust Mortgage, Mid America Mortgage Services of Illinois, Peoples National Bank and Mortgage Services.
Kelly further commented that the shadow recording system is inaccurate and unreliable.
“Under this shadow record system, the public doesn’t have accurate information about who owns a large part of economy,” he said. “That’s not transparent. We are still feeling the effects of the Great Recession that began with a financial sector that played by its own rules and wasn’t transparent. It’s a recipe for disaster.”
Paul Slocomb, special assistant state’s attorney, is representing the county.
St. Clair County case number 12-L-267
This entry was posted in News, St. Clair County and tagged Bank of America, Brendan Kelly, MERS, Paul Slocomb.
The answer to all the previous ?s can be found in New Century BK ajudication
I say cover up anyone
The whole monitary system would be shown as the Ponsi scheme it is.
They have been kiting the pensions for years.
Where is a lawyer in CA willing to step up & help ?
Niel you say you will take s valid contingency do let’s do it
I await your help
This is criminal conduct by the judges
Sent from my iPhone
What would be very helpful is an accurate citation of the merger documents approved by the FDIC, with date of public availability, so these CW and WAMU homeowners have grounds to file new cases or reopen old cases based on changes in fact unknown in the past. That is what I believe a judge would be looking for (and groaning at) here in CA.
IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer)
Yes. I would like to see the complaints and other pleadings from the investors against the banks. Have not seen them. Am I missing something? Are these lawsuits a secret. I assume they would be located in New York first and foremost. Really like to see them.
Here we go again.
“By holding back the money, Bank of America and Chase, just like other banks created the illusion of a default and since they had created the illusion of ownership of the default they took the money instead of handing it over to the investors. You read the lawsuits that have been filed by investors against the investment banks that sold them worthless mortgage bonds issued by an empty asset pool you will see that they allege affirmatively that the notes and mortgages are unenforceable.”
A. Where are the lawsuits? We need the case cites so that we can see this stuff for ourselves.
B. Where are the decisions, orders and judgments in the investor cases that confirm that the notes and mortgages are unenforceable?
C. If such decisions, orders and judgments existed, I would think that this would be a nationwide showstopper for the banks, and it would be news everywhere. But apparently it is not.
And FYI folks, the pension funds took hits on this stuff, but nothing so dramatic as to cause them to be underfunded. I used to work for a hundred billion dollar pub pension fund, so i kinda know where i speak. Trust me on this one.
“The challenge is to find out why the judicial system generally refuses to make correct rulings and how to change that.”
The judicial system is waiting for the dozens of regulatory agencies in charge of the multiple aspects of this atrocity to enforce the existing rules, if any was left after the repeal of Glass Steagal. And make no mistake, even if Glass Steagal were to be reinstated, it cannot and will not be retroactive. So, that leaves 4+ millions people without a leg to stand on.
so they can’t do mods, they can’t foreclose, so who can? who can collect on the loan receivable? who has my payments? who can issue a satisfaction of mortgage? who will pay me damages for the last 8 years of torture?
I doubt anyone who understands what went down would disagree. The challenge is to find out why the judicial system generally refuses to make correct rulings and how to change that.
“how come an institutional investor like PIMCO is not suing the big banks?” My point exactly!
“With the lender paid off or where the account receivable has been reduced by payments to the banks who were acting as agents of the investors but breaching their duties to the investors, the amount payable by the homeowner as a borrower would be correspondingly reduced or eliminated. In fact, under the requirements of the federal truth in lending act, the overpayment is due to the borrower for failure to disclose the true facts of the transaction. In fact, under federal law, treble damages, legal interest, attorneys fees and costs probably [sic] also apply.” Probably? Based on what precedent?
This is the recurrent theme of this blog without one single case ever brought forth to validate this argument. And so long as the regulators have not confirmed that Garfield’s historic and understanding are correct, homeowners using those arguments will continue to lose case after case.
It is, first and foremost, a regulatory agency problem. If none of the agencies has deemed it necessary and/or feasible to prosecute (and god knows Bill Black has been vocal about it for the greater part of the last 5 years!!! I even listened to him testify several times before Congress), what makes anyone think that individual homeowners will prevail? For Pete’s sake, investors tried it in class actions. How many were granted class action status and allowed to go on? One? Two maybe, out of 11?
If it is true (and I don’t doubt it) that the investors have also gotten screwed by the big banks, how come an institutional investor like PIMCO is not suing the big banks?
i agree with this……won my WAMU credit card case vs,\. 3rd party debt collecting scum…..don’t know why it is not as easy with a house, if we are all supposed to be following the same laws