Perils of Pooling: OneWest

Apparently my article yesterday hit a nerve. NO I wasn’t saying that the only problems were with BofA and Chase. OneWest is another example. Keep in mind that the sole source of information to regulators and the courts are the ONLY people who understand mergers and acquisitions. So it is a little like one of those TV shows where the only way they can get an arrest and conviction is for the perpetrator or suspect to confess. In this case, they “confess” all kinds of things to gain credibility and then lead the agencies and judicial system down a rabbit hole which is now a well trodden path. So many people have gone down that hole that most people that is the way to get to the truth. It isn’t. It is part of a carefully constructed series of complex conflicting lies designed carefully by some very smart lawyers who understand not just the law but the way the law works. The latter is how they are getting away with it.

Back to OneWest, which we have detailed in the past.

The FDIC has posted the agreement at

OneWest was created almost literally overnight (actually over a weekend) by some highly placed players from Wall Street. There is an 80% loss sharing arrangement with the FDIC and yes, there appears to be some grey area about ownership of the loans because of that loss sharing agreement. But the evidence of a transaction in which the loans were actually purchased by a brand new entity that was essentially unfunded is completely absent. And that is because OneWest and Deutsch take the position that the loans were securitized despite IndyMac’s assurances to the contrary. The only loans in which OneWest appears to be a player are those in which the loan was subject to (false) claims of securitization. No money went to the trustee, no money went to the trust, no assets went into the pool because the REMIC asset pool lacked the funding to purchase any assets.

Add to that a few facts. Deutsch is usually the “trustee”of the REMIC asset pool, but Reynaldo Reyes says he has nothing to do. He has no trust accounts and makes no decisions and performs no actions. Sound familiar. I have him on tape and his deposition has already been taken and publicized on the internet by others. Reyes says the whole arrangement is “counter-intuitive” (a very creative way of saying it is a lie). It is up to the servicer (OneWest) to decide what loans are subject to modification, mediation or even reinstatement. It is up to the servicer as to when to foreclose. And the servicer here is OneWest while the Master Servicer appears to be the investment banking arm of Deutsch, although I do not have that confirmed.

The way Reyes speaks about it the whole thing ALMOST makes sense. That is, until you start thinking about it. If Deutsch Bank has an extensive trust subsidiary, which it does, then why is a VP of asset management in control of the trust operations of the REMIC asset pools. Answer: because there are no funded trusts and there are no asset pools with assets. Hence any statement by OneWest that it is the owner of the loan is untrue as is the allegation that Deutsch is the trustee because all trustee duties have been delegated to the servicer. That leaves the investor with an empty box for an asset pool and no trustee or manager or even an agent to to actually know what is going on or who is monitoring their money and investments.

Note that like BOfA using Red Oak Merger Corp., there is the creation of a fictional entity that was not used by the name of, no kidding, “Holdco.” This is to shield OneWest from certain liabilities as a lender. Legally it doesn’t work that way but practically it generally does work that way because judges listen to bank lawyers to tell them what all this means. That is like asking a 1st degree murder defendant to explain to the jury the meaning of reasonable doubt.

Now be careful here because there is a “loan sale” agreement referenced in the package posted by the FDIC. But it refers to an exhibit F. There is no exhibit F and like the ambiguous agreements with the FDIC in Countrywide and Washington mutual, there are words there, but they don’t really say anything. Suffice it to say that despite some fabricated documents to the contrary, there is no evidence I have seen that any loan  receivable was transferred to or from a REMIC asset pool, Indy-mac, or Hold-co.

These people were not stupid and they are not idiots. And their lawyers are pretty smart too. They know that with the presumption of a funded loan in existence, the banks could pretty much get away with saying anything they wanted about the ownership, the identity of the creditor and the ability to make a credit bid at the auction of a property that should never have been foreclosed in the first instance — and certainly not by these people.

But if you dig just a little deeper you will see that the banks are represented to the regulatory authorities that they own the bonds (not true because the bonds were created and issued to specific investors who bought them); thus they include the bonds as significant items on their balance sheet which allows them to be called mega banks or too big to fail when in fact they have a tiny fraction of the reserve requirements of the Federal Reserve which follows the Basel accords.

Then when you turn your head and peak into courtrooms you find the same banks claiming ownership of the loan receivable, which was created when the funding occurred at the “closing” of the loan. They know they are taking inconsistent positions but most judges lack the sophistication to pinpoint the inconsistency. And that is how 5 million people lost their homes.

On the one hand the banks are claiming there was no fraud in the issuance of mortgage backed bonds by a REMIC asset pool formed as a trust. In fact, they say the loans were transferred into the REMIC asset pool. Which means that ownership of the mortgage bonds is ownership of the loans — at least that is what the paperwork shows that was used to sell pension funds on buying these worthless bogus bonds. Then they turn around and come to court as the “holder” and get a foreclosure sale in which the bank submits the credit bid and buys the property without spending one dime. What they have done is, in lay terms, offered the debt to pay for the property. But the debt, according to the same people is owned by the investors or the REMIC trust, not the banks.

Then they turn to the insurers and counterparties on credit default swaps, and the Federal reserve that is buying these bonds and they say that the banks own the bonds, have an insurable interest, and should receive the proceeds of payments instead of the investors who actually put up the money. And then they say in court that the account receivable is unpaid, there is a default, and therefore the home should be foreclosed. What they have done is create a chaotic complex of lies and turn it into an illusion that changes colors and density depending upon whom the banks are talking with.

There is no default on the account receivable if the account was paid, regardless of who paid it — as long as it was really paid to either the owner of the loan receivable or the authorized agent of the owner (i.e., the investor/lender). And so it is paid. And if paid, there can be no action on the note because the loan receivable has been satisfied. There can be no action on the mortgage because it was never a perfected lien and because the loan receivable was extinguished by PAYMENT. You can’t use the mortgage to enforce the note which is evidence for enforcement of a debt when the debt no longer exists.

Judges are confused. The borrower must owe money to someone so why not simply enter judgment and let the creditors sort it out amongst themselves. The answer is because that is not the rule of law and if a creditor has a claim against the borrower it should be brought by that creditor not some stranger to the transaction whose actions are stripping the real creditor of lien rights and collection rights over the debt. What the courts are doing, by analogy, is saying that you must have killed someone when you fired that gun so we will dispense with evidence and a jury and proceed to sentencing. We will let the people in the crowd decide who is the victim who can bring a wrongful death action against you even if we don’t even know when the gun was fired and who pulled the trigger. In the meanwhile you are sentenced to death or life in prison under our rocket docket for murders of unknown persons.



20 Responses

  1. @iwantmynvp

    “Living lies” is right.

    They (the servicer) will tell you that the INDX MBS trust is the “owner of your loan”.

    The foreclosure mill will tell you that Deutsche (who is a trustee of nothing) is the “current lender/creditor”.

    The servicer will tell you “We don’t have to give you the name of the real creditor due to privacy laws”.

  2. More dirt coming out. The good thing is: it is now common knowledge: people have the ability to walk away from the system and refuse to be part of it. The more people do it and the faster it will collapse. The sad part is that no one appears to know how to fix what was already done… and where to start looking and cracking down. Corzine is still out. And so is Dimon, with his constant manipulating over every aspect of people lives.

    Overstock CEO: SAC Indictment is “Civilization Scraping Dog Sh– Off Its Shoe”

    2013-07-30 —

    “Eight years ago I was roundly criticized by coming out publicly and saying, in brief: A network of dirty hedge funds were practicing all kinds of dicey practices, including insider trading and naked short selling (and being serial killers of firms in the process),” Byrne wrote. “The SEC was not doing its job protecting our markets because it is a captured regulator, and this combination was destabilizing the system.”

    He continued: “Also that the mastermind, the Napoleon of crime, so to speak, was someone I initially identified as the “Sith Lord” of all that was evil and wrong on Wall Street. In the months after, I gradually dropped broader and broader public hints that I was talking about Stevie Cohen. Of course, through all of this my claims were spun, ridiculed, and mocked.”

  3. Colorado attorney turned whistle-blower alleges foreclosure abuses
    Posted: 07/26/2013 12:01:00 AM MDT
    Updated: 07/31/2013 08:44:46 AM MDT
    By David Migoya
    The Denver Post

    “Susan Hendrick testified at a hearing Thursday that she told the state attorney general’s office about bill-padding she witnessed while a lawyer at Aronowitz & Mecklenburg in Denver, conduct that investigators say needlessly cost homeowners facing foreclosure millions of dollars. She then laid out a number of other alleged abuses she says happened.

    The abuses ranged from the padding of attorney hours to allegations that the law firm destroyed evidence that prosecutors were seeking in their investigation into billing practices by foreclosure law firms, according to testimony in Denver District Court…

    … The attorney general is investigating several law firms for allegedly padding the bills submitted in foreclosure cases, mostly in the expenses for the posting of legal notices that detail a homeowner’s rights during the process.

    Aronowitz uses Xceleron — a company equally owned by himself, his attorney daughter, Stacey Aronowitz, and his son-in-law, Joel Mecklenburg — to post the notices.

    Read the entire article here:

    It was bound to happen eventually. Through creation, by a few individuals, of multiple companies, each making money out of the lending and, subsequently, the foreclosures, the enormous conflicts of interest this entire industry has been riddled with for decades were going to stick out like sore thumbs. Nepotism has been rampant in this country for centuries. And so has tax evasion. Time to go after the deep pockets. The true deep pockets, those with offshore accounts.

    What I’m looking forward to is reading that my lender, who was also my title insurer and has been tooted as one of the most successful business in OH, is under investigation…

  4. it was I think Bill Black that stated that it was discovered over 90% of indymacs loans were toxic, so subprime jumbos ect- they did not meet fannie Freddie guidelines- the carie stance is they were placed in false default before they left the depo, cant prove that- so, they take my home, this ‘SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE”- APPOINTED BY a party that lost control of the asset long long ago if they ever had control. zero personal knowledge of the life of my loan, ect ect ect ect
    if any of these colluting actors,can step into any kinda authorative shoes and tell the court it is so- then due process is out the door- and you can rest assured that means innocent men are in jail- the threat to out freedom was never demonstrated so well as this housing/rights to land demonstrated. this eminent domain practice by some states may be good thing it may not, but at least it makes a strong point about rights to own land.

  5. No all loans at the former Indy were securitized. Indy’s last two years of origination was financed through the FHLB of San Francisco, who still hold 13 billion in loans that were assigned at closing, and certainly when Indy failed. That is the scam here – these loans are in IndyMac Venture, LLC, never assigned to OWB.

    As they foreclose the loans are transferred out of the sole purpose entity to OWB for prosecution of the foreclosure action.

    You must read the entire structured transaction with IMB HoldCo, LLC and the FDIC. Just read the preamble of the “Loan Sale Agreement” – you will see it is not the control language of the transaction – it is simply for lawyers to print and hand Judges.

    They are living lies…

  6. Since the report from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, there has been a worldwide crackdown on offshore accounts. The list of countries participating is heart warming. Maybe that’s what it will take to bring back all that money and be in a position to implement a nationwide, long overdue moratorium on foreclosures.

    Something has to give is we are to restore a middle class in the world.

    Good news indeed.


    Great country indeed. An incredible number of passersby agreeing to sign a petition asking for mandatory euthanasia for senior citizens. Why are we in the mess we’re in? Simple: people have become disposable in a throw-away society.

    Sobering… Off topic? Absolutely not! First they were sold an atrocity called “reverse mortgage” with Congress, government and society’s blessing. Now, the next step should be obvious: they lost it all. Can’t have our elders drain the economy, can we?

    Nothing happens in a vacuum… America is going to pay dearly for it. Just a question of time.

  8. You cannot be the Note holder if you did not originate the loan, and you cannot be the holder of the Note if you sold the Note or relinquished the Note.

    Borrower are in court with party that are not listed on the Note why? How are bank getting away with these court actions when they cannot simply provide the contract that names them a party too?

    I always thought the attorneys were the smartest people in the room but this housing crisis has pulled back the curtain!

  9. elexquisitor,
    OWB(Master Servicer ?) is the plaintiff in my case who claims to own and hold the note and mortgage. In NOI, IndyMac Mortgage Services(Subservicer as per OWB, Servicer as per FDIC) claims to hold the mortgage. Actually, its Deutsche Bank National Trust Company who “holds” them.
    As Neil says, the fool(Servicer(s)) in the court has been fooling the judge, or is it that the judge pretends to be fooled.

  10. But the guy paid off his loan & got a thank you from Wells Fargo & they told him to contact Fannie & Freddy to get his deed

    Sent from my iPhone

  11. FDIC in the Washington Mutual Bank case made decisions so that they would not be taken over by the US Treasury because of how big INDY had been and the size of WaMu.

    Sheila Bair walks out of the crisis looking as if she was this lone hero but she allowed the Ginnie Mae to keep the 1.3 million government insured loans that currently Wells Fargo is servicing and foreclosing these loans as if Wells Fargo is the owner of the loans.

    Everybody is in that is needed for this Fraud with Obama ignorant actual to finance with Summers advising him, but Bernanke who already written this is what he would do in the case of a financial crisis, was to fully recapitalize them. Geithner who was and will always be Wall Street’s B, was in on it with Paulson and Goldman, as I believe Bair was over her head and force to do what she did or face public humiliation being called a women not being able to handle the job, so she played ball. Let me say that I am not saying a woman cannot handle the job because Greenspan, Bernanke, Paulson & Geithner are all idiots crook who had a hand in this crap or should have known as it was their job to know.

    So the WaMu case and the 1.3 million FHA, VA & USDA loan were all ones that the Federal Reserve had purchase these securities with the phony monies that they print that must come back into the Fed or the country’s currency collapses.

    It the attorneys would take their personal feeling out the deal, as Neil showed his hand that he really did not think that borrowers should receive the homes back free and clear. However a Mortgage Note is plain and simple a contract between a borrower and lender and that it, not matter who you think funded the loan as the bank/lender are saying to the world that they are funding these loans. Nobody else is authorized to fund the loans!

    So the Note says that the lender can sell the loan to another lender or others but the lending laws don’t grant other to purchase the loan, as with Ginnie Mae they cannot perform the duty of a lender as they cannot even collect the payment as they are not a LENDER!

    So now for years you got payment being accepted by a party in Well Fargo as the servicer for a client that legally cannot accect the payment by any means. So let forget that a house is involved and Ginnie Mae is accepting payment, why are they collecting payment? Ginnie Mae cannot hand over the Note once any debt would have been completed so what is it that Ginnie Mae is doing for the sum of monies they are having collected, as they did not extend monies to the borrower or buy the debt.

    So now we got borrower in court with parties that don’t have Note and are presenting phony Assignment is crazy.

    Your Honor bank A never purchase the loan or they sold the loan or they simply relinquish the loan without a sum, so the have no claim for a debt, however if there is a question as to the debt if one exist is to present the Note! This should be the end of the story!

  12. EV – drop the references to the ‘servicer’ as their job is the same as the fool in the King’s court – provide a distraction from the intrigues among the nobles. The parties you have to track to the courtroom is the beneficiary of the loan, aka ‘note holder’, and at the end, the trustee of the deed of trust, who takes the role of servicer after a notice of default is filed. The ‘note holder’ is the only party who can substitute deed of trust trustees. The ‘note holder’ is the party who retains the borrower’s payments (less ‘servicer’ charges).

  13. IndyMac Bank, FSB (alleged Lender) sold the loan to Index…Trust at the inception of the loan.
    IndyMac Bank, FSB, retain servicing rights.
    Trust sells loan to FannieMae (remains behind the curtain).
    FDIC takes over IndyMac Bank, FSB servicing rights “only” as per FOIA/FDIC.
    FDIC sells servicing rights to OneWest Bank, FSB.
    IndyMac Mortgage Services becomes Servicer for OWB.
    Now, July 2013, FannieMae is claiming ownership and using Resolve Collection Corp. as its debt collector( not Servicer ?).
    Its curtain call time.

  14. Now, I am seeing that we have two differing views on the trusts. Were there any trusts that the loan went into or not? Are the trusts just shells with nothing in them? When are the trusts funded if they are funded? before the homeowner signs the note or after?

    As to the issue of who is or is not posting or should or should not, if this blog was monitored, all the ranting and raving OFF TOPIC would be removed. Just sayin…. if the shoe fits, wear it.

  15. Iwantmynpv,

    Thanks for that long recitation. Knowing that much and how big a part government has taken into blurring what should have been a very simple belly-up bankruptcy, how can we possibly expect from judges that they initiate investigations into the murky relationships of several entities, joint parties to a lawsuit, either as plaintiffs (foreclosure) or defendants (BK)?

    I don’t remember who said that the truth would only come out via class actions by investors. I tend to believe that. The only problem is that those are still too few and far between and extremely costly and lengthy, with most of the yield pocketed by attorneys. Still not financially sound for any group of investors looking at the demise of the dollar anyway…

  16. instead of following the law and fixing the problem,,,,,,,,it is all just going to blow up , one day, very soon

  17. The FDIC was appointed as Receiver for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. and as Conservator for the IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB on July 11, 2008, The FDIC-Receiver was appointed for the purpose of liquidating the liabilities of the failed institution pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1821 (c)(6)(B). The FDIC Receiver is the successor-in-interest to the failed institution and assumed all rights, titles, powers, privileges, and operations of the failed institution. The FDIC-Conservator was appointed to operate the new institution. 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2).
    (c) Failed banks are not subject to federal bankruptcy laws. Instead, a special administrative team operated by the FDIC governs the resolution of issues raised by the failure. The FDIC acts as the failed bank’s receiver when it intends to liquidate the institution and close it affairs, and this is exactly what occurred in the INDY failure.
    (d) While banks are prohibited from filing for bankruptcy protection, bank holding companies are not, and as expected the INDY holding parent, BANCORP, filed under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code on July 31, 2008.
    (e) On July 11,2008, the FDIC was appointed Receiver for INDY (the “Failed Thrift”) and certain assets and obligations of the Failed Thrift were transferred to the newly-formed thrift, lndyMac Federal Bank, FSB (hereinafter, “INDYFED”).
    (f) On July 11, 2008, the FDIC was appointed conservator for INDYFED (the “conservator”); and as the conservator, the FDIC took control of certain assets (emphasis added) ($30,698,500) of the failed thrift, (FDIC Certificate Number: (#58912), and placed the assets with the new federally chartered “conservator bank”, INDYFED, pursuant to the “Amended and Restated Insured Deposit and Purchase an Assumption Agreement”,
    (g) The FDIC transferred the insured deposits and substantially all the assets of INDY to the newly formed thrift. As conservator, the FDIC chose to operate INDYFED for approximately nine months to maximize the value of the institution at sale. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended, the FDIC is authorized to sell or otherwise dispose of the assets of thrift institutions for which it acts as the conservator or receiver.
    (h) The FDIC reported on October 6, 2008, twenty-three (23) indicative bids were received for substantially all the assets of INDYFED, and on December 15, 2008 six (6) final round bids were selected.
    (i) On December 31, 2008 the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) signed a letter of intent to sell the banking operations of IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, Pasadena, California, to IMB HoldCo LLC, (hereinafter “IMBHOLDCO”), a thrift holding company.
    (j) In order to facilitate the sale of certain assets, the FDIC was appointed as the Receiver for INDYFED on March 19, 2009, and on the same date sold and conveyed substantially all of the assets and liabilities of INDYFED to two distinct entities on March 19, 2009, including IMB HOLDCO, and IndyMac Ventures LLC (hereinafter “IMVL”).
    (k) IMVL, was formed as a limited liability company pursuant to the act, 6 Del. C. §§ 18-101 et seq, on March 6, 2009 upon the filing of the Certificate of Formation of the Company with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware, pursuant to the “Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement.
    (l) The Limited Liability Company, IMVL became effective as of March 19, 2009, by and among the FDIC as Receiver for INDYFED (the “Initial Member”) and IMVL, the Delaware limited liability company.
    (m) Whereas, INDYFED formed the IMVL as a Delaware Limited Liability Company for the purpose of carrying on the Business (meaning the acquisition of the INDY assets), pursuant to the “Asset Contribution and Assignment Agreement”, whereas among other things, included the ownership, servicing, administration, and management of the Loans and other IMVL Property.
    (n) Following the defined asset contribution, INDYFED transferred its interest in IMVL pursuant to the “Limited Liability Company Interest Sale and Assignment Agreement”,
    (o) Concurrent with the abovementioned agreement, INDYFED and IMVL entered into the “Participation and Servicing Agreement”, whereby IMVL transferred and conveyed to INDYFED, a participating interest in the assets, the “Participation Interest”.
    (p) On the same date, IMVL entered into the “Servicing Agreement” with OWB to service the IMVL owned loans.
    (q) The facts show that, on March 19, 2009 IMVL – (RSSD ID: 4294236) became effective and established INDYFED as the initial and sole member, and simultaneously the FDIC was named the receiver of INDYFED, and subsequently transferred assets of the FDIC Receiver Bank, INDYFED, to IMVL, naming the FDIC as the initial and sole member / interest in the IMVL (the “LLC Interest”).
    (r) The Receiver and IMVL entered into an Asset Contribution and Assignment Agreement dated March 19, 2009, (the “Contribution Agreement”), pursuant to which the Receiver agreed to make a capital contribution of and transfer and convey all of the receiver’s right, title and interest in and to the loans to IMVL, and IMVL agreed to transfer and convey to the Receiver a participation interest in the Loans (evidenced by a participation certificate), pursuant to the Limited Liability Company Interest Sale and Assignment Agreement dated as March 19, 2009 (the “LLC Interest Sale Agreement”).

    (t) On March 19, 2009, INDYFED, as the Initial Member to IMVL contributed substantially all of the loans and other assets, as defined within a certain Loan Schedule, to IMVL, (No Schedule Attached – because no loans were transferred), and in return, held the sole membership interest in IMVL (the “LLC Interest”). The contributed assets were recognized as a capital contribution from INDYFED to IMVL, and immediately thereafter INDYFED conveyed an interest in (LLC Interest) IMVL to One West Ventures Holdings LLC, hereinafter “OWVH”).
    (u) Whereas, the parties further entered into a Participation and Servicing Agreement dated as of even date thereof (the “Participation Agreement”), pursuant to which IMVL transferred and conveyed to INDYFED a participation interest in the transferred assets, as more fully set forth pursuant to the Limited Liability Company Interest Sale and Assignment Agreement dated as of even date thereof (the “LLC Interest Sale Agreement”).
    (v) INDYFED subsequently agreed that subject to the terms and conditions of the LLC Interest Sale Agreement and other ancillary documents, to sell and transfer its LLC interest in IMVL to OWVH (the “LLC Interest Transferee”) for a purchase price equal to the Groups 6-8 final purchase price, as shown in the Master Purchase Agreement, a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a hereof as Exhibit “G”
    (w) OWVH was a newly formed limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. The “transferee” OWVH, received from the initial member, INDYFED, interest in the IMVL assets, and OWVH agreed to become a party to and be bound pursuant to the Limited Liability Company Interest Sale and Assignment Agreement.
    (x) On the same date thereof IMVL made and entered into a Loan Servicing Agreement, by and between IMVL (including its successors and assigns, the Association, OWB.
    (y) OWB also executed the Shared loss Agreement, which modified and supplemented the Loan Sale Agreement, which to a assured extent is the “control agreement” for the Loan Sale Agreement.
    (z) In conclusion of the series of transactions, which occurred on March 19, 2009 INDYFED sold the mortgage service rights it retained on loans sold to private mortgage securitization pools, to IMBHOLDCO.

  18. “Judges are confused. The borrower must owe money to someone so why not simply enter judgment and let the creditors sort it out amongst themselves.”

    Exactly what i have been saying all along. Regulatory agencies have failed to conduct the proper investigations, either by design or because of external pressure from banks and government. Judges will not dig their heels into it anymore than their mandate requires from them until they, themselves, face personal loss or substantial risk of loss.

    However, this analogy “What the courts are doing, by analogy, is saying that you must have killed someone when you fired that gun so we will dispense with evidence and a jury and proceed to sentencing” is ludicrous, ridiculous and nonsensical in my views.

    We’re dealing with a system that has become so convoluted and opaque that, until the money is physically tracked down from lenders and investors down to homeowners, we will never know to whom borrower (who did borrow in order to move into a house he couldn’t afford to pay cash for) owes the debt. Why no one is putting any pressure on Congress to demand investigations is the question. Too much to lose? Conflicts of interest so big that they might end up in jail? And since people would rather sit in front of their computer than write their representatives whose salary they pay, we are nowhere near fixing the problem.

  19. Analogy accepted
    Still need justice
    Claimed homestead exemption in BK7
    Neil take my case for wrongful foreclosure please

  20. Well said Neil I still have an actionable cause since the only owner of the property right is me the purchaser although the courts refuse to perfect the title in CA or follow the law as set forth by statute 764

    Sent from my iPhone

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: