Glaski Decision in California Appellate Court Turns the Corner on “Getting It”

8/8/13 NOTE: This decision was approved for publication and therefore applies to all cases within the district of the appellate court.

On the other hand we should not assume that they have arrived nor that this decision will have pervasive effects throughout California or elsewhere in the United States or other countries.

J.P. Morgan did suffer a crushing defeat in this decision. And the borrower definitely receive the benefits of a judicial decision that will allow the borrower to sue for wrongful foreclosure including equitable and legal relief which in plain language means reversing the foreclosure and getting damages. Probably one of the most damaging conclusions by the appellate court is that an examination of whether the loan ever made it into the asset pool is proper in determining the proper party to initiate a foreclosure or to offer a credit bid at a foreclosure auction.  The court said that alleged transfers into the trust after the cutoff date are void under New York State law which is the law that governs the common-law trusts created by the banks as part of the fraudulent securitization scheme.

Before you give them a standing ovation remember that it is possible for additional documentation to be created, fabricated and forged showing that despite the apparent violation of the cutoff date, the trustee has accepted the loan into the trust. This will most likely be a lie. I don’t think there is any entity acting as trustee of a trust that doesn’t know that it is under intense scrutiny and doesn’t want to be subject to liability that could amount to trillions of dollars advanced by investors with the purchase of bogus mortgage-backed bonds that were presumably managed by the trustee but in reality not managed at all  because the bonds were worthless. This gave the banks the opportunity to claim that they owned the bonds and therefore had an insurable interest which gave rise to the whole problem with AIG and AMBAC and other insurers or parties who had guaranteed the bond, the loan or any loss (credit default swaps).

The fact that the loan in this case was definitely securitized is also interesting. Of course Washington Mutual was stating to everyone that it was not involved in the securitization of mortgage loans when in fact nearly all of the loans originated became subject to claims of securitization. This case explains why I never say that the loan was securitized or that the loan was in any particular trust, to wit: I don’t believe that a funded trust exists with the ability to purchase loans and therefore I don’t believe the loans are in any of the asset pools. So when people ask me how they can prove which trust their loan is actually in, I reply that they are asking the wrong question.

What is being played out here in this case and hundreds of thousands of other cases is a representation by the foreclosing entity that the trust owns the loan when in fact it never owned the loan nor could it because the money that was advanced by investors was never deposited into the trust. We have the same banks representing to regulatory authorities and insurers that it is the bank and not the trust that owns the loan even though the bank merely made the loan using money advanced by investors who believed that they were buying mortgage-backed bonds. The truth is they were merely making a deposit into an account maintained by the investment bank. The resulting transactions do not qualify for exemption as securities or insurance under the 1998 law. Nor do they qualify for REMIC treatment under the Internal Revenue Code.

In other words if you take a close look and actually follow the path of the money and the path of the paper you will find that despite the pronouncements from the Department of Justice and other agencies, this is a simple fraud case using a Ponzi model. The hallmark of a Ponzi model is that it collapses as soon as the investors stop buying the bogus securities. If the government cares to do so it can freely prosecute the individuals and companies involved without any air of exemption under the 1998 law because none of the parties followed the securitization path presumed by the 1998 law. So we are back to this, to wit: a security is a security and subject to SEC regulations and insurance is an insurance contract subject to insurance regulators, and fraud is fraud subject to recovery of restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages, treble damages etc.

You should remember when reading this decision that the appellate court was not ruling in favor of the borrower granting the substantive relief the borrower  was seeking. The appellate court merely reversed the trial court decision to dismiss the borrower’s claims. That only means that the borrower now as an opportunity to prove the elements of quiet title, wrongful foreclosure, slander of title, cancellation of instruments and relief under California’s version of unfair business practices. But the devil is in the details and proving the case requires aggressive discovery and aggressive preparation for trial. It is highly probable that the case will settle. The bank will probably be willing to pay almost any amount of money to avoid a judgment setting forth the elements of a wrongful foreclosure and how the bank violated the law.

The Bank will attempt to avoid any final order that undermines the value of loans that are subject to claims of securitization, because those loans supposedly support the value of the bogus mortgage-backed bonds sold to investors.  Any such final order would also undermine the balance sheet of J.P. Morgan and any other major bank carrying the mortgage bonds as assets on their balance sheet. If those assets are diminished, then the bank is not as well funded as it has been reporting. In fact, those assets might well vanish completely from the balance sheet of those banks, causing the banks to be seized by the FDIC and broken up into smaller pieces for regional and community banks to pick up. Hence this decision represents a risk factor that could eliminate the legal fiction created by smoke and mirrors from Wall Street banks, to wit: it is not the borrowers who are deadbeats, it is the banks who are broke and whose management has run off with billions and perhaps trillions of dollars that should be in the United States economy. The absence of that money lies at the root of our unemployment and low economic activity.

This Glaski case has many of the elements that we have been discussing for years. Fabricated documents, forgeries, perjury, false affidavits and no money trail to backup the story painted by the fabricated documents. And of course it has our old friend Washington Mutual Bank And the supposed take over by Chase Bank that never actually happened.

And it involves the issue of assignments and the fact that the assignment is not the transaction itself but only a report of a transaction. If the borrower proves that the transaction reported in the assignment or other instrument of conveyance never occurred, or if the borrower is successful in shifting the burden of proof to the bank to show that it did occur, the assignment will have no value whatsoever unless the transaction is present, to wit: that someone actually purchased the loan through the payment of money or other valuable consideration that was received by a party who actually owned the loan.

Thus even if Chase Bank were able to show that it entered into a transaction in which the loans were transferred (something we can find no evidence of which the FDIC receiver says never occurred) that would only be the equivalent of a quit claim deed, to wit: whoever received the consideration for the transfer of the loans was merely conveying any interest they had even if they had no interest at all. Hence the transactions by which Washington Mutual allegedly came to be the owner of the loan must be examined in the same way as the transaction between the Washington Mutual bankruptcy estate and chase bank.

You should also take note that the decision was published with the admonition that it is  “not to be published in the official reports.”  this is further indication that the court is concerned about the far-reaching effects of the decision and essentially tells trial judges that they do not have to follow it. So for those who wish to point to this decision and say “game over” we are not there yet. But I do think that we passed the halfway point and we are probably in the fifth or sixth inning of a nine inning game. Translating that to time, I would estimate that it’s going to take another three or four years to clean up this mess and that it might take several decades to clean up the title corruption that was created by the banks.

70 Responses

  1. […] N.A., 218 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (July 31, 2013), a California appellate court ruled that the question whether the loan ever made it into the asset pool could be raised in determining the proper party to initiate foreclosure. And whether or not the homeowner was a […]

  2. Neil — for California Superior Court system -Glaski not just binding in trial courts within the appeal court district — it is binding on all trial courts in all appeal districts in California – for the California Superior Court system. It’s a bit different than the federal appeal court circuits and each of their individual circuit court of appeals domains.

    The decisions of the Courts of Appeal are binding on the Superior Courts of California, and both the Courts of Appeal and the Superior Courts are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of California. Notably, all published California appellate decisions are binding on all trial courts[2] (distinct from the practice in the federal courts and in other state court systems in which trial courts are bound only by the appellate decisions from the particular circuit in which it sits, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States or the state supreme court).[3] Court of Appeal decisions are not binding between divisions or even between panels of the same division.[4]

  3. A great case. We need more cases like this in California but this is a step in the right direction that helps us fight for clients in foreclosure and following wrongful foreclosures. Great post, thanks Neil!

  4. Agreed Iam not done with OCWEN yet

    Sent from my iPhone

  5. “Ocwen Close to Servicing Settlement with Federal Regulators”

    Is that a joke? that’s a rhetorical question. Of course it is. Now, Ocwen could settle with “fed regulators” for tainting the system, if they all say so. The problem with that is that it’s perceived as absolution from their sins, as if such tainting did no real damage to anyone other than the system. What actually happens with robo-signing etc is that contracts were messed with to appear to give yeahoos with no rights rights. Contracts were messed with so that people could take assets worth millions if not billions from others when they had no right to do so. That’s called stealing and 30.00 or 3000. doesn’t change a damn thing, except to create a very harmful illusion that some justice has been done. A slap on the wrist is further likely to be interpreted as
    future tolerance of said “messing”.

  6. NG said”
    “Before you give them a standing ovation remember that it is possible for additional documentation to be created, fabricated and forged showing that despite the apparent violation of the cutoff date, the trustee has accepted the loan into the trust.”

    Pretty confusing there, Neil. The court didn’t give them such an option when it ruled that there is no discretion – it ruled that pursuant to NY trust law, a loan may not be assigned/transferred to a trust after the cut-off date. period.
    A trustee may not, then, allege to “ratify” or otherwise purport a post
    cut-off assignment has been accepted.
    To be sure, the banksters aren’t going to let this stand without a mongo fight, but imo it won’t, can’t, involve acceptance by the trust.
    The wily-coyotes will find another route, though I can’t guess what it might be unless it’s a renewed attack on who can make that argument, i.e., that such an attempted transfer is void. I thought there were many
    interesting holdings in this case, but I didn’t think much of the court’s refusal to take judicial notice of the consent order(s), think it was.

    One of my favorites was the court holding that even as it takes JN of an assignment, that doesn’t mean a court holds the contents to be factual, as I have been hollering for some time.

  7. 08/08/2013 Order granting publication filed.

    As the nonpublished opinion filed on July 31, 2013, in the above entitled matter hereby meets the standards for publication specified in the California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c), it is ordered that the opinion be certified for publication in the Official Reports. (JAA)

  8. We hope so

    Sent from my iPhone

  9. Apparently this case is going to be published. Reading the case, the only way that JP Morgan can win at this point is if they convince the finder of fact (judge or jury, it’s not clear which here) that the obviously forged robosigned document was not forged after all. I find it strange that in California, obviously shady MERS loans are ok but this JP Morgan as WAMU’s successor is going to work.

  10. According to Timothy Fong, a commenter on Naked Capitalism, it was published this morning. Can anyone look? I’m not sure where/how to look.


    08/08/2013 – Yves Smith
    The Examiner (hat tip April Charney)

    !! GET A LETTER IN !!

    Glaski v. Bank of America

    The opinion is unpublished. That means other litigants typically cannot cite it in briefs

    However, interested parties have until August 20, 2013 to submit a request for publication to the court.

    very strict procedure for how to to this

    this post tells you everything you need to do (even names and addresses of everyone who needs to get a letter, a form for the proofs of service) and even provides a sample letter.

  12. So

    Sent from my iPhone

  13. Gunner wrote:

    “At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.
    The threat was codified in a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.
    The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.”

  14. Great idea They are gutless

    Sent from my iPhone

  15. GETTING BACK TO GLASKI – Michael Pines posted a request to send letters to the 5th CA Appellate Court to publish the Glaski decision. Deadline is 20 of Aug. Link to request and comments necessary to serve parties is –

  16. Christine—she never asked me for “advice”…ever. For a “smart” person, you really are pretty stupid.

  17. Amazing…

    Why would anyone fighting foreclosure in SC (and hopefully wanting to win) ask advice from anyone from CA, who never fought, never filed anything, never went to court and knows nothing first hand other than how to move out of the house?

    Better yet… why would a self-proclaimed paralegal who understands that things vary tremendously from one coast to the other, one jurisdiction to another, one state to another, one county to another, one judge to another… ask a lay person from CA who knows none of it, first hand or otherwise?

    Marvelous country full of mysteries… 4.8 millions of finalized foreclosures and another 4 millions in the works. And homeowners get advice from… whom again?

    No wonder this is getting nowhere after 6 years.

  18. Carie, I think it is like the picture of the snake swallowing its own tail. They (the banks) incurred debt but there is no creditor–just debt for you to pay endlessly.

  19. @louise

    Yet—after much hounding for an answer as to “ownership”, your servicer will ultimately tell you this:

    “The securitization trust is the owner of your loan…”


    “We are foreclosing due to your uncured default.”

    But they will never answer the question: “Uncured default to WHOM?”

  20. “…The biggest mortgage securitization trustees are Bank of New York, Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo, and US Bank.

    The interesting thing about the American Banker article is that the trustees appear to be in a great deal of denial as to how much hot water they are in. No where does the story mention their biggest exposure: that they gave multiple certifications to the investors in the mortgage securtizations that they did indeed have the trust assets. If, as it now appears to be the case, that many mortgage loans were not properly conveyed to the trust (as in endorsed by the originator and all the intermediary parties specified in the contract governing the deal, the pooling and servicing agreement, and finally over to the trust), then all those certifictions were patently untrue. Since investors relied upon these certifications (no one in their right mind would have ponied up for these deals if they had had any doubt that the trust owned the mortgage loans) and the failure to convey the notes is a big cause of problems with foreclosures, it would seem that the trustees are very logical targets for investor litigation… ”


  21. Here is one, Louise:

    John Gallagher, a Deutsche Bank spokesman in New York, said the Frankfurt, Germany-based Deutsche Bank would not comment in detail on the ruling involving its trust arm, which had depended on a separate servicer to litigate the foreclosures.
    “The function of the trustee is largely an administrative one; the trust company has no ownership stake or beneficial interest in the underlying loans of a securitization, nor is it responsible for foreclosures or selling foreclosed property,” Gallagher told The Associated Press in an e-mail.

  22. 1ofthemany, very interesting videos. I hope to see more. I have looked up the website but not found the videos. Many you can elucidate.

  23. @Carie, Can you give us a link about the Trustees and no beneficial interest? I can use it in a pleading. Thanks in advance.

  24. Also, E.Tolle—re. this:

    (2) a designated trustee, who must not be the beneficiary;

    Guess who is named as “beneficiary” in all the fabricated docs? Yup, the Trustee.

    Complete BS.

  25. @E.Tolle

    Bobhurt is completely wrong.

    The “Trustee’s” have stated PUPLICLY over and over and over that they:
    “…have NO beneficial ownership or stake in ANY of the loans”…this is a direct quote from the spokesman for Deutsche!!!


  26. The borrower is a party to the transaction because without the signature of the borrower there would be no transaction. Basic common sense.


  27. Finally the heroes come out. We’ll soon see more and more of them. People are waking up.

    More Whistle Blowers! USAF Environmental Specialist Kristen Meghan / Blows Whistle On Air Chemtrails 15 mins

  28. And here is exactly why the US lost its leadership role at the World Bank. This country has only one chance left to reclaim its world position. Looking at how it tried to sabotage IMF and the level of corruption it has brought to the World Bank, looking at the last NSA scandal, looking at the constant false flags and how easily it kills anyone and everyone, anywhere and anytime it so pleases, it is doubtful it will be successful.

    7 billion people have had it with bad behavior. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

  29. OpEdNews Op Eds 8/1/2013 at 21:09:40
    America Discredited
    By Paul Craig Roberts (about the author)

    As Washington loses its grip on the world, defied by Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and now Russia, the US government resorts to public temper tantrums. The constant demonstration of childishness on the part of the White House and Congress embarrasses every American.

    Washington’s latest outburst of childish behavior is a response to the Russian Immigration Service granting US whistleblower Edward Snowden asylum in Russia for one year while his request for permanent asylum is considered. Washington, having turned the US into a lawless state, no longer has any conception of legal procedure. Law is whatever serves Washington. As Washington sees it, law is nothing but Washington’s will. Any person or country that interferes with Washington’s will is behaving unlawfully.

    Because Obama, like Bush before him, routinely disobeys US law and the US Constitution, the White House actually thinks that Russian President Putin should disobey Russian and international law, overturn the Russian Immigration Service’s asylum decision, and hand over Snowden to Washington.

    Washington expected Russia to hand over Snowden simply because Washington demanded it. Like a two-year old, Washington cannot conceive that its demands don’t take precedence over international law and the internal legal procedures of every country. How dare Russia stand up for law against “the indispensable nation.”

    The White House spokesman, who is so unimpressive that I cannot remember his/her name/gender, declared that the White House moron might punish Putin by not going to visit him in Moscow next month. I doubt Putin cares whether the WH moron shows up.

    The WH moron’s term of office is close to an end, but Putin, unless the CIA assassinates him, will be there for another decade. Moreover, every Russian leader has learned that a US president’s word means nothing. Clinton, the two Bushes and the current WH moron violated every agreement that Reagan made with Gorbachev. Why would the president of Russia, a nation ruled by law, want to meet with a tyrant?

    Not to be outdone by the WH in childish behavior, members of the House and Senate added their two-bits to America’s embarrassment. Congressional morons “reacted furiously,” according to news reports, and warned “of serious repercussions in US-Russian relations.” Here we have another extraordinary demonstration of Washington’s hubris. Only Russia has to worry about repercussions in the relationship. Washington doesn’t have to worry. His Imperial Majesty will simply deny Putin an audience.

    Congress seems unaware of its schizophrenia. On the one hand Congress is outraged about the National Stasi Agency’s illegal and unconstitutional spying — especially on Congress — and is attempting to defund the Stasi Agency’s surveillance program. The amendment to the military spending bill by Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan, almost passed. The amendment was barely defeated by votes purchased by the spy industry.

    On the other hand, despite its outrage over being spied upon, Congress wants the scalp of the brave hero, Edward Snowden, who informed them that they were being spied upon. Here we have a demonstration of the historical stupidity of government — shoot the messenger.

    Only a few right-wing crazies believe that universal surveillance of every American is necessary to US security. The National Stasi Agency will fight hard and blackmail every member of the House and Senate, but the blackmail itself will lead to the National Stasi Agency’s wings being clipped, or so we can hope. If it is not done soon, the Stasi Agency will have time to organize a false flag event that will terrify the sheeple and bring an end to the attempts to rein in the rogue agency.

    The United States is on the verge of economic collapse. The alleged “superpower,” a bankrupt entity, was unable after eight years of efforts to occupy Iraq and had to give up. After 11 years the “superpower” has been defeated in Afghanistan by a few thousand lightly armed Taliban, and is now running for cover with its tail between its legs.

    Washington compensates for its military impotency by committing war crimes against civilians. The US military is a great killer of women, children, village elders, and aid workers. All the mighty “superpower” can do is to lob missiles shot from pilotless drones into farm houses, mud huts, schools, and medical centers.

    The schizophrenic denizens of Washington have made Americans a hated people. Those with the foresight to know to escape from the growing tyranny also know that wherever they might seek refuge, they will be seen as vermin from the most hated nation and subjected to being scapegoated as spies and evil influences, and at risk of being decimated in reprisals against Washington’s latest atrocity.

    Washington has destroyed the prospects of Americans both at home and abroad.
    Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan Administration.

  30. And everyone should be interested to know that UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC, is a Religious Non Profit Corporation duly registered in DE since 4/19/1989, and Not in good standing, according to Edgar.

    Some people will have a lot of explaining to do…

  31. For anyone interested in understanding why we can’t seem to get regulatory agencies to act, here is the list of all the banks either owned by HSBC or in which HSBC has the majority of the participation. With such tentacles worldwide, it becomes pretty easy to see why money laundering and tax evasion have become such a risk-free undertaking. I would imagine that the same kind of research into JP Morgan, Deutsche Banke, B of A and other such behemoth will yield similar results.

    The good news is that it is becoming increasingly more public and will become more and more difficult for governments to ignore. People want to know and they start digging. Don’t expect that kind of info from MSM though…

  32. and that would be section 33-804 (A), (b,) and (c) of title 33 re appointment of Trustee

  33. I mean- only the beneficiary can appoint a successor trustee,

  34. no trust no trustee (new York trust law,)
    beneficiary as recorded can not be the beneficiary, mine sold 100% of their “loans”.. so- transfers are void because there is no valid authorized trustee at foreclosure time to appoint a “substitute trustee”- because- well just because- so when its credit bid time, uhhmmm- enter the bogey man. but there is this little IRS document called a 1099A.
    (USCA 9th circuit- case – 12-16192)

  35. @bobhurt, I don’t understand your statement, “I happen to agree that the trust owns none of the notes allegedly in the trust. The trustee owns them because assignments bear the trustee’s, not the trust’s, name.”

    How can you say that the trustee owns the notes, when the trustee is simply a custodian under NY trust law?

    “….within 90 days of the Trust closing date, the actual promissory note must be endorsed over to the trustee for the specific trust to effectively transfer the asset into the trust and therefore make the NAME promissory note Trust property.”

    “Under New York law there are four essential elements of a valid trust of personal property:

    (1) A designated beneficiary;
    (2) a designated trustee, who must not be the beneficiary;
    (3) a fund or other property sufficiently designated or identified to enable title thereto to pass to the trustee; and
    (4) the actual delivery of the fund or other property, or of a legal assignment thereof to the trustee, with the intention of passing legal title thereto to him as trustee.”

    Even if you were correct, and the trustee somehow could claim ownership (ain’t happening), the trustee would still held to the same legal standard of the cut-off dates. No?

  36. Yes – the game is chess not poker
    Christine on your comment below i agree – know where they are going to be

    “. Adapting to the new situation by rethinking defense strategies is much more important”

  37. Why do you think the Banksters cannot produce sufficient paperwork? Why would they go all the way to the appelate court with insufficient paperwork? Isnt it cheaper if you have the sufficient paperwork to just produce it in the first place? Instead of going through all the expense of court?


  38. Much ado about nothing, Neil. This case, by rule, can’t be cited or used for any purpose. The court has remanded it to let the bank prove it owns beneficial interest in the note. What do you think will happen? You KNOW what will happen. The bank will provide the proof and the foreclosure will go through to completion. The mortgagor will lose the house as the mortgagor should, for defaulting on payments.

    In other words, this has not become the “crushing defeat” you claimed. It’s just another case of bringing insufficient paperwork to court, nothing more.

    And this constitutes just another case where securitization arguments have ZERO relevance. It does not matter whether a trust exists.

    I happen to agree that the trust owns none of the notes allegedly in the trust. The trustee owns them because assignments bear the trustee’s, not the trust’s, name.

  39. I don’t have MERS on my loan, but my thoughts are these:
    MERS is given a specific power of the note holder / beneficiary, and that power is the right to name a successor in the beneficiary interest (nominee is derived from nom, ‘name’). When you look at it from a legal construction, selecting a single item from a list of items does not imply all items from the list were chosen. So what items / powers of the beneficiary were not chosen?

    Possibly the power to retain the borrower’s payments. The power to substitute a trustee The power to determine a default occurred. The power to declare a default, cancel, or write off the loan. The power to elect to foreclose. The power to initiate foreclosure judicially or non-judicially. The power to engage the trustee to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure. The power to negotiate a change in the loan.

    Now the problem with an assignment of powers is that only the power granted can be passed on to another party. So by the legal construct argument above, an assignee of MERS only has the power to name another successor in the beneficiary interest, with no power to retain proceeds, enforce, modify, or terminate the loan.

    This could be total hogwash, as IANAL. I admit I don’t read pleadings with respect to MERS, so I would have to rely on the readers here to confirm whether this argument has ever been presented.

  40. And I like Piggybank’s rendering of that Glaski case much better. At least, Wright posts the damn case!

  41. If courts have declared that MERS does have standing and it is becoming the law of the land, case by case and one state at a time, denying it to no end isn’t going to help homeowners. Adapting to the new situation by rethinking defense strategies is much more important and attacking people for pointing that out is immature and childish.

    Whether you like it or not, the world is changing and it is not going back in time to accommodate those who are unable to adapt. Deal with it.

  42. Christine your true side cones forth
    No wonder I seldom read your input

  43. TILA & RESPA violations make the contact a nullity
    & if not the first transfer from the loan originator makes it a nullity since Carpenter vs Logan 1867
    This will have destroyed 146 yrs of property law
    When common joe finds out they will all be locked up

  44. Bull MERS has no standing A contract was never consummated since a true mortgage never exists

    Sent from my iPhone

  45. UKG,


    “Court affirmed MERS’ authority to act as a mortgagee and as nominee of the lender pursuant to a mortgage contract and to exercise the statutory power of sale granted to MERS under that contract”

    Johngault is going to be crushed. And a lot of what Garfield has been saying is out of the window. Time to look at the big, worldwide picture.

  46. “One side is “waning” and that would be the London based financial Anglo-American empire and the other is “waxing” and that would be the China based, Russia and you could even use BRICS if you want… and again, look at what’s going on in the middle-east. It’s pretty appearant what’s happening. This is not some kind of game going on. This is very, very serious… But it really comes down down to: an ounce of gold weighs the same anywhere. What makes the difference is how many pieces of paper you’re going to issue to put valuer on it and, more importantly, it’s the psychology behind it…”

    There, you have it. And David Morgan really puts the responsibility of telling the truth to the people on… the media! We all know that.

    It’s really not the house and the foreclosure. It’s the secrets behind what the hell is going on! I’d rather lose the house and know what’s what than keep the damn building, remain stupid and ignorant and have an attitude to boot! Because, in the end, the damn building means jack because its value means nothing and values have changed.

  47. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was problematic, but only because it was the last remaining obstacle to the real problem, which is privately-created money that we are required to use by law and have to purchase from the banks. The privately-owned Federal Reserve and the free, fictional money it creates and passes out to banks while putting us on the hook for it are the ultimate problem.


    Public money used to help private interests. The Koch Bros are no worse than anyone else. It just happens to be about them. Could be about anyone actively involved in killing us for the sake of profit. All with the blessings of congress and government. And with YOUR money. Was that the future you dreamed off for your kids? Does the word “pristine” mean anything to you?

    Sheeeesh! Keep on paying your taxes. You’re only supporting your killers.

  49. Java,

    Wrong names. Go back to Nixon and follow the trail all the way to today. You’ve got 9 names of leaders without integrity. Add to that all the senators and representatives in that revolving-door system of public-servant-hired-by-private-companies-and-subsequently-reelected-as-public-servants and you have it all.

    An experiment gone wrong. Public money used for private interests.

  50. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank…….so I will pay $25 for the other names in book

  51. Iwantmynpv,

    “If I write a book and sold it for $50.00 disclosing the names of current and former members of Congress who were equally responsible for enacting this scheme, made tens of millions as a result of carry-through would, you guys buy the book.”

    This country of good little boys and girls pays their salaries. What kind of masochistic mind can justify to itself working hard in order to pay the salaries of the people they chose to better screw them and enrich themselves in the process?

    This has to be, by far, the most important question since the fall of Adam and Eve since it has kept on being played over and over for millenia and the world over too. There’s absolutely no rational justification for it. And yet, it’s still the same story played ad vitam eternam…

    Is humanity fundamentally incapable of learning anything?

  52. They are express trusts! NY violation is an old tired argument… At some point, some of you will wake up and throw the PSA in the toilet and start reviewing the exhibits filed.

    They amend the PSA, show loan schedules for the pool and define who pays what, where, when and why!!!

    The case should not be fought at the pool level – it is won by reviewing the primary market transaction – and understanding the mechanisms that allowed the mortgage debt to be created.

    If you are pro se and are offered a fair resolution, which is affordable – take it. If you are an attorney – take the offer for your client and move on. You cannot win the war – because these guys are not fighting a war with you. They are protecting themselves from the bigger picture – investor fraud, RICO and a whole slew of State statutes, that have very little to do with us measly homeowners.

    In essence, that are moderating the foreclosure scene – just enough to continue monoline contributions and appease Congress. The bigger picture is the reserve requirements – and that is why you will never see the 8 million mortgage loans in default that they are not filing an action to foreclose.

    The more the assets depreciate, the more reserves (real money) the banks will have to post against the assets (maintenance call) See BIS for a better understanding..

    and…. an unpublished decision is the equivalent of receiving a comb as a present – and you have no hair.

    If I write a book and sold it for $50.00 disclosing the names of current and former members of Congress who were equally responsible for enacting this scheme, made tens of millions as a result of carry-through would, you guys buy the book.

  53. An other twilight zone moment…

    LPS opens facility in India

    2013-08-01 —

    “This new, larger Hyderabad location, which boasts 40,000 square feet, with space for further growth, has an advanced technological infrastructure that will accommodate increases in the number of employees and strengthens LPS delivery of Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solutions.

    In addition to supporting the LendingSpace platform, employees in LPS India will also provide development quality assurance for the company’s mortgage servicing solutions. This work will allow LPS to improve its development cycles, which will benefit LPS’ clients by allowing LPS to deliver products to its clients more quickly.”

  54. Ocwen Close to Servicing Settlement with Federal Regulators

    Ocwen’s criminal enterprise is close to reaching a settlement with federal regulators and it appears the giant servicer will agree to make cash payments to borrowers who were harmed ruined during the illegal foreclosure process.

    Maybe this time people will get more than the average $300 from all those settlements…

  55. “Bob, that’s been Maher’s trademark for years.” That and… peddling for his services people paid for and many, many times complained that they weren’t worth a rabbit pellet.

    Soliman is like Garfield: heavy on talk, light on proven results.

  56. Alright…

    If i hear something that doesn’t make sense in my frame of reference, I disregard it. If I hear it again from a different source and it still doesn’t make sense, I disregard again. It can go on for a while and I will still not give it much consideration.

    Here is the problem… it keeps coming back over and over. I think it is time to actually look at the claim whereby “All debts have been pre-paid”. Here is an interesting site with questions worth posing. After all, how does one grow a planet’s worth from 60 trillion to 400 trillions? Could there be something to what’s advanced here?

  57. Bob, that’s been Maher’s trademark for years. I think he types with boxing gloves on.

  58. Masterservicer

    I’m sure u know your stuff, and I’m sure there r some winning plays in there, but your prose is way too cryptic. I can’t figure out what it all means or how to utilize it. Can u help us out a little more?

  59. Even the appeals court judges are bought & paid for
    They are unwilling to up hold the law & set a precedent which is needed to clear the titles, perfect them, which is needed

  60. Scared out of their wits to make a stand and up hold the law

  61. Scared out if there wits to make a stand and up hold the law

  62. Editor :

    If the borrower proves that the transaction reported in the assignment or other instrument of conveyance never occurred, or if the borrower is successful in shifting the burden of proof to the bank to show that it did occur, the assignment will have no value whatsoever unless the transaction is present, to wit: that someone actually purchased the loan through the payment of money or other valuable consideration that was received by a party who actually owned the loan.

    You know that the hottest topic is still found under codified and revised FAS 140 /See ASC 310 320 820 . You also know that shadow banking is a threat to a stable economy.

    Look at it this way , using deferrals to create a synthetic yield that compounds interest ….for extinguishment and nononrecognition rules there is nothing to assign . Its called a inter-party creditor or bank to banker execution . negotiable instruments,
    collecting banker must only act as, in receiving payment for
    customer see conversion, who is liable for what post sale.and
    delegation of duty by customer, .

    My bet is focus on the depositors . And see Title where .
    mortgagor constituted as the facilitator as by owner of legal estate,
    Principal And Agent. -protection of, against action for money had and received, that is apparently not affected by negligence, subject to re-delivery of blank transfer stipulated by (?) and as to when it is made effectual, or where AGENT—-involves securities taken from account as cover, And see Collateral Security. title deeds, dealing wrongfully with, transaction dedal points

    covenant against, deposit of lease as security no breach of, 281.
    legal mortgage by, position of mortgagee where, 280.
    banker receiving valuables for safe custody, whether gratuitous
    or for reward, care, amount of, required of gratuitous, conversion by. See Conversion. See that Title.
    corporate, guarantee given to,absorption of other body, effect of,
    amalgamation, effect of,draft drawn by branch on head office,
    head office and branches, one body, not for purpose of giving notice of dishonour, joint stock or otherwise incorporated, not a firm, but a corporation,

    Leave a Reply

  63. “I took for granted from my youth America was dominant in the world and was indoctrinated into the belief that we had superior morals and higher ideals. That was why we succeeded while India and China starved. Or so the propaganda went. We were told in the 1960s about how mean and nasty Russians made women work and leave their kids in government run day schools. We all had stay-at-home moms and didn’t fancy them not being there when we got home from schools. We were told how they spied on their people and jailed them for no reason, torturing enemies foreign and domestic. We were taught to duck and cover under our desks in case a nuclear bomb hit. Like that would make any difference?

    Many decades have passed and almost all women must work in America, whether they have kids or not, just to make ends meet. A car that cost $4000 in the 1960s now costs $35,000. We learned our government tortures and they call it “enhanced interrogation” as do the police sometimes. Our once mighty financial status, grown through leased gold from the Chinese Royal families and the circumstances of having won World War II has been dissipated by our own greedy shorted sighted Corporations looking for the cheapest labor. The prosperity has gone back to the Chinese. We emerged unchallenged into in the 1940s and the rest of the world was in shatters, now we are in shatters and the rest of the world is moving on.”

    Another piece of prose from an American man who just realized that this country has been fed lies over and over. And yes, it is in shatters while the rest of the world is moving on.

  64. Very interesting videos. I have to agree. If we let the banksters keep going, we are all dead or dying. Our worthless Congress is going on vacation. Maybe we can go to Washington and represent ourselves and pass some laws that actually represent the people of the United States. Did everybody forget that taxation without representation is how we all started out?

  65. Leave a Reply

    Editor – Your so off subject matter God bless for letting me publish but — so far off.

    Editor – Probably one of the most damaging conclusions by the appellate court is that an examination of whether the loan ever made it into the asset pool

    Wrong Nonsense _Trust Me Non sense

    Editor ,,,is proper in determining the proper party to initiate a foreclosure or to offer a credit bid at a foreclosure auction.

    Proper party – clerk order for entry for 30 day FDCPA default ….Yah- Hello!

    Editor : The court said that alleged transfers into the trust after the cutoff date are void under New York State law which is the law that governs the common-law trusts created by the banks as part of the fraudulent securitization scheme.

    They form as an express trust …like escrow or settlement by a broker dealer is in trust ….


    You have an obligation to the everyone on this site. My tremendous respect that you let me publish but 25 years of trading this stuff – I know just about every trick in the book. Your talking about chapter 1 years later and ..etc

    Here. Look at your last payment statement – The prima fascia is starring at you and your not able to find it .

    First step is understand the legal and tax implications that make this deal a darling they cannot let go of.Second , get focused on the depositors side of the equation . Last Take a long hard look at what title companies are doing these days.

    I have yet to address the entire story line – in part , with respect for the the economic recovery . But there are a few attorneys at the moment who are pushing a losing case way too far and challenging arguments to the point of lunacy !

    Editor – ….to wit: I don’t believe that a funded trust exists with the ability to purchase loans and therefore I don’t believe the loans are in any of the asset pools.

    MS OMG …stop …stop …

    Ps. Appeals justices rule on the argument in front of them. Ruling that a snow cone vendor dominates exclusive market share in Antarctica is perhaps a claim worth examining the Sherman Act controversy , anti trust , Rico .

    But Why!!!! Why even argue the matter


  66. INHO-this is where it started and this is where it should END please pass on

    your call, 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

    Peace-walk carefully do your own research-seven50 agenda21 weather wars and so much more…due you due 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

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: