Reality is Not on the Menu

Every time I speak with lay people or lawyers who are new to the twilight world of foreclosures, about half our time is spent on dealing with reality — the way that Judges look at these cases and the other reality — the way the transactions, payments and disbursements occurred and between whom. The problem is that most people THINK they know what happened with these mortgages but they are wrong. And the people who are right have not come up with a clear enough explanation to catch the judge’s attention and turn things around.

So let’s try again, using facts and metaphors and basic fundamental laws and standard rules of civil procedure.

Except in certain exotic types of lawsuits nobody can sue anyone else unless they can say that they are getting hurt or have been hurt by something the defendant did. The plaintiff must also state that the defendant was acting wrongfully, illegally or negligently.

In today’s foreclosure world, the complaint or the position in non-judicial states is “we have the note.” Since they proclaim themselves the holder of the note and they proclaim their right to enforce the note, the case is virtually closed UNLESS the judge remembers or is convinced that statements of ultimate conclusions of LAW are not the same thing as short plain statements of ultimate FACTS upon which relief could be granted. If you don’t believe me, look it up. From the U.S. Supreme Court all the way down to the lowest court, if you sue someone you must allege that the other guy hurt you and should pay for it or should be stopped.

In foreclosures the complaint should contain the following statements:

  1. Plaintiff loaned Defendant money (or Plaintiff bought the loan from someone who loaned money). See Exhibits showing the closing documents, canceled check, and current bookkeeping records showing the status of the loan.
  2. Plaintiff is the owner of the loan as shown in the note receivable account maintained by Plaintiff as shown in the attached exhibits.
  3. Defendant failed or refused to make payments pursuant to the agreement (note) executed by Defendant as evidence of the debt.
  4. Defendant executed a mortgage lien (deed of trust) as collateral to be sold in the event of default for the purpose of recovering the debt owed by Defendant to Plaintiff.
  5. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s failure to pay the above debt when due, Plaintiff has been damaged in the principal amount of $258,900.36 plus accrued interest, expenses and costs all as set forth in the record of the defendant’s account.
  6. Plaintiff has sent notices of delinquency, default and acceleration as required by the mortgage and note, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits. Defendant was given an opportunity to reinstate as per the attached exhibit and has failed or refused to do so.
  7. Plaintiff has offered the Defendant the right to modify the loan if the Defendant qualified for new underwriting of the loan as required by the Dodd Frank Act and the HAMP laws and rules.
  8. All other conditions precedent have been performed as required by law and contract.
  9. In accordance with the terms of the mortgage (or deed of trust), the property should be ordered sold to satisfy the unpaid portion of the note receivable account owed to Plaintiff.

So that is how foreclosures were sent to the Court before the Wall Street mania hit. Now none of the above allegations are included, none of the above requirements are required by judges, and the result is that whoever starts the foreclosure wins a foreclosure and they get the property, they get to keep the insurance and credit default swap money and they get to keep the money paid to them by the Federal Reserve to cover the nonexistent “loss” of the banks who were using the money of investors to make the loans (at least that portion of the money they had to use to fund mortgages without arousing suspicion as to what they were doing with the rest of it).

Out of the millions of foreclosures and evictions that have been rubber stamped in court, or by state officials, practically none of them were right or legal — not because some “i” wasn’t dotted or some “t” wasn’t crossed but because the account receivable was zero or overpaid and the homeowner owed nothing. For some reason most people find it more pleasing to allow the burden of Wall Street crimes to fall on millions of innocent pawns in PONZI scheme that required theft of the credit and identity of the borrowers, with the banks making a huge profit on the money investors gave them, without repaying the investors or crediting the account receivable. Not one case has correctly stated the amount due. Most cases involve debts that no longer exist because the Wall Street players traded their way around the debt, and got it paid off without turning it over to the investors.

Wall Street can’t pay the investors because that would put an end to the foreclosures. If you put an end to the foreclosures, the investors are going to want to see their  money — all of it, including the  part that was skimmed off (15%-20%) right at the beginning after the first bond was sold but before the application for loan was delivered by a prospective or existing homeowner.

The crazy part of this is that Wall Street stole so much that it could have repaid the investors, and thus avoided the foreclosures and still they would have made a lot of money. But they wanted more. They want it all.

And now they are controlling our natural resources and using aluminum and copper and the like to repatriate money they secreted during the mortgage meltdown. By buying natural resources abroad and selling it here, they can repatriate the money they stole without anyone being the wiser. Or can they? Maybe enough people will realize that the soda can they drink from was paid for by a hapless homeowner who lost their home and is still confused as to how that happened.

28 Responses

  1. Does not possession of the Note deal with having a duty to insure those documents are not used in an illegal manner? If loan out of the securities are being taken out then how is it possible when one party that has possession and the Note is blank can ever transfer the Note? It impossible because the party holding the Note cannot transfer as it has no proof of purchase like Szymoniak is saying.

    The reason for the forgeries is that they never had the proper documentation!

  2. NG also said: “If you don’t believe me, look it up”

    That’s a if not thee problem, Neil. The banksters rely on the UCC
    holder provisions and judges let them, hearing no arguments to the contrary that possession of a note does not demonstrate injury, the true threshold issue.

  3. NG said:
    “Except in certain exotic types of lawsuits nobody can sue anyone else unless they can say that they are getting hurt or have been hurt by something the defendant did. The plaintiff must also state that the defendant was acting wrongfully, illegally or negligently.”

    1) the plaintiff must have suffered injury
    2) by the defendant’s wrongful, illegal, or negligent act

  4. Crazy is some dude like elexquisitor who at this point I am thinking is a Wells Fargo plant, …why? Because we just had 4.2 million all behind on the allege payment borrowers under the HAMP and all got paid something.

    The Federal Government is suing JP Chase. BOA and Wells but they have not touch on the obvious and that Ginnie Mae pooled loan where in 2009-2010 you got all 50,000 request foreclosed without even looking at the HAMP request.

    I am suppose to be a billionaire and I have no doubt they will have to provide me with a good amount for the $24 billion for just 2009-2010 alone. But let remember that this fraud goes back to 1970-2013! Let the Fed eat cake!

  5. @CR – not bad for computer-generated comments. What mil-spec are you using?

  6. Like Szymoniak the reason she discovered the fraud was because she was a direct victim of the crime. People who usually discover the cure is one who is involve with the problem. Idea are not coming to people who are not dealing with the situation. Its easy for some clown to say you should have made your payment, but the real question is was there an actual payment.

    Who care if you feel I should pay but does it not matter that who I am suppose to pay is the one claiming something is due. Bank for what reason as with WaMu took billions in losses and JP Chase was suppose to have paid $9 billion for $300 billion of WaMu’s asset, but as it turns out they actual did not purchase at $9 billion, and maybe nothing, but helping the FIDC not go under in thier insurance fund where they were going to need a bailout from the US Treasury.

  7. elexquisitor here your problem in that Lynn Szymoniak was in foreclosure proceeding for what ever the reason was, someone was claiming the Note due. This led her to investigate, and see found the ROBO signing and was paid $18 billion and she and the million forged assignments were behind on the payments they thought they had to paid.

    However why I am going to get a part of the False Claims that with treble damaged is $24 billion, is like ROBO case the entity claiming to be the lender violated the law on borrowers they said were delinquent.

    Lesson is it the illegal act of recording the forged assignment which Ginnie Mae is having done now is the key. How can you come to the court claiming ownership but the assignment is a fraud. Case over because there is not any proof of ownership!

  8. elexquisitor this is not about who can purchase a foreclosed home, but is about who can purchase a home mortgage debt. Since this is a technical, then put on your little pointed technical hat. Like a electrician who not license cannot bid on a government contract because the electrician regulated.

    Just because some one have money to lend but if they are not allowed by law to collect a payment there is noway to fulfill the contract. The payment are going to pay off the advancement that the now issuer received in a post transaction that does not involve the purchasing of debt at all. So the issuer dies and owes the investor who purchase a securities not a home mortgage loan.

    Your confused as yes there was a loan and if that loan is not titled then you got an unsured loan,, but if you sign in blank and give over the Note without there being a sale, then you have wipe clear the debt because you did not follow the rules.

  9. Hurry Up and moderate the comments which still hang in lymbo… Please…

  10. @CR – I think I see the problem. You’re confusing the right to offer a credit bid at a foreclosure sale with the right to purchase a note. The confusion is that people like you incorrectly state the law and say “only a lender can issue a credit bid”, when the truth is the beneficiary of the property being sold, even if its al Qaeda, can offer a credit bid for the amount + costs at the trustee sale. But because of the confusion people like you rain upon these blogs, the common misconception is that you have to be a lender to offer a credit bid.

    You need to read this –

    And in the example at the link above, if you purchased the note at a discount, and the homeowner filed court action just before auction and named you as the current note holder, how much could you claim in damages – the amount you paid for the note, or the face value of the note. THAT’s my question.

  11. @Carie – actually the response was “Go away, kid, ya bother me”
    W.C. Fields

  12. exequsitor in your reasoning the Mob could purchase these loans? It cannot happen because Ginnie Mae nor the Mob is a regulated home mortgage lender and they cannot accept home mortgage payment (reason for the pass through payments), so the loan balances cannot actual apply principal payment to the balance because that payment go straight to the securities investor which is the Federal Reserve Bank.

    The Note says the Lender may transfer this Note. The Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments. So under the law the only one entitled is a lender that originated or purchase the debt, which Ginnie Mae has already said they are neither. This why 800,000 FHA, VA & USDA loans were not even process for the HAMP and instead foreclosed, when the Fed said these loan were qualified for a modification!

  13. @CharlesReed – I don’t know what state you are talking about, but in CA my note states it can be transferred to ANYONE, without ANY QUALIFICATIONS at all, and they become a subsequent note holder. So your first couple of sentences makes nonsense.

    There are 3 parties to a deed of trust loan – borrower, lender / beneficiary, and trustee. Then there are agents of the beneficiary, and possibly agents of the trustee. A servicer comes in 2 flavors – agent for the beneficiary for borrower, and agent for the beneficiary for MBS. When you start throwing around a bunch of terms to look intelligent you only spread confusion. My question was directed to the time after a notice of default was declared. Somehow you got to Mars.

    If you put your obtuse narrative in terms of the definitions above, then Ginnie is an agent for the beneficiary for MBS, a noteholder not in due course, but with the rights of the beneficiary (as agent). If Wells is the ‘vesting beneficiary’, they are likely doing so as agents of … the MBS, whose direction comes from the agent of the beneficiary (MBS). In other words, you have agents directing agents for the MBS.

    So if you would re-think your narrative you might get to the point I raised after the notice of default and all the players are represented by their agents, except for the borrower. If no money was actually passed in the vesting assignment, the ‘for consideration’ is what? And does it limit the amount of remedy a court can provide the actual beneficiary? If the ‘for consideration’ is less than the loan amount, does that constitute a partial (or full) principal reduction?

    And it leads to another question. If Ginnie is agent for MBS (trustee that can be overridden by majority of investors in trust), and Wells is agent of Ginnie, but does not have POA from trust, does Wells have legitimate power of agent of agent of beneficiary? IANAL and don’t have legal experience to answer that question. Can a majority of investors agree to nullify POA of Wells, for example, name their own agent as majority holders of MBS interest, and undo the decisions made by Ginnie?

  14. This is the reality of the people/investors/realtors who are “buying and selling” these foreclosures:

    Hapless foreclosure victim to investor who bought at “auction”:

    “Hey, what do you think of this information—it clearly shows how my foreclosure was fraudulent from top to bottom…”

    response from investor/realtor:

    “Stop bothering me with your emails and find a way to get an income…”

  15. Having some problem with the ad spot on this page as it is cutting off my post. But to go on…When the borrower and originator agree to the loan it states that another my purchase the debt, but that purchaser must be a lender that can provide the service and be regulated to do so or there would be no stop a loan shark from lending monies.

    Where the public is not understand what Ginnie Mae is doing, is conducting a post transaction that forbids a sum of monies from taking place because Congress does not allow Ginnie Mae to take on the debt that is associated with purchasing home mortgage loans that transfers the debt to the taxpayers. Look at what just happen when the loan property value at 60% or 50% and the foreclosure are conducted and there is a no recourse clause, but the insurances is on the taxpayers so the government is in a losing position if it get involved in the originating and purchasing part of the business.

    Investors are investing in a non-tangible instrument in a securities, where the home owner does not enter into this agreement between the lender and Ginnie Mae. Ginnie Mae informs the world that they don’t originate home mortgage loans or purchase or sell home mortgage loans or sell securities, but they are in possession of the blank signed endorsed Notes.

    Let understand that the Fed who is purchasing the securities is not claiming that they purchase the home loans but the securities, because the securities is paying two insurances and to simply foreclose on the property would only result in the foreclosure sale and the one insurance of around 10% of the remaining balance. So on a $100,000 loan with a foreclosure sale of $50,000 the end result would be $60,000 and that they end.

    However with the scheme that Ginnie Mae currently has going on the payout to my alleged $202,400 balance was $429,095 to keep paying the investor all the interest that the securities would pay over the life of the loan.

    Ginnie Mae order the foreclosing and allows the servicer in the case of Washington Mutual Bank Ginnie Mae pooled placed loan, to illegally submit an assignment claiming that Wells Fargo is the “holder in due course” as if Wells Fargo purchase the Notes which in fact never happen because the Note is and was non-negotiable once the blank Note was relinquished to Ginnie Mae, as there was not a sum of money for the Notes. Ginnie Mae admits there is not sale ever to them or from them.

    As there cannot be a actual servicer for Ginnie Mae as they by law cannot collect a home mortgage payment for any reason, this pass through payment is a fraud to allow payment to the investors from the home owner which is illegal, and every payment must be returned to the home owner because it was never suppose to be collected.

    The courts must understand that the Note is a contract and that contract is never between Ginnie Mae or investors and the homeowners, because either one can enter into that agreement and the fact is that neither are on the face of the Note/contract.

    How does the court not understand that the allege owners cannot present any proof that they paid a single red cent for the home loan, but are in court claim the Note due. How can a Note be due when the debt was separated when the blank Note was freely handed over to a party that does not pay for the debt.

    We continue to allow Wells Fargo who has confessed to Not being the “holder in due course” letter dated Mar 6, 2012 but said it was acting for who they though was the “lien holder” in Ginnie Mae, but Ginnie Mae in FAQ on Feb 2, 2010 informs the World that it does not originate, buy or sell a home mortgage loan at all, and then a personal letter to me from Ginnie Mae dated Dec 6, 2012 that yes Ginnie Mae did not own my loan and does not purchase a home mortgage loan or securities, but it does allow the lender who not the lender anymore but is now the issuer but the issuer is dead in WaMu who did not and cannot claim in court a Note due because they were not in possession of the freaking Note which they relinquished on Aug 6, 2003 which legally separated the Note and Debt. End of story and beginning of the Ponzi scheme!

  16. Let first understand that the home mortgage Note is a contract that can only be between a borrower and a license home mortgage lender when offering a mass production of this product and not like a land contract type deal.

    If the investor of the securities is not acting under the color of a home mortgage lender it cannot purchase a home mortgage loan as it not doing so as a lender but a purchaser of the securities.

    The Fed does not purchase the home loans as a lenders because it and Ginnie Mae cannot, but the Fed buys a securities that is 100% guaranteed by the Federal Government of the initial principle amount. When buying a home mortgage loan there is no guaranty of the return, and as with this crisis in some areas the property value reached under 50% of what theloan balances were!

  17. @charlesreed – With respect to ‘legal capacity’, a question of law, which is supposed to be considered before issues of equity, suppose the ‘vesting assignee’ pays some percentage of the existing principal for the loan. Is that the equivalent of principal reduction to the borrower that isn’t reported to the borrower? How should a judge consider the amount ‘paid’ for the assignment? Does it limit the amount of remedy the court can provide the new lender?

    Consider also the term ‘vesting assignment’. It means some benefit at a future date. This comes about when an agent for the ‘investor’ is assigned the loan for the duration of the trustee sale. My question was, and is, does it mean the investor ‘bought’ the loan from themselves? Or does it mean it provided temporary custody to the ‘vesting assignee’ and the future benefit is a fee for the return of the loan to the investor? If the latter, then there would be no record of the sale or purchase between the investor and vesting beneficiary. Therefore there is no capacity of the foreclosing ‘beneficiary’ to be a party to a wrongful foreclosure, except to the extent of the fee paid by investor on the ‘return’ of the loan.

  18. justme my email is

  19. We are fighting entities that cannot even provide ANT proof that they have a financial interest in the loan and have submitted to the court that they are the “holder in due course” and such not be in court challenging that they have a stake when they don’t.

    What I not understand that I have an entity that not got a contract with me, yet I m force to take them to court for my property. The damage is a property that the only one who can legally claim is me the owner of.

    This is not about who I may have taken a loan out with because that entity is not claiming a debt is due for whatever reason as it does not matter if it not a part of the complaint.

    Focus is lost because the Attorneys are worried if payment are made to what loan? There is no loan when the debt is separated from the Note period!

  20. Chrales Reed, might I have a way to chat with you “outside”?

  21. Never assume facts not in evidence.

  22. Thank you Neil for all the tireless work you do. Thank you to all the other people who have tried to make sense of this mess. My trust in people has changed but it is nice to know some people have moral values. For ever changed Jaime

  23. Interesting article that, assuming it reflects the reality, might shed some light on what’s really going on with banks…

    Click on the link to read it top to bottom. I was only interested in the conclusion drawn by its author.

    “These conflicts often boil down to the struggle between the two banking groups of the New World and the Old World, to the struggle between American and European banks. Simplifying the issue, journalists sometimes say that the struggle is between banks on Wall Street and banks in the City of London. As has already been stated, the victims of the banking scandals are primarily European banks, including British banks (the City of London). In my opinion, however, this “geographical” approach to an analysis of the banking scandals simplifies the picture too much. It would be more correct to talk about the struggle between two main financial and banking clans – the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. It is these two who are currently the main shareholders of the US Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Reserve is the central institution of the global financial system.While the West had a common enemy in the USSR, conflicts between the two main FRS shareholders took second billing. Today, however, following the global financial crisis, the continued existence of the FRS is under threat and the principle shareholders have different ideas about a way out of the crisis. This has intensified the conflict, with everybody starting to pull the blanket over to their side. The Rothschilds and the Rockefellers have started to rock the boat known as “the global financial system”. It is true that an incident took place in May 2012 which many believed to be significant. This was the strategic alliance agreed upon by the Rothschild and Rockefeller dynasties. As part of the alliance, the exchange-listed assets of Jacob Rothschild’s investment trust RIT Capital Partners and the company Rockefeller Financial Services were joined together, and RIT acquired a 37 percent stake in a company that manages the assets of the Rockefellers. Somebody saw this development as an end to the war between the clans and a sign of the global oligarchy’s consolidation under the aegis of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. I am convinced that the move was symbolic – it was not followed by a chain reaction.”

  24. Ms. Louise,
    You won’t see too many “Law-Breakers” be convicted because unfortunately, what’s happening is… Par for the Course (these same Bankers own your Elected Officials… ‘give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.’ – Mayer Amschel Rothschild).

    If the people knew what (DTC/Euroclear, DVP T+4 or MT760) meant, then there would be more hope, for more Home Owners…

    …and I would not sacrifice (from the Gospel of Matt.)

    Never under-estimate the greed/evil of others and learn the things needed to be safe, in the first place (is a reasonable para-phrase).

  25. OK we know for a fact how Ginnie Mae does business and every loan is treated exactly the same way and the Note is sign endorsed in blank and relinquished to Ginnie Mae in this pool without the debt being purchase because Ginnie Mae cannot purchase the debt.

    So we have the issuer of the securities in WaMu who is no longer in business as of Sept 25, 2008 but they did not sell the Notes and only relinquish them to Ginnie Mae. Now these 1.3 million federal government insured loans that Wells Fargo was ans is servicing or have foreclosed where not a part of the JP Morgan $9 billion deal, as Ginnie Mae through the allege custodian of records and servicer in Wells Fargo who is in physical possession of the actual blank Notes.

    What occurred is that Ginnie Mae never actual took physical possess of the Note and in Wells Fargo or other servicer cannot act as a servicer for Ginnie Mae because they are not a home loan lender and frankly they don’t purchase the debt.

    Don’t folks understand that a home mortgage Note is only a Note if its got a debt due to the legal holder of the Note who has either originated of purchase the Note. No debt can be collected without the Note and with Ginnie Mae and Wells Fargo they must provide proof of a purchase of these WaMu loan but that impossible because as they have written me that neither one was the “holder in due course”!

    So we got a case of I thought you were the lien holder….oh no I thought you were the lien holder when in fact both knew the other was not because Ginnie Mae cannot sell a home mortgage loan and Wells Fargo as the custodian and servicers has the file that does not contain any proof of a sell!

    The Ginnie Mae securities was created as a fraud and the foreclosure has exposed it!

  26. And the DOJ still can’t see its way clear to arrest, try and convict lawbreakers who stole billions or dollars, even trillions of dollars from the world and from Americans. The housing market is not “coming back” as the MSM keeps saying. It is not. The banksters are still operating as usual. You buy a house with origination fraud and then they can foreclose with forged documents on you later no matter what.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: