The Real Deal and How to Get There

Internet Store Notice: As requested by customer service, this is to explain the use of the COMBO, Consultation and Expert Declaration. The only reason they are separate is that too many people only wanted or could only afford one or the other — all three should be purchased. The Combo is a road map for the attorney to set up his file and start drafting the appropriate pleadings. It reveals defects in the title chain and inferentially in the money chain and provides the facts relative to making specific allegations concerning securitization issues. The consultation looks at your specific case and gives the benefit of litigation support consultation and advice that I can give to lawyers but I cannot give to pro se litigants. The expert declaration is my explanation to the Court of the findings of the forensic analysis. It is rare that I am actually called as a witness apparently because the cases are settled before a hearing at which evidence is taken.
If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our South Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. In Northern Florida and the Panhandle call 850-765-1236. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services. Get advice from attorneys licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located. We do provide litigation support — but only for licensed attorneys.
See LivingLies Store: Reports and Analysis

The Real Deal and How to Get There

If you read the Glaski case any of the hundreds of other decisions that have been rendered you will see one glaring error — failure to raise an issue or objection in a timely manner. This results from ignorance of the facts of securitization. So here is my contribution to all lawyers, wherever you are, to prosecute your case. I would also suggest that you use every tool available to disabuse the Judge of the notion that your goal is delay — so push the case even when the other side is backpedaling, ask for expedited discovery. Act like you have a winning case on your hands, because, in my opinion, you do.

The key is to attack the Judge’s presumption whether stated or not, that a real transaction took place, whether at origination or transfer. Once you let the Court know that is what you are attacking the Judge must either rule against you as a matter of law which would be overturned easily on appeal and they know it, or they must allow penetrating discovery that will reveal the real money trail. The error made by nearly everyone is that the presumption that the paperwork tells THE story. The truth is that the paperwork tells a story but it is false.

Nevertheless the burden is on the proponent of that argument to properly plead it with facts and as we know the facts are largely in the hands of the investment banker and not even the servicer has it. My law firm represents clients directly in Florida and provides litigation support to any attorney wherever they are located. We now send out a preservation letter (Google it) as soon as we are retained. We send it to everyone we know or think might have some connection to the file. If they can’t find something, the presumption arises they destroyed it if we show that in the ordinary course of business they would keep records like that. We also have a computer forensic analyst who is a lawyer that can go into the computers and the data and see when they were created, by whom and reveal the input that was done to create certain files and instruments.

Once the facts are properly proposed, then the proponent still has the burden of proving the allegations through discovery. That is because the paperwork raises a rebuttable presumption of validity. The Glaski case gives lots of hints as to how and when to do this. Neither judicial notice of an instrument nor the rebuttable presumption arising out of an instrument of commerce gives the bank immunity. And the requests for discovery should attack the root of their position — that the foreclosing party is true beneficiary or mortgagee.

With the Glaski Case in California and we have one just like it in Florida, the allegation must be made that the transaction is void as to the transfer to the Trust. You have a related proof challenge when they insist that the loan was not securitized. You say it was subject to claims of securitization. That puts you in a he said she said situation — which puts you in the position of the Judge ruling against you because you have not passed the threshold of moving the burden back to the Bank. What penetrates that void is the allegation and proof of the absence of any actual transaction — i.e., one in which there was an offer, acceptance of the offer and consideration. The UCC says an instrument is negotiated when sold for value. You say there was no value. Proving the loan is subject to claims of securitization may require discovery into the accounting records of the parties in the securitization chain. What you are looking for is a loan receivable account or account receivable that is owned by the party to whom the money is owed. At the servicer this does not exist, which is why the error in court is to go with the servicer’s records, which are incomplete because they do not reveal the payments OUT to third party creditors or others, nor other payments IN like from the investment bank who funds continued payment to the creditors to keep them ignorant that their portfolio is collapsing.

The transaction is void if there was an attempt to assign the loan into the trust. First, it violated the instrument of the trust (PSA) because of the cutoff rule. The court in Glaski correctly pointed out that under the circumstances this challenge was valid because of the prejudice to the beneficiaries of the trust. They use discretion to assert that there is prejudice to the beneficiaries because of the economic impact of losing their preferential tax status. They did not add (because nobody raised it), that the additional prejudice to the beneficiaries is that it is usually a loan that is already declared in default that is being assigned. Judge Shack in New York has frequently commented on this.

Hence the proposed transfer violates the cutoff date, the tax status and the requirement that the loan be in good standing. Sales of the bonds issued by the trust were based upon the premise that the bonds were extremely low risk. Taking defaulted loans into the trust certainly  violates that and under federal and state regulations the pension funds, as “Stable managed funds” can ONLY invest in extremely low risk securities.

Hence the possibility of ratification is out of the question. First, it is isn’t allowed  under the IRC and the PSA and second, it isn’t allowed under the PSA because the investors are being handed an immediate loss — a purchase with their funds (which you will show never happened anyway) of a defaulted loan. But to close the loop on the argument of possible ratification, you must take the deposition of the trustee of the trust.

Without the possibility of ratification, the transaction is definitely void. In that depo it will be revealed that they had no access or signature authority to any trust account and performed no duties. But they are still the party entrusted with the fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries. So when you ask whether they would allow the purchase of a bad loan or any loan that would cause the REMIC to lose its tax status they must answer either “no” or I don’t know. The latter answer would make appear foolish.

A note in the Glaski case is also very revealing. It is stated there that BOTH sides conceded that the real owner of the debt is probably unknown and can never be known. So tread softly on the proposition that the real owner of the loan NOW is the investor. But there is a deeper question suggested by this startling admission by the Court and both sides of the litigation. If the facts are alleged that a given set of investors somehow pooled their money and it was used to fund the loan origination or to fund the loan acquisition, what exactly do the investors have NOW? It would appear to be a total loss on that loan. They paid for it but they don’t own it because it never made it into the trust.

The alternative, proposed by me, is that this conclusion is prejudicial to the beneficiary, violates basic fairness, and is contrary to the intent of the real parties in interest — the investors as lenders and the homeowners as borrowers. The proper conclusion should be, regardless of the form of transaction and content of instruments that were all patently false, that the investors are lenders and the homeowner is a borrower. The principal is the amount borrowed. The terms are uncertain because the investors were buying a bond with repayment terms vastly different than the repayment terms of the note that the homeowner signed. Where this occurs the note or obligation is generally converted into a demand obligation, which like tender of money in a loan dispute, is enforced unless it produces an inequitable result, which is patently obvious in this case since it would result in a judgment and judgment lien that might be foreclosed against the homeowner.

With the assignment to the trust being void, and the money of the investor being used to fund the loan, and there being no privity between the investor and the homeowner, the only logical conclusion is to establish that the debt exists, but that it is unsecured and subject to the court’s determination to fashion the terms of repayment — or mediation in which the unsecured loan becomes legitimately secured through negotiations with the investors.

Since the loan was not legally assigned into the trust and the trust did not fund the origination of the loan, the PSA no longer governs the transaction; thus the authority of the servicer is absent, but the servicer should still be subpoenaed to produce ALL the records, which is to say the transactions between the servicer and the borrower AND the transactions between the servicer and any third parties to whom it forwarded the payment, or with whom it engaged in other receipts or disbursements related to this loan.

Since the loan was not legally assigned into the trust, the trustee has no responsibility for that loan, but the investment bank who used the investors money to fund the the loan is also a proper target of discovery as is the Maser Servicer and aggregators, all of whom engaged in various transactions that were based upon the ownership of the loan being in the trust. Now we know it isn’t in the trust. The Banks have used this void to jump in and claim that they own the loan, which is obviously inequitable (if not criminal). But the equitable and proper result would be to establish that the investors own an account receivable from borrowers in this type of situation since they were the ones who advanced the money, not the banks.

Since the loan was not legally assigned into the trust, the servicer has no  actual authority or contract with the investors who are now free to enter into direct negotiations with the borrowers and avoid the servicers who are clearly serving the interest of the parties in the securitization chain (which failed) and not the investors. Thus any instrument executed using the securitization or history of “assignments” (without consideration) as the foundation for executing such an instrument is void. That includes substitutions of trustees, assignments, notices of default, notices of sale, lawsuits to foreclose or any effort at collection.

Note that without authority and based upon intentionally false representations, the servicers might be subject to a cause of action for interference with contractual rights, especially where a modification proposal was “turned down by the investor. “ If the investor was not the Trust and it was the Trust allegedly who turned it down (I am nearly certain that the investors are NEVER contacted), then the servicer’s push into foreclosure not only produces a wrongful foreclose but also interference with the rights and obligations of the true lenders and borrowers who are both probably willing to enter into negotiations to settle this mess.

The second inquiry is about the balance of the account receivable and the obvious connection between the account receivable owned by the investors and the account payable owed by the homeowners. I don’t think there is any reasonable question about the initial balance due, because that can easily be established and should be established by reference to a canceled check or wire transfer receipt. But the balance now is affected by sales to the Federal Reserve, insurance, bailouts and credit default swaps (CDS).

Since the loan was not assigned to the trust then the bond issued by the trust that purports to own the loan is wrong. The insurance, CDS, guarantees, purchases and bailouts were all premised on the assumption that the false securitization trail was true, then it follows that the money received by anyone represents proceeds that does not in any way belong to them. They clearly owe that money to the investor to the extent of the investors’ advance of actual money, with the balance due to the homeowner, as per the agreement of the parties at the closing with the homeowner. But the payors of those moneys also have a claim for refund, buy back, or unjust enrichment, fraud, etc.

Those payors have one obvious problem: they executed agreements that waived any right to collect from the borrower. Thus they are stuck with the bond which is worthless through no fault of the beneficiaries. So their claim, I would argue, is against the investment bank. The guarantors (Fannie, Freddie et al) have buyback rights against the parties who sold them the loans they didn’t own or the bonds representing ownership that was non-existent. Here a fair way of looking at it is that the investors are credited with the third party mitigation payments, the account payable of the borrower is reduced proportionately with the reduction of the account receivable (by virtue of cash payment to their agents which reduces the account receivable because the money should be paid to and credited to the investor) and the balance of the money received should then go to the guarantor to the extent of their loss, and then any further balance left divided equally amongst the investors, borrowers and guarantors.

To do it any other way would either leave the banks with their ill-gotten gains and unjust enrichment, or over payment to the investors, over payment to the borrowers who are entitled to such proceeds as per most statutes governing the subject, or over payment to the guarantors. The argument would be made that the investors, borrowers and guarantors are getting a windfall. Yes that might be the case if the over payments resulting from multiple sales of the same loan exceeded all money advanced on the actual loan. But to leave it with the Banks who were never at risk and who are still getting preferential treatment because of their shaky status would be to reward those who intended to be the risk takers, but who masked the absence of risk to them through false statements to the parties who all collectively advanced money and property to this scheme without knowing that they were all doing so.


The question is on what basis should the banks be rewarded with the windfall. I can find no support for that proposition. But based upon public policy or other considerations regarding the nature of the hedge transactions used to sell the same loan over and over again, it might be argued that the investment bank is entitled to retain SOME money if the total exceeds the full balances owed to the investors (thereby extinguishing the payable from the borrower), and the full balances owed to the guarantors.

163 Responses

  1. US Bank and SN Servicing has submitted Forged documents in our federal bankruptcy case too and we will never stop perusing them in court for damages. We are also asking our Federal judge to prosecute their current attorney out of Jacksonville Florida who continued to defend this case knowing that forged document are before a federal court. All the offending parties at SN Servicing and their attorneys are committing a serious crime against our country. We have filed a formal complaint with the FBI and the US attorney general and many great Judges all across this nation are finally stopping them from this kind of fraud on American families. US Bank and SN servicing and their attorneys are also violating a serious consent order that was to protect the people from these crimes but they could care less. Please feel free to have your clients join a class action suit so that we can end their behavior with a multi billion dollar punitive damage suit. Join us, call Ray Shelton in Florida at 352 274 8467

  2. MERS
    At origination 2 deeds recorded. Both have a MIN #. The 2nd page was switched when recorded – so loan recorded 1st appears to have smaller amount than the loan filed directly after in jr lien position. An affidavit was filed -closing att claimed the deeds were recorded out of order – Then, the assignment was recorded- in Assignment MERS identified the deed being assigned as the one with jr loan MIN # but with the amount of 1st loan. Problem? The originator also used the same MIN # as the loan #’s. Some times payments would be applied to WRONG account (no joke – I have the tax stubs to support this). In BK court the copy of the deed had the MIN # redacted. (Used the deed that was filed without changing anything for proof of claim – doc even stamped 2nd Jr lien!) Later spouse filed BK and in GA motion was granted to strip jr lien. No release of deed filed. How come MERS did not catch this error when they assigned it? Would MERS need to record a release of the deed? Which lien would be released?

  3. “So when you ask whether they would allow the purchase of a bad loan or any loan that would cause the REMIC to lose its tax status they must answer either “no” or I don’t know.”

    This misses the point: it doesn’t matter whether the trustee “would allow” ratification. It only matters whether the trustee COULD allow such ratification, i.e., whether it is within the trustee’s power to do so. Thus, it has to be established that the trustee lacked capacity to allow ratification or that the trust lacked capacity to accept any attempted transfer.

  4. Its called slander of title i believe

  5. The unconscionable MERS’ dot we were induced to sign “affirmatively stated” that MERS would or at least could do x,y. or z.. It doesn’t and never intended to, a fact known to both MERS and the lender. It sold officerships for 25.00 to club members and non-members and delegated those affirmatively stated duties to non-MERS-employees who bought and paid for the privilege of carrying out those duties. (as if) (and with meager if any oversight whatsoever).

    “No agency or special relationship need be proven in order to establish a duty to refrain from making an affirmative misrepresentation. See Tarasoff v. Regents
    of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425, 435 n.5, 131
    Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334 (1976).”

    So I’m saying that imo certain things were affirmatively stated and we need have no special relationship (fiduciary, agent, whatnot) with anyone who made them in order for us to establish a duty to refrain from making affirmatively stated misrepresentations.

  6. When I first considered why MERS did not call itself an agent in the dot, I figured it was about liability. This says an agent is not liable for the acts of its principal (no surprise). BUT, what if that agent plans to make employees of its principal its “officers” and the (alleged) principal’s employee slash agent’s-officer will act in the agent’s name?

    ” First, it Mexicoach was the agent of Del Pacifico, it has no
    liability for the torts of its principal. Dorkin v. American
    Express, 74 Misc.2d 673, 345 N.Y.S.2d 891 (1973).[fn4] An agent,
    absent fault on his part, cannot be vicariously liable for the
    wrongful acts of his principal. See Seigler v. American Surety
    Co., 151 F. Supp. 556 (N.D. Cal. 1957).”

  7. from Mcnear v Petroleum Export:

    “It must be concluded that the signature “W. K.
    Thompson” at the bottom of the telegram is not a
    signature by the party to be charged or by his agent
    sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute.
    Thompson did not purport to sign as the agent of the
    defendant, and even if he had done so there was no
    offer of proof that he had written authority so to do.”

  8. from e.tolle’s case:

    “However, this language quoted by
    MERS is found in the mortgage under the section “BORROWER’S TRANSFER TO LENDER OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY” and therefore is facially an acknowledgment by the borrower.

    The fact that the borrower acknowledged and consented to MERS acting as nominee of the lender has no bearing on what specific powers and authority the lender granted MERS.”

    yep! The borrower may not empower the lender’s anybody to do anything (and there is no language authorizing MERS to alienate the lender’s interest, anyway, as the court points out.)

    “MERS” must demonstrate by other evidence that it has such
    authority from anyone. And as I often say, “MERS” may not execute an
    assgt as if it does so in its own right, one way or another. It must disclose its principal and provide evid of its authority to alienate the interest (at least if challenged) and it must execute an assignment accordingly (as nominee or agent or santa claus for So and So principal).

    keep it coming, everyone

  9. Well louise
    one thing for sure these past 4 years has taught me, absolutely nothing is what it seems, look close, then closer then closer still and before long you go blind because one can hardly believe it all. I think scripture says when you cant tell the lies from the truth its time to let go and let the higher power deal with it- and god knows-he has last word.

  10. so cal- isn’t that interesting, im done for the day.

  11. Hey, Deb, maybe the IRS is just another arm of the scam to take everything the middle class and the poor have left and leave them totally penniless and, hopefully, powerless.

  12. Also…if your DOT/Note was “supposed” to be in a Securitized Trust initiated by Lehman Brothers or their subsidiaries….and you want to have through some of the filings in their HUMONGOUS Chapter 11 case….biggest one in history. The “Trustees” are asserting claims for buybacks, etc. in the tens of billions….and their filings (proof of claims, etc.) detail exactly how/why they don’t own or can enforce the “mortgages”. The don’t know whether to Sh*t or go blind…winding up at the inference that NOBODY owns the DOT or Note.

    Takes a bit of fooling around, but once you figure the search function, you can find great stuff.

    Have fun.

  13. the deed of trust is a fraud is it not. and the borrower had a right to rely on the integrity of the US constitution regarding property and rights thereto, you can not waiver the constitution.

  14. mers – if they keep up the arrogance people will start to believe they have the right to lie with arrogance. they have continued to make it up as they go along. case by case.

  15. love this roll everyone is on today:
    so JG and TU,
    this might help a bit, though most are probably aware lets recap,
    say bank is creditor and forecloses on an asset, then the sale value is taken by bank as creditor thereto, after taking sale proceeds if there is a deficiency the bank and or creditor can go after other assets of the debtor (AZ non def state tho, none the less bear with me) but if creditor intends to proceed it has 90 days to do so, so if he fails to do that 90 days after foreclosure then the creditor looses the right to that deficiency difference.

    form 1099A is issued by creditor, so if party B forecloses party B issues the 1099A.
    if party A is borrower then party A itself cant be part owner of debt,

    abandoning a right to a deficiency is different from tax deductible loss. Tax deductible loss is in financial accounts of creditor and not related to debtor.
    my thing is, I have no 1099C- this form shows that the debt has been cancelled.
    form 1099a however did provide me with foreclosure sale details that IndyMac/onewest is/was lender, now im still researching but ill say this HSBC is in a fix and their foreclosure mill pimp if I prevail.


    § 1. Citizenship — Due process of law — Equal protection.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
    the jurisdiction thereof; are citizens of the United States and of the
    state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
    States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
    property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its
    jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  17. I wonder what judges will be thinking years from now when they finally get it that they were calling MERS a lender’s agent, when the VERY purpose in calling MERS a nominee (v agent) was to appt what ms probably or maybe – not sure -appropriately calls an accomodation party because the trusts may not own real property. If MERS were an agent, then that means that trusts own real property, just by way of their agent.
    Then I think again of that MERS Consent Order and wonder what all was found to be part of the big, fat pile of dog doobage and wonder if this nominee-to-avoid-real-property-ownership-by-the-trusts were found to be illegitimate like the rest of it. The Consent Order was entirely unsatisfying (altho it did lead to no more foreclosures in “MERS” name).. The only thing it actually said, as I recall, was that in keeping with that MERS” Disclaimer I cited the other day, the OCC or whomever the heck found essentially unsafe actions. duh.

    I want to make this as clear as I can: I’m saying it appears to me w/out a shadow of doubt the primary purpose of MERS (with lots of dribble down bs) being called a nominee was specifically to AVOID agency, that MERS and its members intended for MERS NOT to be an agent. Being an agent would mess up their intended goal(s), one biggie of which was to have someone other than the trust hold title to real
    property when foreclosure occurred. So they called “MERS” a nominee while simultaneously doing two other things: 1) calling MERS thee ben
    and 2) describing the duties / rights of an agent in the dot. The nominee tag further confused the judiciary, who then ruled against the
    bifurcation issue. bah.

    That they could get away with not recording assignments was a bonus, and one of the sale’s tools. Another sale’s tool was that it would help keep the cost of home loans down. Oh, yeah, it’s done that. I’ll leave it to e.tolle’s pen to describe what it’s really done.

    We could debate all day about what all evils were actually intended by this crapinski, but as we all know, all manner of evils were
    accomodated one way or another. That MERS and its regime now have the cheek to call themselves something they specifically sought to avoid and to get the judiciary to acquiesce is some kind of monster slap in the face. It should go in Guiness under ???

    Think I’ve said this before and it’s worse imo than this: It’s like killing your parents and asking the court for mercy because you’re an orphan.


  18. neidermeyer – well said. Keep up posted on your fight.

  19. from (mcnear v petrol export corp (1929) 208 cal. 162)

    “It’s a void (not voidable) act if MERS does not state a true lender/creditor/beneficiary it acts for in the assignment, even more so if it is going to a securitized trust.”

    Now the judge in the l929 case wouldnt have been mentioning MERS, so obviously this is his reliance (the 1929 case)


    I can’t tell you how long this has been on my list, I just never seem to get to it. Finally – a judge who understands agency (at least to the extend he understands an agent must id its principal when purporting to act for that principal) Need to point out, lest V get all over me again, that the members agreement is with MERSCorp, not MERS.

    Btw, the “true” in that sentence is merely to reiterate that the party for whom MERS purports to act is in the position it’s claiming.

    Graci! Gracias! Thank you!

  20. @ JohnGault 9-1-13 10:15pm ,

    Sorry , no knowledge of that (election of remedies) … I’m basically a long time reader that is involved in their own fight and has learned (and forgotten) so much that it all blends for me now, and why shouldn’t it , it can all be boiled down to “everything they say is a lie” .

    I’m working 50% more hours now than in 2003 for half (or less) of the money and I’m taking care of children and elderly parents … I may throw out a witticism every now and then but my strength is being a generalist with knowledge of many varied areas (ex computer security , ex stockbroker , pilot , currently working a crap job in the medical universe) , with the common thread being that they all require(d) analysis and discernment to see and ferret out valuable tidbits of info. … I am no expert ,,, remember the definition of an expert … “One who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.” .

    The one thing I know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that I DO NOT LIKE WHAT THE USA HAS BECOME and the first step to recovery must be the reintroduction of the rule of law (and therefore freedom from the tyranny that is the current fascism). The second thing I know is that you’ve got to fight to win because this is not a practice , this is a battle for the future of the world .. if we don’t reverse the slide then THE WORLD reverts to a version of the middle ages with electricity and clean water. Think pre “Magna Carta”

    We at livinglies are similar to the “Mystery Men” ,, I see myself as the William H. Macy character “the shoveler” … giving the inspirational (??) egg salad speech right before the near suicidal attack on Frankensteins castle … “This is egg salad. It’s loaded with cholesterol, the wife won’t even let me touch it. It hardly seems to matter now ’cause, chances are, we’re already dead. Amazing is gone, there’s no use waiting for the cavalry, because as of this moment, the cavalry is *us*! ” . The “Mystery Men” won their battle by defeating one line of defense after another and by cooperating , each with different skills and powers … The Shoveller had no real special skill ,, he just “shovelled REALLY well” and he never gave up. We need to identify the next point we need to win so that we can all share in using the knowledge against the common enemy… and hopefully we can craft a winning argument. For me the goal is discovery and everything I’ve done over the last 3+ years has lead to a point where it will be granted.

    I really think that this fight needs to BE PUBLICISED more than it is … maybe in a few major markets … make friends with journalists ,, show them how and why parties with no claim (WF, BAC CHASE) are being gifted free houses.

  21. elexquisitor, your post on September 2, 2013 at 11:56 am
    I wonder if anyone has ever read the ‘so called’ nominee contract MERS has with the beneficiary. Just like a DOT has what can and cannot be done and is explicit, the nominee contract would be of interest just like the Service and Pooling Agreement had been to many.

    Who was the representative for the beneficiary? Who was the representative for MERS? Who signed it? I mean, the Cease and Desist orders of the banks were signed….the mortgage settlement was signed…power of attorney’s are signed and placed in the theft court case.

    The theft of my home was backed by a power of attorney attempting to give rights from the pretend lender to the law firm. it was stamped by a notary. The notary was not mentioned in the document so without a single signature I have no idea why the notary stamp is there.


    The Florida AG presentation that led to the settlement is a valid today as it was when it provided mind blowing details of how the paperwork is used to create the fraud, and he didn’t stop with robosigning.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, People, Corporeal, Life, Free and Independent State, In Jure Proprio (In One’s Own Right), Jure Divino (by Divine Right)

  22. Maybe we can use 3D printing to make more equitable loans. Pls see this link

  23. UKG, I don’t know if I shared this a year or so ago….I was in a room with maybe 15 people planning Occupy’s next move when the shit was hitting the fan. One older gentleman at the big oval table looked like Hollywood’s ideal Native American, stoic, chiseled features, long hair in braids…..

    After a lengthy discussion concerning the blatant theft of homes and how to keep the paramilitary sheriff’s squad at bay, and lamenting the losses of homes over the previous month or so with no let up in sight, the battle being lost, he said, “Now all you whites know how it feels.”

    Well said, Chief. As Pogo said:

    “We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us”

  24. Tolle, you are SO on the money, you don’t even know it. Or maybe you do.

    “The purchase of the farm lands was complete a decade ago. They’re finishing off their mass purchase of marine and aviation ports across the globe. They’ve openly stolen precious metals with the aid of the commodities regulators. They now own the minerals and future rights, and have no problem with gouging Mother Earth’s last ounce of product, spoiling the air and water all the way. ”

    This is the second part of the plan going into effect with the confiscation of the properties. WE ARE NOW THE INDIANS!
    The judiciary is hopelessly intertwined in the fraud, forced to protect themselves.
    Once they have commoditized the ground we walk on (just like the sale of city infrastructures) we’re done.

  25. @E.Tolle

    You are right on, as usual.

    I do have a feeling though, that this particular problem is going to overtake all other problems very soon…it has the potential to destroy all life on this planet:

  26. My favorite judicial analysis of MERS….of course it’s from NY. Alderazi (sorry if the formatting is screwed:

    Decided on April 19, 2010
    Supreme Court, Kings County
    The Bank of New York, as trustee for the benefit of the
    Certificateholders, CWABS, Inc., Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-2, Plaintiff,
    Sameeh Alderazi, Bank of America, NA, New York City Environmental Control
    Board, new York City Parking Violations bureau, New York City Transit
    Adjudication bureau, and “John Doe No.1? through “john Doe # 10?, the last ten
    names being fictitious and unknown to the plaintiff, the person or parties
    intended being the person or parties, if any, having or claiming an interest
    in or lien upon the mortgaged premises described in the complaint,
    Plaintiff Attorney
    Frenkel, Lambert, Wiess, Weisman, Gordon, LLP
    Linda P. Manfredi, Esq.
    220 West Main Street
    Bayshore, New York 11706 (631) 969-3100
    Wayne P. Saitta, J.
    Plaintiff submits an application for an order of reference for the
    premises located at 639 East 91st Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4751, Lot 31,
    County of Kings).
    Upon reading the Affirmation of Linda P. Manfredi, Esq., counsel for the
    Plaintiff, dated November 20, 2008, together with Plaintiff’s Memorandum of
    Law, dated November 19th, 2008, together with the proposed Ex Parte Order
    Appointing a Referee to Compute, and all exhibits annexed thereto, the
    application is denied without prejudice, with leave to renew upon providing the
    Court with proof of the grant of authority from the original mortgagee to
    MERS specifically to act in its interest as related to the secured loan
    which is the subject of this action.
    Plaintiff seeks summary judgment to foreclose upon the property located at
    639 East 91st Street, (Block 4751, Lot 31), in Kings County.
    In order to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment in a
    foreclosure action, a plaintiff must submit the mortgage and unpaid note,
    along with evidence of default. Capstone Business Credit, LLC v. Imperial
    Family Realty, LLC, 70 AD3d 882
    , 895 NYS2d 199 (2nd Dept
    2010). The Second
    Department has also required a showing that the mortgage was valid. Washington Mut.
    Bank, FA v. Peak Health Club, Inc., 48 AD3d 793
    , 853 NYS2d 112 (2nd

    In this case, Defendant Sameeh Alderazi borrowed $408,000.00 from
    “America’s Wholesale Lender” on January 25, 2007. The mortgage was recorded in the Office of the City Register, New York City Department of Finance on
    February 14, 2007. MERS was referred to in the mortgage as nominee of the
    mortgagee, America’s Wholesale Lender, for the purpose of recording the mortgage.

    MERS purported to assign the mortgage to Plaintiff BANK OF NEW YORK on
    July 23, 2008. The assignment was recorded on September 19, 2008. The
    assignment was executed by “Keri Selman, Assistant Vice President of MERS, as “authorized agent pursuant to Board of Resolutions and/or appointment”. However, no resolution nor other proof of authority was recorded with the
    assignment or submitted to the Court.

    A party cannot foreclose on a mortgage without having title, giving it
    standing to bring the action. (See Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538 (2nd
    Dept 1988 ), holding that a “foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by
    one who has no title to it and absent transfer of the debt, the assignment of
    the mortgage is a nullity”. Katz v. East-Ville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 243
    (1st Dept 1998), holding that “[p]laintiff’s attempt to foreclose upon a
    mortgage in which he had no legal or equitable interest was without foundation
    in law or fact”.

    “To have a proper assignment of a mortgage by an authorized agent, a power
    of attorney is necessary to demonstrate how the agent is vested with the
    authority to assign the mortgage.” [*2]HSBC BANK USA, NA v. Yeasmin, 19 Misc
    3d 1127(A), 866 NYS2d 92 (Table) N.Y.Sup.,2008. “No special form or
    language is necessary to effect an assignment as long as the language shows the intention of the owner of a right to transfer it”. Emphasis added, Id.,
    citing Tawil v. Finkelstein Bruckman Wohl Most & Rothman, 223 AD2d 52, 55 (1st Dept 1996); Suraleb, Inc. v. International Trade Club, Inc., 13 AD3d 612
    Dept 2004).

    The claim in this case is that the mortgage was assigned by MERS, as the
    nominee, to the Plaintiff. However Plaintiff submits no evidence that America’s Wholesale Lender authorized MERS to make the assignment. MERS submits
    only its own statement that it is the nominee for America’s Wholesale
    Lender, and that it has authority to effect an assignment on America’s Wholesale Lender’s behalf.

    The mortgage states that MERS is solely a nominee. The Plaintiff, in its
    Memorandum of Law, admits that MERS is solely a nominee, acting in an
    administrative capacity.

    In its Memoranda, Plaintiff quotes the Court in Schuh Trading Co., v.
    Commisioner of Internal Revenue, 95 F.2d 404, 411 (7th Cir. 1938), which
    defined a nominee as follows:

    The word nominee ordinarily indicates one designated to act for another as
    his representative in a rather limited sense. It is used sometimes to
    signify an agent or trustee. It has no connotation, however, other than that of
    acting for another, or as the grantee of another.. Id. Emphasis added.
    Black’s Law Dictionary defines a nominee as “[a] person designated to act
    in place of another, usually in a very limited way”. Agency is a fiduciary
    relationship which results from the manifestation of consent by one person
    to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his
    control, and consent by the other so to act. Hatton v. Quad Realty Corp., 100
    AD2d 609, 473 NYS2d 827, (2nd Dept 1984). “[A]n agent constituted for a
    particular purpose, and under a limited and circumscribed power, cannot bind his
    principal by an act beyond his authority.” Andrews v. Kneeland, 6 Cow. 354
    N.Y.Sup. 1826.

    MERS, as nominee, is an agent of the principal, for limited purposes, and
    has only those powers which are conferred to it and authorized by its

    In the mortgage in this case, MERS claims, as nominee, that it was granted
    the right “(A) to exercise any or all of those rights, including, but not
    limited to the right to foreclose and sell the Property, and (B) to take
    any action required of the Lender including, but not limited to, releasing
    and canceling this Security Instrument.” However, this language quoted by
    MERS is found in the mortgage under the section “BORROWER’S TRANSFER TO LENDER OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY” and therefore is facially an acknowledgment by the borrower. The fact that the borrower acknowledged and consented to MERS acting as nominee of the lender has no bearing on what specific powers and authority the lender granted MERS. The problem is not whether the borrower can object to the assignees’ standing, but whether the original lender, who is not before the Court, actually transferred its rights to the
    Plaintiff. To allow a purported assignee to foreclosure in the absence of some proof that the original lender authorized the assignment would throw into doubt
    the validity of title of subsequent purchasers, should the original lender challenge the assignment at some future date.

    Furthermore, even accepting MERS’ position that the lender acknowledges MERS’ authority exercise any or all of the lenders’ rights under the mortgage, the mortgage does not convey the specific right to assign the mortgage.

    The only specific rights enumerated in the [*3]mortgage is the right to
    foreclose and sell the Property. The general language “to take any action required of the Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument” is not sufficient to give the nominee authority to alienate or assign a mortgage without getting the mortgagee’s explicit authority for the particular assignment. Alienating a mortgage absent specific authorization is not an administrative act.

    Plaintiff submitted no other documents which purport to authorize MERS to assign or otherwise convey the right of the mortgagor to assign the mortgage to another party.

    A party who claims to be the agent of another bears the burden of proving the agency relationship by a preponderance of the evidence, Lippincot v. East River Mill & Lumber Co., 79 Misc. 559, 141 NYS 220 (1913), and “[t]he declarations of an alleged agent may not be shown for the purpose of proving the fact of agency”. Lexow & Jenkins, P.C. v. Hertz Commercial Leasing Corp., 122 AD2d 25, 504 NYS2d 192 (2nd Dept 1986). See also Siegel v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Island, Inc., 108 AD2d 218, 488 NYS2d 744 (2nd Dept 1985), Moore v. Leaseway Transp. Corp., 65 AD2d 697, 409 NYS2d 746 (1st Dept 1978). “The acts of a person assuming to be the representative of another are not competent to prove the agency in the absence of evidence tending to show the principal’s knowledge of such acts or assent to them”. (2 NY Jur 2d, Agency and Independent Contractors, 26).

    Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to demonstrate that the original
    lender, the mortgagee America’s Wholesale Lender, authorized MERS to assign the secured debt to Plaintiff.

    Thus, Plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case that it is entitled to
    foreclose on the mortgage in question.WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that the
    Plaintiff’s application for an Order appointing referee to compute amounts
    due to the Plaintiff is denied with leave to renew upon proof of authority.
    This shall constitute the decision and order of this Court.

  27. I agree, but that argument wasn’t asserted by Fontenot. I’d appreciate it if you have any cites along those lines where it was argued/decided, either way. Thanks.

  28. – fontenot – what the court didn’t say or get, apparently, or just ignored is that “MERS” doing anything in regard to the note is beyond the scope of its alleged agency. Even where courts find in favor of “MERS” agency in the dot, that agency, on its face is limited to the dot.

  29. The only way I can think of for party A to write off part of a debt (the deficiency created by the short on the sale of the property) when party B foreclosed is if prior to the loss being realized, they co-owned the debt, each owning an identified percentage. But still, hmmm..

    Or, actually, let’s say A had to contractually cover B, the only owner, for an 80k loss and A chooses not to subrogate (which would / could lead to an action against the note maker to recover the 80k by A).
    Could A rightfully claim that 80k loss against the note maker?
    There are other rules in play here which imo determine this answer, and the one I’m thinking of is the one-action rule as it relates to
    deficiencies (and election of remedies) The one-action rule prohibts a second action to recover under a note and dot.

    So, as answer to the question above: only, maybe, imo if the foreclosure were done judicially with a request for a deficiency judgment and not non-judicially, because non-j waives deficiency. (this was a trade-off for the remedy of non-judicial f/c) I still maintain that a lender who has chosen to f/c non-judicially or who has foreclosed judicially but didn’t include a request for a deficiency judgment in its
    action is not entitled to a second remedy of the write – off for its failure to pursue those funds in the judicial action. If B fails to pursue the
    potential deficiency in the one-action foreclosure complaint, imo he has lost his loss. Well, he has it, but he failed to seek relief in his action, so tough on him, and accordingly, imo, he has no entitlement to claim the loss as a tax deduction and thus has no entitlement to issue
    a 1099 on a non-recognizable loss.

    If A has to cover B’s loss, A should be concerned that B appropriately establishes one thru judicial foreclosure with a request for a
    deficiency judgment. Imo, if A sits on his thumbs while B non-judicially forecloses, A has no right to issue a 1099 for covering B’s loss.
    A, or anyone, isssuing a 1099 doesn’t necessarily fall under the definition of an “action” prohibitted by the one-action rule (just not sure now) but to me, it’s in fact a prohibitted second election of remedies.
    Problem is, to get a good and dependable answer about this, one would need to see a lawyer and or CPA who understands the multiple issues involved (and not all state have all these rules).

    If A had to cover the loss of B whom itself sought the deficiency in one action, i.e., judicial foreclosure with a request for deficiency judgment, I think A might qualify as a party entitled to issue the note maker a
    1099, but (I think) only then if A has a contractual right to subrogation.
    Bottom line of this imo: by electing non-j, a lender has abandoned its right to a deficiency and thus has abandoned its right to take a tax-deductible loss.

    I don’t understand how reporting a 1099 on one’s tax return leads to a conclusion one has abandoned the property. It may well, but I’d appreciate a thoughtful explanation.

  30. Also: Here is an excellent treatment and writing on MERS. The idea is to, as Neil rightly says, not focus so much on the “paper” but more so on the “propriety”. Mr. Ludden here lays out very well why MERS has no real “propriety”. (you can download the .pdf at the bottom of the page)

  31. elex: Here’s some recent pleadings below as to MERS ability to assign in California. If MERS attempts the assignment in its own name, it is a nullity.

    “The Fontenot Court in addressing this issue stated: “[T]he complaint alleges MERS lacked the authority to assign the note because it was merely a nominee of the lender and had not interest in the note. Contrary to plaintiff’s claim, the lack of a possessory interest in the note did not necessarily prevent MERS from having authority to assign the note. While it is true MERS had no power in its own right to assign the note, since it had no interest in the note to assign, MERS did not purport to act for its own interests in assigning the note. Rather, the assignment of deed of trust states that MERS was acting as nominee for the lender, which did possess an assignable interest. A “nominee” is a person or entity designated to act for another in a limited role—in effect, an agent.” Id. at 270-271 (emphasis added). See also Suarez v. Bank of New York Mellon, (2013) Cal. Sup. Ct, 12-560092, Opinion and Order. ”

    Also, see:

    Fisher v. Salmon (1851) 1 Cal. 413(“The consideration of the note was a deed of conveyance of certain lots in the City of San Francisco, executed by the respondent in his own name, representing that he was the attorney and agent of certain heirs, and was executed under his hand and seal, and not in the name of the principals. It is not necessary to cite authorities to show that such a deed is a nullity as to the principals of the agent Fisher, and the most that could be made of it, would be a mere contract on his part to procure a conveyance, but even as a contract it is not binding in law upon the principals.” Id. At 414 (emphasis added)


    McNear v. Petroleum Export Corp. (1929) 208 Cal. 162

    It’s a void (not voidable) act if MERS does not state a true lender/creditor/beneficiary it acts for in the assignment, even more so if it is going to a securitized trust.

    The last two cites were instrumental in the complete dismissal of demurrer in Suarez v. BONY Mellon (2013) Cal. Sup. Ct, 12-560092, Opinion and Order.

  32. I don’t think I ever got an answer to this question. On some DOTs MERS is designated as a ‘nominee’ for the beneficiary. Why would that be on a DOT? A trustee has no right to assign a beneficiary because it would violate a disinterested party qualification and be ‘the tail wagging the dog’. Add to that the argument that the DOT follows the Note because that is where the critical title elements are, with the exception of the lien / encumbrance of a security instrument that would only affect title in the event of a default, It is conditional in nature. So to say that the qualifications of a successive note holder are defined in a DOT is an absurdity.

    Another possible defect in MERS is that an assignee of powers of a contract cannot obtain more powers than the assignor. If MERS is the assignor, then the only powers passed to a successive note holder is the power to name another note holder, bifurcating the power to declare default and instigate foreclosure.

    I’m not linguistically adept enough to combine these elements, but if you think they have merit you might give it a try.
    IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer)

  33. E.Tolle, it is not only a money laundering scheme, it is also the destruction of the entire planet and every living thing on it. They will not be happy until all is destroyed. I am with you every inch of the way.

  34. Gault, #5 (IMHO) relates to the collection of the defaulted obligation that was extinguished when the bond defaulted (trigger event).
    The modification is THEIR ATTEMPT to get you to RE-AFFIRM that non existent transaction. The loan is lost to the bond. They cannot reconstitute the loan, they can only sell the collection right. The bank booked only the servicing rights as the asset.

  35. Tu- so i contested it. The 1099a needs explaining against who purports to be the beny / was the beny and how they became the beny if they were ever the beny

  36. johngault., on September 1, 2013 at 10:14 pm mentioned the 1099 form.

    IF, all of this is inter connected the 1099 is naming a creditor and a debtor. Filing that form would validate that creditor’s claim of being the creditor, as well as the claim from the wanting to be validated creditor that the home was abandoned.

    Imagine that homeowner in appeals court while filing this tax form and not realizing that they are claiming the home was taken by someone who was -not- the creditor but have a tax form stating they are the creditor, and the appeal case is claiming the homeowner -did-not- want to leave the property but was forced out, and the form is indicting they abandoned it.

    The deception is so nested, could it be that their plan has been to keep us from knowing how to protect ourselves from their theft, and to trick us into accepting forms and filing things with entities that would cloud our efforts to get it back.

    Imagine a discovery where they don’t mention that they have evidence the 1099A was filed by the homeowner and the judge rules for them and the homeowner is wondering why all their valid arguments were ignored.

    I don’t have time for those things. I don’t like being robbed, but I don’t have time to try to figure out the robber’s game and jump in and play it too.

    I’m reminded of the movie, ‘House of Games’, 1987. A real psychological mind-(insert verb). You don’t know how the game is played, you just think you do.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, People, Free and Independent State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  37. “a growing appetite for rentIng” like we had a bloody choice.
    Sorry couldnt stop myself

  38. One west paid cents on the dollar for toxic ” assets” from conservator fdic, ( steps into the shoes of indy) what precisely did indymac account for as ” servicer” to a non trust/ empty trust and where did my 85k go anyone?
    Was this a mortgage loan transaction as we are induced to understand it was there any fair dealings and shared risk was my title clouded and remains to be And was the collateral worth what they sold it to me for and would i have signed otherwise/ thats a hell no.

  39. The innocent headline:

    “Across the country, private equity firms like New York-based Blackstone are quietly buying distressed properties and renting them out with the expectation that investors will profit from a growing appetite for renting, as well as appreciation on those properties. Blackstone has become the nation’s largest buyer of single-family homes, followed by American Homes 4 Rent, which now owns about 18,000 properties across the United States. Invitation has invested more than $5 billion in about 30,000 houses”

    The article, as well as the reader comments underneath, paints a picture of just how sweet this is for the economy, creating jobs and improving neighborhoods that would otherwise be blighted by foreclosures. Awe….how nice. Mayberry’s coming back. Thank you Blackstone Group….our collective hero!

    Oh, uh…..yeah, there’s that little missing factoid that doesn’t need mentioning in polite groups or in bought-and-paid-for-rag-papers….you know…the one that would inform the reader that this entity swallowing all the foreclosures in America with suitcases full-o-cash would be the same Blackstone Group that manages the pension plan of the judge who is so keen to rule for the bankster in your case and kick you to the curb. The fact that the very same judge’s pension plan is invested to the hilt the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Plan, which just happens to be managed by BlackRock (don’t be confused by the change from Stone to Rock), as all of these offshoots are simply more swinging appendages of the same incestuous family of Very Serious People who know what’s best for all of us little folk.

    I’m sure we needn’t be concerned with the fact that the Treasury and the Fed hired this same bunch to the tune of $130 billion to clean up after the collapse, that, well….uhm….they and their peers created, you remember…. the crash that then necessitated the great cash give-away known as the bailout. They were paid to clean up their room after their rave.

    Does anyone else see the end game facet of this entire scam? The elite behind the scenes steal the properties by booting out the mortgagors with 100% fraud, aided and abetted by their paid minions in congress (congress purposely not capitalized so as not to express respect – go ahead MS – turn me in for sedition) then act like they’re great benefactors by helping neighborhoods recover, and employing thousands to renovate the homes.

    Another aspect missing in its entirety from this article, owing to the fact that the Star Tribune (along with every other media outlet in the world) is owned lock stock and barrel by these same elites…. is any mention of the fact that the very same people doing the work renovating these homes used to do this for a living as private contractors and sub-contractors before they lost these same homes and their jobs to the collapse created by these very same players. These carpenters, painters, plumbers etc., owned these homes prior to having them stolen in broad daylight, along with all their equity. Now they’re performing jobs at a quarter of what they used to make on their own, to work on what used to be their own homes, so that they can be rented at 17% higher rental rates than before the rave. Thank God for food stamps. Now they’re all working (and renting) in Potter’s Field, sweating for billionaires who might not look much like It’s A Wonderful Life’s – Lionel Barrymore, but attest to the same business practices that made his fortune.

    The purchase of the farm lands was complete a decade ago. They’re finishing off their mass purchase of marine and aviation ports across the globe. They’ve openly stolen precious metals with the aid of the commodities regulators. They now own the minerals and future rights, and have no problem with gouging Mother Earth’s last ounce of product, spoiling the air and water all the way.

    But the simple-folk in the article’s comment section sing the same old refrain, still believing that this is all hunky dory, because they’re too stupid to know better. It’s a combination of factors…eating the elite’s industrial farm’s waste products processed and re-packaged as food is one. Ever been to cafo country in the midwest? The stench goes on for hundreds of miles, alongside the agony of the tortured animal victims. Flouride in the water system? Dumb-fucks. No need to take antibiotics, you’ll get a tenfold dose in the pizza tonight. On and on.

    Folks, the above mentioned realty deal isn’t an investment scenario, it’s a money laundering scheme, and they’re using our money because they don’t know how to make money legitimately, only through fraud and theft. That’s all the Wall Street gang-bangers know. They’re a one trick pony, and thanks to our deafening silence, we are all the dog side of that ugly show.

    Only when we awaken will things change. When we’re ready to unscrew the iron bars of the gated communities, only then will it change. Sedition? Absolutely not. It’s what our forefathers envisioned years ago. And it’s our solemn duty to turn it upside down. We need to empty the prisons of all the pot-smokers and replace them with the wingtips and $4K suits. This shit’s gone on long enough.

  40. gotta dash to work, but Carie,
    you have same issues with same parties, watch my case, i plead this I exhibited evidence and im going to argue. ill keep you posted. of course its not legal advise you need to do what you must but I believe that our homes were wrongfully taken by parties that were never injured and were unjustly enriched at our financial demise. we lost so so much.

  41. hman – I was reading this and when I saw the players I thought of you. I haven’t finished reading and don’t know if it would be of any value to you. (As to NV, whatever this says or doesn’t, it’s my opinion some of their recent decisions defy and conflict with some from 2011 and I’m thinking stare decisis. ) Maybe there’s something useful. It might at least be interesting to look at the docket to check out what the defendant’s had to say compared to what they said in your case?
    You’ll need a pacer account to do that. No great shakes. Or ask your attorney if you have one. If you want just this decision and can’t get it otherwise, I’ll link it.

    “Plaintiffs subsequently filed a quiet title complaint (#1-1) in the Ninth
    District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Douglas (the “State Court”) on December 19, 2011. Defendants Residential Funding Company (“RFC”), ETS, GMAC Mortgage, LLC (“GMAC”), and Deutsche removed the action to this Court on January 5, 2012, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. (Pet. Removal (#1).)

    DC Nevada
    July 17, 2012.
    Wyman v Magnus Financial Corp, RFC,GMAC, MERS, Deutsche,
    et al

  42. hman – what a mess. Fwiw, rfc was a child or grandchild or whatever the heck of think it was Ally, which is in BK and is where I have been questioning how it is that it had such a mongo loan portfolio for the bk trustee to sell. (and RFC may have been impacted). That’s the case i think where buffet’s co bought the loans for a song and a dance and NS got the servicing. Maybe your loan was in there and now Buffet’s co. really owns it? Or Broker to RFC to GMAC or ALLY to securitization? and Deutche as trustee?
    But how did MERS transfer the loan to aurora or ns if a trust owned it? Who is after you? Oh, you named everyone (but not the “Ally connection”)? The court said mers is yada yada, but that doesn’t explain who the creditor is. How did the court justify the asst of the note by “MERS” or did it just skip that?!

  43. neidermeyer – you’re a person here I would expect, if I may, to understand election of remedies. Care to chime in?

  44. JG,

    The QT was a default Judgment against the broker. The broker was at time of the judgment still the title on record as nothing had been recorded prior. I even got a statement from the former president (although it was unsigned) stating they had no interest and the loan was sold within days of the closing to Residential Funding Company (an affiliate of GMAC).

    Next, MERS transfered the loan to Aurora who transfered the loan to Nationstar. I sent all parties including the Trustee Deutsche a Quit Claim deed giving them an opportunity to sign and send back in lieu of being sued. After, the 20 day grace period allowed by AZ statute had passed I initiated a QT against all parties Deutsche, the trust, the substitute trustee, Aurora, MERS, and Nationstar.

    My 2nd case is where I lost. I never admitted a default as nothing was owed to any of the above mentioned parties, I had no such contract implied or otherwise. The judge simply said that it was already clear that the broker had no interest in the property and he didn’t need too. He said I had agreed to have MERS be an agent of not only the lender but of its successors and assigns which was evidence by my signature on the deed of trust…

    This is where I fell flat. Couldn’t get around that stupid phrase.

  45. you know, if one gets a 1099 from a party who did not foreclose, one might posit that a claim has been made against one under the note, the one so and so said was his and or could enforce (as in ‘see, that forecloser was a pretender and sure enough, now someone else has written off my (alleged) debt and is mol dunning me (creating a tax liability for you) with this 1099 in regard to that note. This is double jeopardy.”
    The ‘new’ guy has made a claim, essentially, whatever, by taking an “election of remedies” for the note’s alleged default. (Please, if this concerns you, study election of remedies or ask a CPA who normally does corporate tax returns, even if you must pay for the time.)

    He has taken a tax deductible write off and hit you with the corresponding 1099. That is an election of remedies for a loss. Two people don’t get a remedy for the same debt, even if the numbers don’t exceed the *(*!@! debt. ABC can’t take the house under the note and then XYZ write off the loss on that same note. These debts aren’t blue plate specials 2 entities can try to share. There is but one remedy available to one party…..Period. A write off with a 1099 is a remedy.
    But, of course this isn’t legal advice. It’s me throwing stuff out there I believe. Ask a lawyer, but I’d start with a CPA.

    Even as a lay person, I’m going to take a hard line on this and will ignore questions regarding 1099’s from anyone who doesn’t show he’s investigated election of remedies. fwiw and since I’m mostly the only foo’ here who tries, that might be something. There. I said it.

  46. JG—They are foreclosing “in the name of” the Trustee of the (empty) MBS trust—which in my case was Deutsche (who admittedly does not “own” any loans)…and then the debt collector (in my case the IndyMac/OneWest “servicer”) gets to have the 1099A in their name…but they of course WON’T explain WHY their name is listed as “lender” on the 1099A…I mean—WHY would you name a servicer as a Lender on a tax form if they had nothing whatsoever to do with showing a “loss”? Because they are NOT just a “servicer”.

    So—if they came right out and told the truth, ie.: “Yes, we are just a debt collector of unsecured debt, your loan was never in a trust—and we’re very sorry.”…what’s the worst that could happen?

    Oh…yeah….that’s why.

  47. okay, usedkarguy,
    I asked ms to explain no. 5 – can you?

    Just in case anyone got side-tracked, the unconscionable was the description of the “MERS” dot (not predatory lending. That’s illegal.)

  48. oops – I have to qualfy that. MERS could be a nominee (if mers is capable of being anything ,- all right, Virginia?) in the dot, I think, by the language in the dot, but not an agent. That’s the whole ball of wax, I’d say. The trusts had no way to do anything since the act of an agent is the principal’s act, so tadah! “MERS” is a nominee, not an agent! But as virginia is quick, in a word, t point out, the members contract is with MERSCorp,, not MERS. That’s no accident, either.

  49. So I got this message today. Any thoughts? Who here was into / onto the UETA? Please get your tail back here and address this for the rest of us! The only thing rel to the UETA I might be able to contribute is that the notes at issue are not electronic notes and they maybe tried to trade them that way, regardless. This same person I’m asking to talk tous again about this is also aware that MERSCorp claims to have a
    registry for electronic notes aka e-notes.



    MERSCORP, INC. owns the registry system, has the membership and owns the MIN number –

    Borrowers contracted with MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. – they did not contract with MERSCORP, INC.

    If you don’t start separating these entities they will continue to be blurred together in court… And they are SEPARATE and DISTINCT corporations! And we do not want to pierce the corporate veil!

    MERSCORP, INC. is NOT in the mortgage. Do you get it yet?!

    MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. was in the mortgage ONLY to skirt UETA sec. 16 – and it was flawed!

    DO NOT USE “MERS” – it just blurs the truth!”

    Now, of course I didn’t care much for this delivery, but I see the harm in not making the distinction, like ms did when he said this:

    “MersCorp is a nominee appointed by the lender as beneficary and affirmed by the trustor who is one in the same with a grantor.” *


    “A MersCorp accomodation is necessary at time of anticipated reversion for an amount equal to or higher under IRS rules.”

    jg: to ms: I bet I could shoot holes thru this all day if I fully understood it, but from the little I think I get, you lied to me, did you not – about bifurcation? They needed an accomodation party because trusts can’t do jack, in a word, including taking title to real property nor issue 1099’s. MS, my man, they just canNOT have it both ways or tell me how they can or I’ll hunt you down and make you finish that disgusting pizza I got yesterday.
    Quoi que, me donner une coupe. Plus de vulgaire.

    map of states which have adopted e-notes basically

    *only a fact in evidence that in the dot it says MERS is a nominee. I’m still arguing that alleged appt doesn’t meet the statute of frauds. One of those leeeeedle things to not be overlooked. imo.

  50. masterservicer, on August 31, 2013 at 7:24 pm said:

    When a court uses the word unconscionable to describe conduct, it means that the conduct does not conform to the dictates of conscience. In addition, when something is judged unconscionable, a court will refuse to allow the perpetrator of the conduct to benefit.”

    Overburdened Household
    1. Written at 60 DTI Back End ratio
    2. No reserves cash
    3. Adjustments in 24 months
    4. Due on Sale Clause 60 months
    5. FDCPA & Modifications to unwind investments

    truer words were never spoken

  51. Typos. I know sorry for the mIllionth time

  52. I agree louise
    But whilst ever the law says i sm entied to a fair and equal oppertunity regarding my life liberty and property then ill kerp bamging on my court house doors, we all should
    ” we will never surrender”
    winston churchhill –
    ill probably stroke out like he did though if i dont chill.

  53. Deb, Discovery is what they do not want. They know that discovery will reveal the crimes, forgery, fraud, etc. It is horrifying that justice no longer prevails in American courts. Look at the lead up to Hitler and the Nazis. Same thing all over again.

  54. Discovery is the issue
    No secret. Again- see my case why the road to discovery had its umm challenges
    9th circuit 12-16192

  55. Jg @ 1602 post
    Kudos mr.

  56. ms – re the covenants in the dot. States, memory here, have standard convenants which may be adopted in collateral instruments. People who craft dots understandably would like them uniform. Not sure if you’re trying to say something or making an inquiry. Look at the state statutes on covenants for the state whose laws will be applied to the dot. or are you trying to make a mtn out of a molehill?
    please note this is addressed to ms!!!

  57. Whilst i understand that class actions make we the littlez guys eyes smart a bit the purpose would be to try to make people realise that they issue tax exemptions without question when we are in so much trouble if we mess up our yearly taxes and fined for frivolous claims because, they can , because its deliberately complicated fir us but after going through 4 years of this crap, i ask you
    All who got a 1099a (not 1099c ) and it states that indymac/ one west is lender
    Anyone interested any attorneys/ tax attorneys interested ? Hmmm just thinking out loud.

    Not an attorney not legal advice

  58. hman – what is the evidence the assignee is a successor or assign of the creditor? What is the evidence MERS had authority to assign the note? Were you the plaintiff? Who defended if so?
    Would have been almost comical if you had named ‘Broker and its successors and or assigns’ as the defendants (in lieu of Broker and Does 1 – 100, say).
    What does anyone think the court would say if one named “Broker and its successor and or assigns” as defendants in a complaint?

    But really, hman, did / would the successful QT against the broker also quiet any claims by its alleged successor or assign? Seems to me it would, unless it had already alienated any interests AND said so. Did the broker say you were suing the wrong party? But, if that were true, someone failed to join an indispensable party or may have.
    I think the broker’s defenses to the action are hugely significant. What were they?
    lay opinions of course

  59. Just one thing NPV
    One west bsnk wAs NOT the sucrssor in interest that doc to the link you posted is factually- a question of fact.
    I have letters from fdic categorically stating the aforesaid.
    Anyhoo folks- the reason i put my case number up is so you all might look on the record and see what i mean ( of course theres more than the 1099ato it all ) as it applied to my unique set of facts and ofcourse their ” facts”. I know im on and i intend to go argue in san francisco god help me.

    Not an attorney not legal advice just sharing the experience amd it suks.

  60. Well, suffer this – please. I’d like to address something which has been troublesome to me. Between the lines imo there have been some
    suggestions that I don’t care about anyone in particular’s foreclosure.
    That first of all presumes that I could be helpful in a given scenario, a
    presumption or assertion I don’t make and never have. I’ve never done or asserted any special knowledge about anything except maybe to say I think (it’s an I think) I’ve got a handle on some real estate tenets because that’s my education. I’ve tried to offer information or paths or whatnot. I care fwiw about everyone’s foreclosure fwiw, even those who used their homes for atm machines, which was their right to do under prudent underwriting standards. I care a lot about the law because it interests me and because imo our laws and their application largely reflect who we are as a people.

    Most people here know I’m just another grunt. I’m not an attorney. I’ve been threatened with (ludicrous) prosecution (ms – whom I still won’t dislike personally) for practicing law, at least not on that basis ( too ludicrous to merit emotional involvement). Without a boring essay, I’ll just say I don’t practice law by my random suggestions and info.

    If I were to render particular advice in any given situation/case, I might be appropriately accused of practicing law without a license. But the truest reason, for ME, is that in order to give advice on a particular situation, one must first do a complete and thorough analysis of a case. Imo, not doing this undermines wholley any suggestions, and I note that any attorney who joins in the middle of the dance damn
    well does her client a disservice by not appropriately reviewing the case – all of it. Ned and iwantmympv have it exactly right – no stone may go unturned, no bs may go unchallenged, issues MUST be brought or they can’t be appealed. Trying to ‘fix’ something later leads to an all but, if not, impossible task. At a minimum, it quadruples the load by forcing familiarity with any ‘fix it’ rules. My lay person misinterpretation or missing one thing could make already illegal advice also errant. I’m not qualified for that job and don’t want it at this juncture of life. Here at LL, I, like all of us, have the luxury of trying to contribute without obligation, other than to not give legal advice whether that advice is right or wrong.

    My true interest is this particular law and its further erosion by its misapplication. But we’re not always captains of our own fates (though I personally think we have an obligation to ourselves to be so to the best of our abilities), and life will prove this over and over. I wanted to write a book, something I now recognize as beyond my abilities. I found this website, like all of us no doubt, in my pursuit of the applications of these particular laws, and found there are so many more in play, it would take a genius or a collaboration of them to write a book which truly encompasses all that might be encompassed.
    I’m very happy to have found this site. I’m happy if I can make a contribution, just as I’m happy to read those made by others. And I’ll acknowledge, without inviting inquiry, that I have my own particular reasons, other than my background, for interest in these laws and their applications. But I think it’s mostly that my educational background led me to believe I could make a contribution or try to figure out what’s going on here, and well, here I am. Here we all are.
    There’s no doubt I have learned a lot of ‘stuff’ here by NG’s posts and the contributions made by most here.

    Some of us have been accused of being junkies. Well, okay.
    The oppression many of us feel as homeowners and defense advocates is truly not a good thing. No man is an island, and if we want support, this is as good a place as any to get it for lay people. Maybe the best.

  61. Any idea how to get around the “access & assigns” verbage in the DOT? I won a QT from the broker and my loan was transfered by MERS after my win. The judge stated that we neglected to read the rest of the sentence. Not sure how to get around this because it virtually gives right to anyone to assign the mortgage via MERS

  62. you know, Neidermeyer, now that you mention it, I wonder if this issue might be introduced somehow in pending litigation? As in, while we’re at it, we want to know whom if anyone would issue a 1099.

    We need a dang website to compare notes, like abc foreclosed but jkl issued me a 1099 (for instance).

  63. @neidermeyer – “like”. People may also bring suit imo about that 1099. No, I can’t rattle off what the charges would be exactly, but the fact that I can’t means nothing.

  64. @ Deborah Wynn ,

    The 1099a issue is a good one but the problem is that it comes after the fact and it means getting a judge to re-open a can of worms…

    IWANTMYNPV’s response is pretty good .. the goal is to never get to that point. In my case I had 2 alternate well documented competing scenarios before going into deposition with the sub-servicer , now I have 3 conflicting fact sets … I WILL GET DISCOVERY …..

    I think that should be everyones priority#1 , gather documentation and make it unmistakable that the plaintiff is not being truthful … make points that can be used in an appeal if need be so that the fraudsters KNOW that this isn’t going to be over and NEVER let anything get into the record without an objection… if you have your documentation you can always find a reason to object.

  65. “In fact, imo, the note and dot are now bifurcated and unenforceable.”
    Hence, the impossible “MERS” alleged assignment of both the note and the dot.

  66. And, carie, that’s some interesting stuff, given that there is no loss to anyone except a GSE to the best of my knowledge when a loan has been guaranteed by a govt agency. If FNMA, say, ultimately bears a loss as a result of the diminished value of the property, seems to me if anyone is entitled to issue a 1099, it would be FNMA. It’s likely but hard to say definitely that the amoral, unethical, and illegal sub-prime loans didnt go thru a GSE. Further, it’s also hard to say definitely that a garbage loan was not insured by, say, AIG’s United Guarantee Ins, since it implemented a program which allowed lenders to essentially “write their own” AUG insurance.

    If a servicer were a counter-party to a swap agreement, it’s possible (I sure as heck don’t know) the servicer took the hit and may appropriately issue the 1099. Seems unlikely the Master Servicer or Servicer would be a counter-party to CDS on its own servicing porfolio.
    I don’t know enough about CDS’s to say much about them. I think, though, that other financial institutions, and NOT the servicer of that portfolio, would always be the entity making those “swaps”.

    In the judiciary’s defense, I have to say what really needs to be determined is massive (who really had the right to f/c?, who really took or will take any loss. this is just no longer our father’s car). However, ‘having said that’, imo they must learn this junk or securitization has to be outlawed. Judges simply can’t be adjudicating rights when they don’t really know the facts. Thinking justiciable rights are created solely by the UCC and therefore, say, alleged poss of a bearer note is the bomb is errant, and that’s true enough imo simply because also imo the note identifies who may enforce it, and its caveats, conditions, are not limited to, defined as, one in poss of a bearer note. Further, possession of a bearer note is not a legitimate basis for an assignment of the collateral instrument and imo, the guy who purports to assigns the coll instrument on the basis of poss of the note does so at his peril. If I am your agent, and you are the note owner, you’re not going to be very happy with me if I have assigned the collateral instrument, to which you have the right to assignment, to a guy who got his hands on your note. In fact, imo, the note and dot are now bifurcated and unenforceable.
    Some people will say well that’s just crapinski, at least when it comes to one who is a holder in due course (v holder) because so many defenses aren’t available against a hidc. But my claim is that even with a hidc (which no one is who took the note with notice of its default),
    that party must first be a party as identified in the note to be able to enforce it. The language in the note rules.

  67. carie – I get your feelings about being messed over – just wanted to let you know. I don’t know if their refusal to identify the owner of your
    loan comes with ramifications or not.(not my specific focus) nor do I know who allegedly foreclosed on you. MERS of course hid the creditor when f/c’s were done in its name. After that, the assignment should id the party foreclosing and that’s supposed to be the creditor, right?

    The trust imo can’t issue a 1099 any more than it may own real
    property. That’s why imo the credit bids by others, whether or not they’re appropriate either as a matter of law or contractually. I’m working on connecting the dots as I can, but I sure hope homeowner attorneys are. If not, this is going to continue to be a long, dark night.

    When we get 1099’s from a party who was not alleged anywhere to be the lender / creditor, I have no ready solution or ready arguments. .
    I’m recently learning or at least believing that trusts are what I call “passive” because if there’s another description of their cans and can’ts, I don’t know it.
    What you might do is pick a name of a trust (get one online or ?) and, using the info at the deadly clear link, find that trust, and start reading the governing documents. Read others …..lot of reading. I’d say they’re pretty similar. What you’re looking for is contractual rights and duties of the players in the trust. If you don’t find anything which provides that someone else may issue a 1099 (which I note requires a corresponding loss to be taken on its books – and here I’m like say what?) , the next step is the law if and since you’ve exhausted contractual duties and rights. All I can really think just now about that is that in order to issue a 1099 for debt forgiveness, the party issuing that 1099 must have the corresponding loss on its books, which it may, but then it’s possible if not likely if not a given the party alleged to have been the creditor wasn’t. If a trust is allegedly the owner of the loan, In order for someone imo to be a creditor able to legitimately issue a 1099 to a homeowner, that someone had to have purchased the loan BEFORE the alleged loss was sustained.

    I guess, if one wanted to skip the odious research, that could be boiled down to “there’s something amiss with this 1099 because it’s coming from someone other than the party who foreclosed on me”. When the foreclosure was done in MERS’ name, that was an impossible argument to make, briefly, because the identity of the alleged owner of the loan was willfully kept secret. ‘magine that. And I believe just now the “passivity” (my word) of the trust is “why MERS”

  68. re. @iwantmynvp

    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”.

    Add to that:

    OneWest FSB, (the servicer) is named as “Lender” on the 1099A…

    All these blatant lies…and we are still going around in circles.

  69. “….starting over naming the Trustee’s, who are apparently accepting defaulted loans 3-7 years after the cut-off date.”

    So, they’ve moved from one fraudulent device to another? What good can possibly come out of this, save for a GLOBAL LEGISLATIVE REWRITE? Ex Post Facto.

    I have no doubt that D.C. will fellate its one true love – Wall Street – by attempting a rewrite aimed at legalizing late trust acceptance. It’s what they do best.

  70. @ Carie to an older post you made back in JULY.

    “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”.

    Please read this carefully, since more than several transactions transpired with the FDIC assisted sale of some of the assets to OWB, not loans or residuals – some service rights and other MBS.

    This is how you win – you create facts that need to be decided through discovery and trial.

    This is the real deal – we have also exposed many cases in NY where OWB plead the entire action as the owner of the note and mortgage, and now after 4 years are quietly withdrawing and starting over naming the Trustee’s, who are apparently accepting defaulted loans 3-7 years after the cut-off date.

    Hmmn… unless the guys with these blogs move to consolidate to a single information source – the people will continue to be fleeced.

  71. JG & Christine,

    How do you get around the “as nominee of orig lender, its succ or assigns” language in MERS? Many of us have had the DOT transfered by a defunct “Lender”.

    I sued the “Lender/Brooker” and won a QT. I thought for certain that MERS would be unable to transter after the QT but the judge saw no issue with this. He said we had ignored the language suss and assigns in the DOT. I even had a statment from the President of the old company showing he had no interest in the property but it just seems as though you can’t get around the language.

    The real fake party in interest remains unamed and allowed to foreclose.

  72. Weigh against mr garfields stance above. Now how to get that across to 3 circuit judges.

  73. Oops case 9th circuit 12-16192

  74. I read these posts just after opening my eyes and wish to ask this –
    Anyone- if the loan is. Purportedly securitized and the trustee gets to buy for l legal money aka credit bid at auction from a sub trustee and then you get a 1099a issued with servicer aka debt collector declaring a full amount of purported debt owed then on whos books – re gains and losses would like be accounted for they got the house and resold it. I got kicked to curb whilst still in court. 9th circuit case 13-16192.
    What is any of you all opinion is wrong with this picture. Finally lets put the 1099a issue under scrutiny. Please

  75. carie – It’s certainly hard to know what to believe. Oddly, the other night
    I got sick from seafood which has never happened to me before. Still, I suspect the restaurant more than anything. damn. I like whitefish.

  76. “Although MERS tracks changes in ownership of the beneficial
    rights for loans registered on the MERS® System, MERS cannot
    transfer the beneficial rights to the debt.”

    This agreement comes from paragraph 6 on page 1 of the MERS Terms and Conditions (See attached Exhibit 3, which is further explained in Dkt. ……)

    These statements by MERS are admissions:“A statement is not hearsay if it is offered against a party and it was made by the party’s agent concerning a matter within the scope of the agency .” Younie v. Gonya, 211 B. R. 367, 376 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997) citing Fed. R. Evid. 801 (d) (2) (D) (Emphasis Added.) …….

    Moreover, “admissions of a party are received as substantive evidence of the facts admitted and not merely to contradict the party. As a result, no foundation by first examining the party, as
    required for impeaching a witness with a prior inconsistent statement, is mandated for admissions.” 2 McCormick on Evidence § 254 (6th
    Ed. 2009) (internal citations omitted).”

    This is from a case. If what this homeowner attorney says is so, seems to me that not only is MERS ‘stuff” judicially noticeable, it constitutes (admissable) evidence. lay opinions.

  77. Well, none of this foreclosure stuff matters much anymore because the worst possible thing is happening…what do you all think of THIS:

  78. JG,

    So… phony from A to Z like the rest. An exercise in intellectual masturbation over MERS. A huge planet of 7 billion people vs. a lousy country of 320 millions, terrified of losing THE HOUSE, and a president who just caved in after having flexed his big, industrial-military-complex muscles on a rerun of 2003 and realized he can no longer compete because there are much, much bigger muscles on the other side, and much, much better intelligence and no one will follow his lead any longer…

    Yep. Foreclosure defense site alright. And 320 million people who won’t see behind the house because that’s all they can see. And in this throw-away society, they don’t give a hoot about kids, grand kids, parents or anyone else. IT’S ALL ABOUT THE HOUSE. And the money.

    No wonder the Chinese have such a leg up…

  79. at tu at 8:02 am – thumbs up!

  80. JG,

    Are you in foreclosure?

  81. christine – this is a foreclosure defense website, is it not?

  82. nope. not done yet. MERS, while – in imo judicially noticeable writing – disclaiming the truthfulness of the info in its computer database (or should I say in MERSCorp?) to its members (note: NOT to borrowers or anyone else), it yet allowed if not encouraged its members and non-member Hultman-25.00-designees to allege those voluntary-only entries by members (Lord knows if non-members got in that act, too)
    formed the factual basis for assignments:

    MERS said it didn’t stand by the info in the computer database
    MERS only saw fit to make this disclaimer to its insiders .
    MERS yet allowed reliance on info it disclaimed as factual

    It’s a crime to make and or maintain false records in private sets of books. MERS had an unequivocable duty to verify the information
    in that private set of books as a matter of law. But for now, what we mostly care about is that the alleged ‘records’ which are all we know of forming the basis of assignments was known to be unreliable by the party (“MERS”) making the assignments. (that is unless these notes were traded on that system electronically, but even then….) To me, that certainly suggests another reason to challenge assgts.

    Our assignments were done with no oversight by “MERS” based on information the owner of the private set of books disclaimed as factual.
    This on info and belief is the MERS’ Disclaimer:

    “DISCLAIMER: MERS makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy or reliability of the information provided. MERS disclaims responsibility or liability for errors, omissions, and the accuracy of any information provided. (nice try – sic)
    MERS does not input any of the information found on the MERS® System, but rather the MERS Members have that responsibility regarding mortgage loans in which they hold an interest. Users of this information have the responsibility to verify the accuracy, currency and completeness of the information. The information does not constitute the official legal record and is for informational purposes only.”

    (Okay, MERS, where is the “official legal record”?)

  83. JG,

    For the who-knows-how-many years I’ve been coming here, you’ve been splitting the same hair over and over.

    One hair. The MERS hair. Up, down, crossways, and whichever way, it’s always been one single hair: MERS.

    Are you on a crusade against MERS? Are you in foreclosure and fighting MERS personally? What is MERS for you?

    Time is kind of running out for humanity. Where is MERS in all of it? MERS means only something for 320 million people. The planet is on… kind of… its last leg!

    John, what do you stand for? MERS and your little, itty-bitty house you cannot take with you, or your kids and grand kids future on a huge planet on the brinks of extinction?

    John: in a few years, you will be gone. So… either you spend TIME with those people right now, enjoy it and equip them for their own future battles or you fight for a darn house and against MERS now and you will not take the damn house with you when you die even if you win!!!

    What is wrong with America???

    Methuselah lived to be… 1000 years old, right? And then, HE DIED AND DIDN’T TAKE THE HOUSE WITH HIM!!! No matter how you look at it, no one takes the house. So… are you old enough that you have little time to spend with the kids and grand kids or are you into investing for retirement you don’t even know you will enjoy?

  84. ps – I mentioned that recorder’s index to point out that anyone interested might see how the recorder shows your assgt.

  85. When the entity which induced us to sign coll instruments, IT knew of the unconscionable MERS’ m.o. (also knew the paper would be dumped elsewhere or at any rate, someone else was going to take any hits). Borrowers certainly didn’t. Just pointing out that not only is it unconscionable, it was known to be so by the inducing party in a contract of adhesion (take it or leave it mol).

  86. well, that was a distraction.
    In a case I’m reading, there’s a “MERS” assgt. However, the recorder’s office shows the assignor as the orig lender, a co. long out of business. A co. long out of business may not operate as if it’s not out of business, and if it had any agents or nominees or butlers,
    their alleged authority went with its own, There is NO way in heaven or hell that recorder’s office should show the out-of-business-entity as the assignor. (this is a diff tho related issue than the nonsense shown in the assgt, wherein the party for whom MERS or anyone is acting must be identified).
    Well, because the recorder’s office is not required to know what entities are out of business or not and cannot know for whom MERS is alleging it is assigning, it could only show MERS as the alleged assignor (as alleged nom of orig lender, its succ or assigns) because there is no identification of the party for whom MERS purports to be a
    nominee (just a menu of possibilities )

    that this recorder chose to show the assignor as the orig lender was an illegal determination and indexng imo. The assignment said the usual: “as nominee of orig lender, its successors or assigns”. How does that make the assgt factually by the original lender? The most a recorder’s office could show without practicing law (which they mayn’t do) is to show “MERS as nom for abc, its succ or assigns” which is the inane, non-conveying language used in the “MERS” assgt. MERS is clearly alleging to act for an unidentified party (orig lender? successor of? assign of? pick one – and that’s the point – the recorder’s office not only did pick one, but indexed the assgt as if that were factual.

    Then the rat-b’s submit a (generally uncertified as required) copy of the recorder’s log/index to the court and expect (and get away with) the court to take this as factual, which they do, even tho there’s an obvious conflict – the recorder’s officer shows abc and the assgt itself shows mers. bah! Sorry to say the homeowner’s att didn’t catch this.

  87. JG,

    “I fail as usual to see your point.”

    You will forever. Move on.

  88. I fail as usual to see your point. Loans were approved at all sorts of DTI’s, many based on income the’ lenders’ themselves made up. if a loan were a ninja, it had no DTI and the reserve / asset section of an app would be blank. The first 4, I guess, are examples of unconscionable, but none is as unconscionable nor as destructive to me as the MERS m.0.. It affects even those who properly qualified for loans and those citizens who didn’t even get a stinking loan.

  89. When a court uses the word unconscionable to describe conduct, it means that the conduct does not conform to the dictates of conscience. In addition, when something is judged unconscionable, a court will refuse to allow the perpetrator of the conduct to benefit.”

    Overburdened Household
    1. Written at 60 DTI Back End ratio
    2. No reserves cash
    3. Adjustments in 24 months
    4. Due on Sale Clause 60 months
    5. FDCPA & Modifications to unwind investments

  90. ToLLe,

    I’ve always known you were a stand-up guy. Actually, UKG knows how well I think of you.

    Listen, don’t waste your time, energy or anything else on MS. That poor thing is probably in agonizing pain for want of any survival skills and terrified of the immediate future as a result. And, just like Ivent/Stripes or cubed2k before her, it is imploding out of abject fear of the unknown.

    You know cubed2k holds a special place in my heart: he went all out and you and I know our gut feeling is right: Cubed2k was a martyr of it all. We can’t prove it. We know it in the pit of our guts.

    Do you see how much we’ll be needed in a short time? The whole world is crumbling. Very few people can see beyond the house and the emotions. I despise MS because he tries to capitalize on the emotions. And I won’t allow it.

    BUT it’s coming to a halt. And we know it. And Carie knows it. She feels the emotions behind it. We all do. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be coming back.

    It’s moving and we’ll have work to do. MS is a spoiled pest. He’ll come around. Or… he will die before. Still his choice.

  91. NAGRAMPA v. MAILCOUPS, INC., 469 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006)
    Connie A. NAGRAMPA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAILCOUPS, INC.; The American Arbitration Association, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-15955.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

    This case tells us that a court may toss an unconscionable provision in a contract while leaving the rest of the contract intact, at least in CA.
    That makes me believe courts in all states have such authority based on authority to enforce their state law. Here of course I’m thinking of the provision in a dot which makes a computer program a beneficiary, an agent, a nominee, the butler, the cook, or anything else. I’m also thinking of that same provision which also, unknown to one party, the borrower, would by design allow who knows how many of the 20k + Hultman designees to allege authority to assign the interest of the lender / true beneficiary.


    Unusually harsh and shocking to the conscience; that which is so grossly unfair that a court will proscribe it.

    When a court uses the word unconscionable to describe conduct, it means that the conduct does not conform to the dictates of conscience. In addition, when something is judged unconscionable, a court will refuse to allow the perpetrator of the conduct to benefit.”

  92. MS says, “NG set this page aside please and hold from all of us any further comments . anyone commenting onthis page – after this – is not a smart idea .thnx”

    I was going to point out all the nonsensical grammar in MS’ last paragraph, but I realized that there would be more [sic]’s than speech. He makes me squirt tears laughing. OMG….too much.

    Is that a direct threat MS?

    Okie Dokie MS, I’ll do the non-smart task of responding….this stuff of yours, these threats, or anti-threats of threats, are such classic humor….please oh please tell me you’re kidding, this is like Monty Python stuff…..

    OK, here’s what you do. Call the FBI pronto. Explain to the on-call officer that you’ve been harmed by an internet poster on a forum. Tell them that her exact words were, “Lay off for a bit. ‘Cuz the end is gonna be really, really painful if you don’t.”

    No doubt that he or she FBI agent will say, “We’re on it MS. Those are nasty things to say on a forum. We don’t have anything going on what with such a stable banking system and global serenity, we’ll do everything we can to stick it to this Christine, and we’ll give E. Tolle the death penalty! WE ALWAYS GET OUR MAN!”

    Shortly thereafter, Holder’s henchmen will storm Ohio and Minnesota looking for these two internet villains, who had the audacity to question your legal and otherwise virility, even though the internet is littered like an interstate rest area’s dog walk with bizarre things to say about your credentials. Go figure.

    Christine and I, no doubt, will end up sequestered in a Russian airport terminal hoping against hope that some South American country will grant us asylum.

    Actually, knowing the two of us, I think that would serve us both just fine. And then off to the Andes!

  93. Poor soul…

  94. Chris M – did you not come to meet at hotel in Los Angeles .

    Im sorry you cannot accept why you are what you are ! But to come to LA for that – NOT Interested Last Time

    Im fine with working your cases but to hire me for that – Self help and other people in your community “Wife” all of us will encourgage you to come out .of the .. closet – (guy wears nylons at night)

    I cannot help you otherwise – my curious friend . Get a support group and fight for your right to express yourfeminie self and Gardino the masculine side of the gender bender curve

    Chiris Christina –

    . . . we will see you in court

    Get help .

  95. Maher Soliman,

    Poor soul.

  96. Chris M- Los Gatos Self Proclaimed internet character assasinations backed by korean gofer as assistant .

    The key search word is Booze…mistake Pal …you talk too much Chris M searching “Who Is ” internet domains.

    Im still standing – You are resorting now to terrorists threats …..cease and desist

  97. From CA Deed of Trust Freddie Mac :

    THIS SECURITY INSTRUMENT combines uniform covenants for national use ….

    ….and non-uniform covenants with limited variations by jurisdiction to constitute a uniform security instrument covering real property.

    National use (is this to bait me out of testimony) refers to a nominee as a single grantor under the jurisdicition of Delaware . The FDCPA is viewed by our staff as a 30 day confirmation of local jurisdiction .


    Your friend was taken where he was told to reject my testimony and not believe anything I offered , to report me and foresake my testimony . I charge $25,000 not $2,500 ….

    I was with a brilliant attorney and showed him this argument – he appologized over andover and over to the cllient saying I never read anything like this….I’m sorry !

    Take and profit now LL Editors Go for it !!!

    Whomever you are, I am done with your attacks for the sake of hatred and loss – One name lead I gave authoirties was a party suspected of using an expert to literally steal a home from an old woman No CA

    The other was a two bit attorney who bullyed people around and filed a class act , sanctions, city attorneys report and LOST his clinets case aginst me – The law school had a lot to say about this disturbed person .
    Both parties said they willmake me pay and boy have I with their abuses.

    Thats enough…..Redact there still is time redact the comments

  98. Maher Soliman,

    Grow up, boy. Honestly, get off the glue. Or Oxycodone. Or booze. Or anything you’re seriously abusing!

    You’re becoming an embarrassment! Seriously! It’s not about you. It’s never been about you. Nobody gives a damn about you!

    GROW UP!!!

  99. Sorry about the boy’s job, tho I think it’s a tough issue. Sort of leaning toward the grandfather argument.
    Dang. I want some pizza – wont’ be papa johns.

  100. from AIG: (date unknown)

    “Flow MI (at origination):lenders insure new mortgage loans as they are contracted by clients. This is the most usual process, in which the loan is insured from the moment it is originated. For this case, we have developed our “delegated” insurance process by which, based on previously defined eligibility criteria for the loans, our MI coverage is directly included in the loans, without AIG United Guaranty participation or authorization required (with no influence over the process of lender’s sale/decision).

    “Pool MI (existing portfolios):in this case, a lender may already have a portfolio of loans for which MI is to be incorporated. AIG United Guaranty can provide this specialized coverage, tailored to the features and specifications requested by lenders for every transaction.’

    I guess I just didn’t get it that in addition to its other ‘undertakings’, AIG owned United Guaranty Insurance, a direct provider to banksters of “private mortgage insurance” on loans. Some of us knew our loans had pmi because it was disclosed and we had to pay for it, as shown on the HUD. Other times, where we didn’t know about it, the cost of the pmi was added to the cost of the loan in the interest rate charged (called self-insuring generally).

    In the first para above, note the incentive for lenders to use this co.
    AIG claims to have provided elig criteria and then based on that,
    allowed the lenders to basically write their own UGI insurance based on that criteria without the oversight or approval of UGI or anyone. It’s unconscionable imo, and it does help explain AIG’s liabilities. Those of us who thought our loans weren’t insured with this mortgage insurance may find they were, for whatever that’s worth, if anything. But if nothing else, it 1) further demonstrates the affront it was to bail out AIG and 2) the lack of oversight by whomever the h should have been regulating AIG. Whomever that is should be tarred and feathered. The lack of prosecutions at AIG still says to me we have no chief law enforcement agent in this country. (LVS aka the Sands just got a financial slap on the wrist for something like drug-money laundering 125m for some
    high-rolling gambler, so said the article I read).

    For more info on AIG go here:

    The material above was found under the products tab.

  101. Christine said : Lay off for a bit. ‘Cuz the end is gonna be really, really painful if you don’t. And you can’t sue for that…Los Gatos investigation

    NG set this page aside please and hold from all of us any further comments . anyone commenting onthis page – after this – is not a smart idea .thnx

  102. So Cal 7,

    “If a Notice of Default was “rescinded” only means that much. You were in default. Some intervening event caused the bank/servicer/trustee to “rescind”, meaning that, for a while, you’re no longer considered in default. Until they decide otherwise… and you need to know why they will/could/might. Unless, of course, a judge signed off on it (and you still need to find out under what conditions).

    What was the intervening event? Did you pay off what they were saying you owed? Did you get a rescission notice but… foreclosure is still going on? Did the rescission notice come with some IRS mention? Are you even in foreclosure or BK (or both)?

    Get legal advice. In your state. Each case and each state is different. And don’t read anything from MS. Unlike anything else in this country, one size does NOT fit all in foreclosures and the man is delusional and dangerous. A friend of mine got taken for $2,500 of worthless paper.

  103. “They talked about this in 1992 when I was an investment banker – using the UCC to replace the local recording by state was not something congress could decide.” In theory, you’re right. ONLY in theory.

    In practice, foreclosures have been handled:
    1) at the state level in the 50 states, mostly based on state laws (i.e., judicial v. non judicial) and based on prevailing case law, precedents and jurisprudence in general, on a state-by-state basis. Don’t believe it? Check the enormous discrepancies in rulings from MN to NY, AL to MA and VT to CA. Doesn’t talk about any uniformity.
    2) mostly by state courts except for BK and federal lawsuits, usually initiated by homeowners on allegations of violations of specific fed statutes but… it hasn’t really been a panacea so far.
    3) and in practice, most state judges know jack about UCC anyway. They don’t want to hear about it.

    Here is the problem, my boy: you were an investment banker. In CA. Your only playpen. Out of 50 states. Huge part of the problem and it didn’t do you any good. Stress was horrendous, smoked 2 packs a day, had to prostitute yourself to make a buck. Bad situation and not a good living.

    Then, you associated with crooked attorneys, whom you testified against eventually because… authorities were blowing down your neck and we’re not just talking about state authorities, if i recall (but please, correct me if I’m wrong…) Nowadays, you just peddle. Like your friend Robert Wagner. Or your other friend: Fred Thompson. Not much of a career left. Just peddling. You don’t peddle the exact same crap but peddling is peddling. And you can’t peddle on TV like them while coughing up your lungs… Doesn’t look good. They use the healthy looking ones.

    So… you peddle at a very low level AND you prey on desperate homeowners in distress. That, my boy, is just plain wrong and you know it. You managed to screw a few here and nowadays, people are aware. They don’t trust you, read you, listen to you or any such thing. Last i checked, Gardner still never called you as an expert. Nor did Stopa, Babcock, Cox, Barnes, Weidner, McCandless or… Gee… anyone with half a name! My own attorney (with half a serious name) never heard of you!!! West coast: unknown. East Coast: unknown. Midwest: unknown. Where’s your legacy? Just in your head? That’s what delusion is all about.

    Get off the glue.

    You’re just a nobody, nowhere. So, boy, being called a puke by you is, actually, a compliment. Being associated in your tirades to people like E. ToLLe is also a compliment. It tells me that my brain is still functioning.

    JG, please. You indulged Ivent/Stripes for a long time. Are you so confused that you’ll listen to anyone and everyone? Where is your common sense?

  104. Christine said : Lay off for a bit. ‘Cuz the end is gonna be really, really painful if you don’t. And you can’t sue for that…

    Please, Not the way to spend a weekend, but anyone with information is asked to help if this person “Christine” ever contacted you about organizing and attacking the following Master Servicer /

  105. Christine said : Lay off for a bit. ‘Cuz the end is gonna be really, really painful if you don’t. And you can’t sue for that…

    Terrorist Threat must be reported to authorities AZ or FBI its your choice to act first .

  106. Neil

    The party named Christine has crossed the line by making a terrorist threat .

    This is with nodoubt a terrorist threat against another internet blogger that needs to be reported to authorities. You need to contact me as soon as possible about handling the matter and releasing the authors contact information .

    Recall The incident is similar to the efforts of a family of a U.S. teen who is fighting for his freedom after he was jailed for terrorist threats over ….describe as sarcastic comments.

    These comments are getting old but now resorting to physcal assault and battary threats . This reader is suggesting somthing inline with physical harm and needs to be addressed by law enforcement. Your educating people by selling them mass anti government hysteria…violence against those who are against your readers popular beliefs .

    This person has crossed the line

    To better address this evolving threat, the FBI has established a Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Office within the National Security Branch (NSB) that will improve our effectiveness in empowering our state, local, and community partners to assist in this effort. The duties and goals of this office include developing a better understanding of and countering the threat of violent extremism in the United States; strengthening community partnerships; providing to state and local officials and to community leaders unclassified briefings regarding the threat of violent extremism; addressing CVE-related operational and mission-support needs, including investigations, analysis, and training; and coordinating the FBI’s interests with regard to CVE matters with those of other agencies to ensure that the efforts of the U.S. government are aligned.

  107. Christine – AKA Neil Garfield
    Whatever jargon is used in CA for mortgages is not the jargon used in other states.

    Readers and Bottom Feeders

    Please people hear me out – you are under a uniform set of covenants and these swindlers want you to believe otherwise .NG excused. You are on uniform set of covenants and these banker shills are distorting my message which is brought to you as fact. They talked about this in 1992 when I was an investment banker – using the UCC to replace the local recording by state was not something congress could decide. This puke named Christine is working to undermine anything I can show as fact for reasons of the Helsinki Phenomena or other contrived task related to lenders cover up of facts. People pay me to testify and when given facts they don’t like them what …call me a swindler. I have no problem J Gaul always challenging and always trying to perfect her knowledge of the subject matter —The deed of trust has removed the jurisdiction of the state for UCC filings and national use -So help me God

    This I get often …..

    Dear MS

    I do enjoy reading your stuff and want to save my home. …do you like jelly donuts okay Tolle

  108. Maher, my boy,

    “This puke named Christine is working to undermine anything I can show as fact for reasons of the helsinki Phenonmna or other contrivd taskk releated to lenders cover up of facts.”

    See that spelling? It’s the glue, boy. Lay off for a bit. ‘Cuz the end is gonna be really, really painful if you don’t. And you can’t sue for that…

  109. Maher, my boy, I told you to stop with the glue. Tobacco already fried half your brain. Haven’t you learned anything?

    Of course not… Who am i talking to…?

  110. Christine – AKA Neil Garfield

    Whatever jargon is used in CA for mortgages is not the jargon used in other states.

    Please people hear me out – you are under a uniform set of covenants and these swindlers want you to beleive otherwise .NG exclused. You are ona uniform set of covenants andthese banker shills are distorting my message which is brought to you as fact .

    They taked about this in 1992 when I was an investment banker – using the UCC to replace the local recording by state was not something congress could decide . This puke named Christine is working to undermine anything I can show as fact for reasons of the helsinki Phenonmna or other contrivd taskk releated to lenders cover up of facts. People pay me to testify and when given facts they dont like they what …call me a swindler . I have no problem J Gault always challanging and always trying to perfect her his knowledge of the subejct matter

    The deed of trust has removed the juridcition of the state for UCCfilings and national use -So help me God

  111. Great summary Neil. This is what the arguments and causes of action of have distilled down to, and are beginning to bind the courts by. It makes complete sense to follow along this line of reason and allegations as the foreclosing entities would/should have proper impetus to reasonably settle in a fashion that restores homeowners to their previous positions, at a minimum.

    One question for you or anyone: If a Notice of Default was “rescinded”, is such rescission considered void ab initio, or simply a voidable act?

    This is important on a few levels as MERS or agents, trustees in many cases in accordance with the OCC consent order have “rescinded” NOD’s and later filed new ones. Does this mean that all the acts or demands AFTER the “rescinded” NOD were void and that the “clock” is set back, so to speak?

    Would appreciate any/all cogent thoughts on this.

    Keep up the good, hard work! We’re getting there.

  112. anyone know if the dot contains an arbitration clause? save me from reading that doc again – makes me sick to look at it! thanks

  113. Come to find out, they didn’t even last in Everett MA… Yep. We were all frickin’ pissed at the lack of class.

  114. Been boycotting Papa John’s since the first and last time I ever set foot in one, when they were, underhandedly, trying to take over Papa Gino’s, my favored pizza place in MA. I didn’t like how they did it: keeping the store as is, with the same colors and layout, and moving in by the back door, with a very similar name and the same white font in order to better capitalize on a loyal customer base, developed by Papa Gino’s they had run out of town while and selling it a grossly inferior product. Many people got fooled once and never went back.

    Just for the hell of it… Despite the obnoxious ads against providing healthcare for employees, since they moved in MA, RomneyCare has been passed. Papa Johns just continued to produce bad pizzas and nothing else changed. And now, the jerk is doing what Obama showed him works best for any business: treat employees like s*%^ in the name of profit and bottom line and sell customers bad Monsanto crap.

    It won’t last. Plenty of disgruntled customers everywhere. And Papa Gino’s still has 200 restaurants there. If kids are smart, they’ll create their own products and will shun all those greedy jerks.

  115. thanks, kids!

  116. How could anyone eat that Papa John’s circular garbage? Tortured animals, pesticide-laced veggies grown for shipment, not taste, and GMO’s throughout. And to top that crapola pizza off, they WILL not tell you what’s in their food, not on their website, not even if you call and ask.

    This is not food. It’s simply a delivery mechanism bringing you loads of antibiotics, growth hormones, high fructose corn syrup, various pesticides, fungicides, and best of all, roundup ready oils and syrups that will bust your gut open, just like they were designed to do for the insects that succumb from eating that shit. Enjoy.

    Got kale?

  117. Ukg
    He should tell them to shove it,
    Ihop – better tips.
    Im boycotting papa johns until they stop being stupid.

  118. Folks, I need your help! The post is self-explanatory. Thanks.

    As you may or may not know, the insurance companies are themselves banking institutions. In the BANKING OLIGARCHIES QUEST to inflict further pain on WE THE PEOPLE, PAPA JOHN’S insurance company has changed their policy to include a FIVE-YEAR LOOKBACK on the DRIVING HISTORY of their delivery personnel, resulting in the dismissal of hundreds, if not thousands, of PIZZA DELIVERY DRIVERS who are mostly COLLEGE STUDENTS. I am PERSONALLY INVESTED IN THIS FIGHT because my son is the victim of this policy. Many students have spotty driving histories. As people mature and become more responsible, their FIVE YEAR OLD SPEEDING TICKETS should not be held against them as they try to support themselves DURING THEIR COLLEGE YEARS.

  119. For us, it looks like nothing. We’re still fighting our own banks, stuffing up on crap and trying to make heads from tails. Yet, on an international level, it is one of those huge news that confirm me in the knowledge that things are moving in the right direction and whatever NWO was in the works is slowly meeting its demise.

    Think BRICS. Think UK Parliament telling Cameron yesterday that it will NOT participate in any way in a Syrian attack. Think Brazil pulling out the petrobuck. Not good for us here. Pretty good for our kids’ future if they decide to move the hell out of here or clean up house from all our incompetent, greedy leaders. Either way, it’s definitely moving forward…

    Follow Reuters

    BUDAPEST | Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:20pm EDT

    (Reuters) – Hungary plans to pay back its IMF loan early and called on the fund to shut its Budapest office in what could be a symbolic move by Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government to display its economic sovereignty.

    Add this to that and you can see revolution going on.

    Hungary won’t tolerate GMO seeds, burns 1,000 acres of corn

    Think you can plant genetically modified seeds with your crop and no one will notice? Better not try it in Hungary, where agriculture officials literally took a scorched-Earth approach to GMO seeds, which are banned there, and burned 1,000 acres of corn crops. Much of what was burned was believed to have come from seeds made at the genetic-engineering company Monsanto, but farmers complained they didn’t realize the seeds were modified — and Monsanto denies selling any seeds to Hungary farmers. An independent laboratory in France tested the seeds Monsanto says they sold to Hungary and found no GMO. GMO seeds are allowed across much of the rest of the European Union, but there is growing world-wide objection to Monsanto and other genetically engineered food producers. [Source]

  120. MS, certified moron with an attitude and not much else…

    Just in case you were as dumb as Palin (and I am afraid to actually managed to top her in that domain), California does not equal America anymore than Somalia equals Africa. Whatever jargon is used in CA for mortgages is not the jargon used in other states. Many documents are different too. Know why? This country started out as a federation of sovereign states, created at different times, with different people, different needs and different laws.

    I know it comes as a shock, seeing that, in your delusions, you thought you were endowed with all-knowing powers. You ain’t, buddy. You really ain’t.

    Oh… and guess what? People do win, in other states. And not one of them recommends you. In CA or anywhere else. Any idea why?

  121. Ms
    Actually… no i didnt
    I sent about 5 cease and desists included fdcpa thereto to the foreclosure mill atty for the ” bank”/ debt collector, i objected every step of the way i kicked and screamed every step of the way with the info available to me at the time
    It was they who failed to disclose and they who went into court under power of sale from there the ” trustee” invoked the jurisdiction of federal
    Court enjoining my suit to remove lis pendens so they could sell the ztolen property to another, and thus at the point im now at have a technical hitch because im still kicking. So there.

  122. MS said, “Tolle – Internet sourcing and tracking done through “whois” have identified “TOLLE” as linking back to Neil Garfield servers.”

    Would that have anything to do with the fact that anyone posting here will be posting ON GARFIELD’S SERVER, YOU FREAKING IDIOT?

    This is a perfect example of your expert sleuthing skills….

    “these people are monitors for preferential commentary….”

    Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are. Preferential commentary? Since when have either Christine or myself shown any preference as to commentary? Could it be simply because we call bullshit every time you start in with the “Soliman’s Snake Oil Will Cure What Ails You So Call Me” meme?

    MS, here’s the thing… don’t make sense, that’s as plain as day. Your writing skills are non-existent. No, they’re embarrassing. You may think that you’re relaying valuable information, but you simply don’t make a lick of sense. Go back six years on this site and you’ll read people begging you to explain yourself in even a slightly intelligible format. And THEN you have the nerve to ask for folks to call you for your services. I don’t know, maybe your gig is to make sense once you see a $100 bill?

    So, why would anyone hire you to express your self-professed expert opinion, when you have hundreds of folks right here on LL telling you that you’re a garbled mess? As I’ve said before, you’re as easily understood as a Dr. Bronner’s Castile Soap label, only without the minty fresh smell.

  123. MS, paranoid and self-absorbed moron,

    My server is AOL and I’m in Ohio. I thought Ivent/Stripe was an isolated, genetic fluke. Apparently, I was wrong. Now, the question would be… is it really genetic, in which case the breeders are the problem, or just congenital and environment may be the sole cause for it? Because, with Fukushima boiling the pacific ocean and having contaminated your neck of the woods, the big fear is that more like you will emerge…

    Gawd, have mercy.

  124. judgement collection :


    JPMorgan Chase Lawsuits

    London Whale

    The bank’s chief investment office gambled on credit derivatives, losing $5.8 billion (so far),
    and its trading desk may have tried to hide the losses from the home office.
    The bank says it is being sued by shareholders over the losses and has gotten
    subpoenas and requests for information from “Congress, the OCC, Federal Reserve,
    DOJ, SEC, CFTC, UK Financial Services Authority,
    the State of Massachusetts and other government agencies,
    including in Japan, Singapore and Germany.”

    Milan Swap Deal

    The bank has faced lawsuits and criminal investigations over an interest-rate
    swap deal it made with the city of Milan, Italy, back in 2005. The bank settled
    a civil suit, but criminal charges are still pending against the bank and several employees,
    with hearings in the trial “occurring on a weekly basis since May 2010.”


    The bank and some of its executives are still being sued over the bank’s
    relationship with the failed,
    fraud-ridden energy giant, more than a decade after its failure.

    Energy Manipulation

    Speaking of Enron, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is investigating charges that
    JPMorgan manipulated power markets in California and the Midwest.

    Credit Card Swipe Fees

    The bank said in the filing that it will pay about $1.2 billion to settle charges that it
    conspired with MasterCard and Visa to rig credit-card swipe fees.


    The bank is being investigated by regulators all over the world for
    its alleged involvement in manipulating Libor, a short-term interest
    rate that affects borrowing costs for people,
    businesses and governments all over the world.

    Madoff Ponzi Scheme

    Several lawsuits have accused the bank of aiding and abetting Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme,
    the biggest in history. The Madoff bankruptcy trustee and others
    have also sued the bank to get back some Madoff clients’ money.

    MF Global

    The bank is under investigation by regulators for its relationship
    with the failed brokerage firm MF Global. It is also being sued for
    allegedly aiding and abetting MF Global misuse of customer money.

    Mortgage Backed Securities

    The bank is being sued by hordes of investors for its bundling and selling of
    mortgage-backed securities packed with bad mortgage debt before the financial crisis.
    “There are currently pending and tolled investor claims involving

    Mortgage Foreclosures

    The bank was part of the big $25 billion settlement with the government over
    mortgage-foreclosure abuses. But there are still several lawsuits
    and regulatory actions pending against

    Peregrine Financial

    The bank didn’t mention this in its regulatory filing, but it is also involved
    in the failure of the Iowa brokerage firm Peregrine Financial.
    JPMorgan holds some customer money for the firm,

  126. I am guilty of inducement – I agree, but inducment towards getting people on track is not always fee based. Take what I give you and challange the attorney . But this is never meant to be phishing …if you do not know what happened here you will continue to look like
    blistered sores on a Rhinos derrier.

    Its L E G A L all legal.

    For claims made to challange foreclosure –
    YOU failed to file actionaginst the 30 FDCPA letter
    YOU failed to file action aginst the Debt validation letter
    YOU failed to file for a release of lien after October 28th 2008 (your attorneys talk about quiet title NO!!!! Simple reconveyance and release of lien !)
    YOU failed to sue Mers Corp for claims nominees cannot enforce entitlements or anyother rights for interst held ,only the partys holding such interest is allowed to enforce claims , and .
    YOU failed to Sue Mers Corp where a nominee cannot enforce the partys interest after six months

    You failed ….45 more to list but i’m tired ….

    “With the assignment to the trust being void,

    MS It is not void and is used more as a muniment for documenting a recording.

    And the money of the investor being used to fund the loan,
    ABA Wire – are you saying there was no wire . I worked on the wire desk – are you sure ?

    and there being no privity between the investor and the homeowner,

    MS – Corrrect and with all good faith and honor do I swear to you [1]under the doctrine of privity, the beneficiary has no right to enforce the contract, [2] but not since he or she was [is] not a party to the contract.Because they are an intergral principal to the subject contract.

    the only logical conclusion is to establish that the debt exists,

    MS – Logical conclusions fail in a common law court that rewards the lender its investment under themost stressful and unheralded conditions. Motion for instituting constructive trust

    but that it is unsecured

    MS – Unsecured – WRONG – How many times do you recite your UCC Articles UCC 1 filing H-Y-P-O-T-H-I-C-A-T-I-O-N

    and subject to the court’s determination to fashion the terms of repayment —

    MS -Options, derivitives, strike price , puts calls , “Tolle’s Fetishes” and “Tolles Chat Line” including staddles hedges expiration over maturity .

    or mediation in which the unsecured loan becomes legitimately secured through negotiations with the investors.’

    [MS] FDCPA 30 day collections letter and FDCPA 30 day collections letter and FDCPA 30 day collections letter and FDCPA 30 day collections letter if your fail to bring your own claim to estop a debt collector from getting a default judgement and application for order of entry for writ of possession

  127. NGarfield said:

    “With the assignment to the trust being void, and the money of the investor being used to fund the loan, and there being no privity between the investor and the homeowner, the only logical conclusion is to establish that the debt exists, but that it is unsecured and subject to the court’s determination to fashion the terms of repayment — or mediation in which the unsecured loan becomes legitimately secured through negotiations with the investors.’

    I don’t really agree with you on this – you seem to be in favor of an equitable solution which by and large I don’t object to personally, but I’d like to remind you of the “security first” laws in some states (which by design protect a borrower’s other assets), for instance.
    If a note were found to be unsecured, a party with the note would or could be sol. And “subject to the court’s determination to fashion the terms of repayment?” This proposition, you know of course, would introduce a gazillion issues. Those could be resolved voluntarily by the parties. But by the court? Don’t know about that. Doubt it. Too many laws in play.

    I think you’ve made an honorable attempt to fashion a litigation strategy (a good one, I guess), but to me, your conclusions don’t ring true about how this shapes up when this and that are in the light, i.e., what position everyone might find himself in. I feel bad about saying this because I know enough to know you put a lot of work into this post.

    And why aren’t you using the words “electronic discovery”? I’ve known them for over 10 years, and I’m a plebe. Electronic discovery is exactly what we need. And as I’ve said before, as a group, we are woefully behind the curve because imo we are woefully behind on discovery issues and you just aren’t all over that. I’m sorry, Neil, but you’re knowing a guy who can yada yada with a computer is not good enough and I’m irked that you might be suggesting it is. (If not, accept my apology, please) There are companies out there who are light years ahead on electronic discovery, both on relevant law and how to suck it out of a computer.

    The investors paid, say 500k, for a note and dot (less any pymts), and one not in default. Subject to any defenses by the banksters (gag), that’s what they’re owed. Just as we shouldn’t be made to pay loans already paid or be made to pay thieves, investors need to be made whole by the rat-b’s who caused them injury.

    Why do investors really not make claims the loans didn’t make it? Why do they instead merely complain about the poor quality, etc? If they owe taxes because of ABC’s act, ABC is liable for those taxes along with their losses (I would sure think). Was there some agreement made – “forgeddaboutit , take the hits, you won’t be taxed on taxable income”, and we’ll give the other guys, the homeowners, HAMP etc. funds? We’ll, we’re not getting them, so heck with that.

  128. MERS does have the standing to represent the parties that “MUST” roll assets at certain dates into like or greater value under strict IRS tax deferred transfer procedures.

  129. MERS did not have the ability to transfer an assignment for a bank that sold the loan over 6yrs ago and the bank in WaMu had been seized.

    MERS never did have the ability to transfer by assignment assets for a bank that sold over 6yrs ago

    MERS does have the standing to represent the parties that “MUST” roll assets at certain dates into like or greater value under strick IRS tax deferred transfer proceedural

  130. Bi furcate note and deed – No they do not.
    The deed benefits from an economic lift off balance sheet
    The note is lost to the extinguishing at the settlements basis in assets.
    Its a function of short title and derivitives at future values. Only the wire survives the conversion of assets processes

  131. define an accomodation party and answer one question: was the intent to bifurcate the note and collateral instrument? I’m not asking for an expl of the reasons for bi-f, just a yes or no.

  132. i’ve generally drawn a distinction between a mtg per se and a deed of trust.

    Your executing a set of uniform instrument with non uniform convenants for local recording purposes ….

    See Georgia – last fof the ancient lenders

  133. Homeowner Can Challenge Mortgage Assignment

    No Do Not – This is incorrect and wrong information given by LL shills Do not challange the assignements ….

  134. i’ve generally drawn a distinction between a mtg per se and a deed of trust. Altho I saw a (NJ) mortgage once, because at the time it made me so mad I couldnt see straight, I disregarded “today’s” mortgages.
    It’s gonna really irk me that I may have to look further into this because my list is already from here to tomorrow, (no joke – it is) but….
    Now, I admit what I think I know about “mortgages” I learned a very long time ago. A “mortgage’, at the time I about learned it, conveyed nothing. The language gave the lender a lien – that’s it.
    There were no words of conveyance, such as described in that case
    Christine just linked in IL (where they apparently still use mtgs instead of dot’s.) A mortgage was a lien, NOT a conveyance. So when I have drawn certain distinctions, I may have done so errantly, not knowing
    what the heck those goons have done to a mortgage while at least I was sleeping. And to see those words of conveyance to a computer program is as maddening to me as a thing can get. I just thought it couldn’t get any worse. My sincere and serious condolences to those with “MERS” mortgages.

  135. MersCorp is a nominee appointed by the lender as beneficary and affirmed by the trustor who is one in the same with a grantor.

    A MersCorp accomodation is necessary at time of anticipated reversion for an amount equal to or higher under IRS rules.

    The fact is the basis in assets is converted from debt and an obligors debt service to equity with the obligor satisfying the dividiends paid to the investors.

    Where the invesotrs are the bank and lender affilate , the transferor ro transferee is a clever manuever banks use to veil something they are traditionally not allowed to do- form and take public startups and credit backed business entities for selling and trading stock .

    A charitable or private held grantor trust arrangement that allows for only one entity transfering and conveying assets into it – and this is the role of a nominee representing 100’s of 1,000’s of appreciable assets .

    (where do these creeps come up with swindler…do I not share with you that you have yet to read …Niel AKA Tolle and Christine why ?)

  136. Tolle

    Internet sourcing and tracking done through “whois” have identified “TOLLE” as linking back to Neil Garfield servers. I should have investigated this obvious track back long ago. The key words swindler and tobacco seem to link NG to the domain used by Living lies affiliate as do the domain hosting Christine

    Now it’s time to watch them come up with their bizarre and wasteful defenses for something the average person has no time for. It’s all for attacking any threat posed to LL web sit. …these people are monitors for preferential commentary – shills but otherwise do not exist

    CA Court of Appeals / Graupner v Wells Fargo Bank Select Portfolio 2010 Dec to remand back to trial court

    US District Bankruptcy Court Santa Ana / Adversary Counsel Christiansen / Testimony upon which the judge reversed order granting relief 2012

    Holders of BofA LLC Holders of Trust Series 7 certificates Settlement $164,000.

    Corbett S v. IMB LLC holders of Trust Series 2 certificates CA Vallejo Sup Ct Dec for Plaintiff with Prejudice / Dec 2010

    Lopez T; Settlement SPS for Certificate Holders / Cash for Keys $50,000

    I’ve given you over 50 to date -when in or out of court… we do not lose …


    Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:39:29 +0000 To:

  138. Another case of bank repo of a house fully paid. And we wonder why people don’t want to give up their guns…

    Woman’s Belongings Lost When Repo Crew Empties Wrong House
    By Aol Real Estate Staff | Posted Aug 30th 2013 9:43AM

    You’d like to think that if someone broke into your home, then backed up a truck and carted away all your worldly possessions, that they could be found criminally guilty of something. But that’s not the case for Nikki Bailey of Logan, W.Va., who came home from visiting a friend in the hospital to find that all of her belongings had been taken in a foreclosure repossession, even though her home had long ago been paid off.

    As described in the video above, the repossession was supposed to have taken place at an address with a similar street name — but in another town. The mistake wasn’t discovered until Bailey caught the repossession crew finishing up at her house, and by that time, they said, the former teacher’s clothes, furniture and keepsakes had already been disposed of at a dump. Bailey’s next step is to seek some kind of civil action against the repossessing company, CTM Industries, or the bank that employed them, as yet unidentified.

    Whether viewed as a simple mistake or reckless negligence, the same thing happened to a woman in neighboring Ohio in a widely publicized incident just last month. The foreclosing bank there blamed a faulty GPS and offered restitution for the thousands in losses that the homeowner suffered IF, it said, SHE COULD PROVIDE RECEIPTS FOR THE ITEMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!|main5|dl20|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D366319

    Unreal… Time to learn how to booby trap.

  139. c at 2:44 – got a link to that case? thanks

  140. I just received a letter from the OCC dated Aug 26, 2013 in which my complaint has been since Oct 2010 was that MERS did not have the ability to transfer an assignment for a bank that sold the loan over 6yrs ago and the bank in WaMu had been seized.

    Now I thinking that MERS, MERSCORP or MERS INC, that one of these is the parent company and this play on names like Wells Fargo Bank NA, Wells Fargo Mortgage, Wells Fargo Financial or the Wells Fargo Bank Holding Company maybe separate by title but are all spawned form the Holding Company as MERS with the section of its company that got no employees is no more than a shell company. A company without any employees cannot possibly operate because it has no personnel and needs the other companies to function.

    Even the part of MERS that got 48 employees can handle 30 or 40 million mortgages and the imputing of the information that done by the members that also are shareholder but don’t have a verifying source other that the bank employee who entering the data. You got this conflict of interest in the integrity of registry which it enter by the requesting party is prime for corruption. We are this deep into this crisis and all of the systems full of what were you thinking.

    How was it conceived that Ginnie Mae could put together a securities without purchasing the debt and to secure the interest! It only a matter of time that they must come clean that the securities are worthless and try to reaffirm the loan that are out there and place a proper lien with the agreement of the borrowers and settle the pass violations!

  141. It’s not just Holder. Nothing happens in a vacuum. If not ONE banker has been jailed, there’s a very good reason. And the reason is the cancer of this administration: musical chairs at every level and the deepest corruption of any presidential admi8nistration. Which increasingly leads me to wonder if Obama is rotten to the core or fundamentally incompetent. Either, he surrounded himself with the perfect people to completely run this entire country to the ground.

    Ex-DOJ criminal chief Breuer returns to Covington & Burling

    By Aruna Viswanatha

    WASHINGTON, March 28 | Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:59pm EDT

    (Reuters) – Lanny Breuer, who stepped down as head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, is returning to the law firm Covington & Burling where he spent most of his career.

    The firm announced that Breuer will assume the title of vice-chair, beginning July 1.

  142. Eggs, the plot sickens. MERS was created through the auspices of Covington Burling where our illustrious Eric Holder was a partner and at the same time. Gee, I wonder….

  143. FYI, everybody, it is not just MERS or its bountiful entities that are into this bullshit. It is common practice as far as I can see because I found out that my alleged originator that went belly up and some of the top dogs actually went to jail, came to life again as a “new entity” with the same name. As I have mentioned before, they all have to have a different FEIN number referenced to the IRS. Get the FEINs and compare.

  144. HERBERT ELESH, Plaintiff,
    Case No. 12 C
    United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
    August 16, 2013.
    MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge.
    Herbert Elesh sued Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) in state court, seeking to remove a purported cloud on his title to certain property in Arlington Heights, Illinois. MERS removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. It then moved to dismiss Elesh’s suit on certain grounds. The Court previously ruled on one of MERS’s arguments, concluding that
    Elesh had failed to join a necessary party, namely Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. See Elesh v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.,
    No. 12 C 10355, 2013 WL 1687738 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 18, 2013).
    Elesh then filed an amended complaint naming Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank has adopted the remaining arguments in MERS’s motion to dismiss. The Court therefore proceeds to rule on the
    remainder of MERS’s motion

    Homeowner Can Challenge Mortgage Assignment
    The basic requirements of standing are that the plaintiff suffered an injury to a legally cognizable interest and is asserting his own legal rights rather than those of a third party. See id. at 6. Elesh unquestionably meets the first requirement; the recorded assignment constitutes a cloud on his title (the injury), and Deutsche Bank recently relied on the assignment to prosecute a foreclosure action against him.

  145. Yep. Babcock is angry…

    Posted on August 26, 2013 by eggsistense

    The Law Dog, George Babcock, is having a tough time of it lately. He’s already been sanctioned once and likely faces more sanctions, according to posts on his Facebook page.

    So why is a fierce homeowner advocate like Babcock getting the bum’s rush? Beside the fact that the question answers itself, one must look to a woman named Merrill Sherman, a former bank president who was appointed “Special Master” over several hundred foreclosure cases, many of them Babcock’s. Babcock has been openly critical of Sherman for a number of reasons, but the latest and perhaps most despicable reasons were discussed by Babcock on his Facebook page recently.

    Sherman: No known grounds for disqualification? Are you shitting me?

  146. I’ll read deadly clear’s material (always interested in anything ‘mers has to go’), but there’s never been any question that Mers and Merscorp are separate entities that I know of. There have probably been few good arguments made about this fact, tho.

  147. George Babcock is giving serious what-for to the evildoers in Rhode Island. With the video linked here, he’s just taken up his attack on MERS about a million notches:

  148. OCC – Correcting Foreclosure Practices
    Posted on August 29, 2013

    Correcting Foreclosure Practices – Updated August 28, 2013

    “A particularly interesting “Consent Order” belonged to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and MERSCORP, Inc. Click HERE for the MERS and MERSCORP, Inc. Consent Order.

    “… as part of an interagency horizontal review of major residential mortgage servicers and mortgage service providers, have conducted an examination of MERSCORP, Inc. (“MERSCORP”), and of its wholly-owned subsidiary corporation, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., (“MERS”), both of which provide various services to financial institutions related to tracking and registering residential mortgage ownership and servicing, acting as mortgagee of record in the capacity of nominee for lenders, and initiating foreclosure actions.

    The Agencies have identified certain deficiencies and unsafe or unsound practices by MERS and MERSCORP that present financial, operational, compliance, legal and reputational risks to MERSCORP and MERS, and to the participating Members. …

    …By this Stipulation and Consent, which is incorporated by reference, MERS and MERSCORP have consented to the issuance of this Consent Cease and Desist Order (“Order”), pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §§ 1818(b), 1867(c)-(d), and 4631, by the Agencies, consistent with the Stipulation and Consent. …

    There are currently approximately 31 million active residential mortgage loans registered on the MERS System.” [Read more]

    What happened to the other 40 million?

    truth always winsThe verbiage in the Consent Order verifies DeadlyClear’s posts indicating separate and distinct “MERS” corporations substantiating that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and MERSCORP, Inc. are NOT the same company!”

  149. Court Denies Bank of America’s Petition for Re-hearing in Glaski Decision

    “So, what does all of this, and the fact that the bank’s petition was denied, really mean?

    Well, it means several things. For one thing, it means that, just as was the case before Bank of America’s filing of its petition for re-hearing, Mr. Glaski can now return to the lower court where he now will be allowed to challenge the validity of the transfer of his loan into the securitized trust.

    As I explained in my article covering the recently published written opinion by the California Court of Appeal in the Glaski case, the decision by the court was in point of fact, a “pleading decision,” rendered in response to a demurrer… no more, no less. It’s a decision that will allow Mr. Glaski’s journey to continue, and not in itself, a “win” in the big picture sense of the word.

    That is not to say that homeowners facing foreclosure and the lawyers that represent them do not have reason to be quite pleased with the court’s decision… and the fact that it was published and therefore may be cited in the complaints filed by others… and further that the bank’s petition for re-hearing was denied. All of those things should be considered positive developments for those fighting foreclosure based on similar facts in California, and perhaps even elsewhere.

    However, as I wrote previously, and as numerous lawyers around the country have explained to me in great detail, including Richard Antognini, Mr. Glaski’s appellate lawyer who successfully argued this case in front of the California Court of Appeal, Mr. Glaski has a long way to go and many potential and substantial hurdles most assuredly remain ahead.”

    True. Hailing Glaski as THE CASE that will fix everything is premature, dangerous, delusional and unconscious. Glaski won one battle but he’s not even halfway through the war. The same way that I don’t expect to hit a home run when I win my appeal. It will only be one victory in a long haul that’s already swallowed 5 years of my life. Better not be attached to the outcome…

  150. Former Bank of America executive faces federal, state charges of trying to have sex with minor

    By Associated Press, Published: August 28

    DOVER, Del. — A former Bank of America executive is facing federal charges of trying to have sex with a 13-year-old girl.

    Authorities on Wednesday unsealed a complaint charging 59-year-old Kirk A. Simmons of Newark with attempted coercion and enticement of a minor. Simmons remains in custody pending a detention hearing Tuesday.

    State police arrested Simmons last month outside a Newark hotel where he allegedly had arranged with an undercover detective to have sex with the fictitious girl. Court records indicate that Simmons followed through with the plan even after expressing concerns about a law enforcement sting.

    Simmons faces state charges of third-degree attempted rape. At the time of his arrest, he was a vice president for market information at BOA’s Newark facility. Prosecutors say the bank terminated him after his arrest. [In this country, banking really opens the door to every vice… Truly amazing!]

    Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  151. 🙂

    JPMorgan Bribe Probe Said to Expand in Asia as Spreadsheet Is Found

    2013-08-30 —

    A probe of JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s (JPM) hiring practices in China has uncovered red flags across Asia, including an internal spreadsheet that linked appointments to specific deals pursued by the bank, people with knowledge of the matter said.

    The Justice Department has joined the Securities and Exchange Commission in examining whether JPMorgan hired people so that their family members in government and elsewhere would steer business to the firm, possibly violating bribery laws, said one of the people, all of whom asked to not be named because the inquiry isn’t public. The bank has opened an internal investigation that has flagged more than 200 hires for review, said two people with knowledge of the examination, results of which JPMorgan is sharing with regulators.”

    The scrutiny began in Hong Kong and has now expanded to countries across Asia, looking at interns as well as full-time workers, two people said. The employees include influential politicians’ family members who worked in JPMorgan’s investment bank, as well as relatives of asset-management clients, the people said. Wall Street firms have long enlisted people whose pedigree and connections can win business, a practice that doesn’t necessarily violate the law.

    The SEC will hunt for evidence showing “these weren’t real jobs, that they were only there because their father or mother were important public officials,” said Dan Hurson, a former U.S. prosecutor and SEC lawyer who runs his own Washington practice. “If the public official requested the job for the child, that would be a strong indication to the company that the official was seeking and receiving something of value.”

  152. The US professionals quitting the rat race to become farmers

    2013-08-30 —

    “In the US, there are now 456,000 “beginning farmers”, defined by the government as those with less than a decade’s experience… “This has become a viable career,” adds Mr Connors. “There’s lots of people in New England and California who run successful small businesses on their farms. As it’s become a more viable profession, I think more people are considering it.””

  153. This is why they want your money, your house, your fist born, your sweat and blood and anything they can put their hands on. And you, you just give it all away, willingly and for free! In fact, you give it all away and… you even pay taxes to seal the deal!!!

    US Intelligence “Black Budget” Revealed to be Vast

    2013-08-30 —

    U.S. spy agencies have built an intelligence-gathering colossus since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but remain unable to provide critical information to the president on a range of national security threats, according to the government’s top-secret budget.

    The $52.6 billion “black budget” for fiscal 2013, obtained by The Washington Post from former ­intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, maps a bureaucratic and operational landscape that has never been subject to public scrutiny

    Spending by the CIA has surged past that of every other spy agency, with $14.7 billion in requested funding for 2013. The figure vastly exceeds outside estimates and is nearly 50 percent above that of the National Security Agency, which conducts eavesdropping operations and has long been considered the behemoth of the community.

  154. The banks should not be rewarded with a FURTHER windfall by the lack of regulation because everybody is paid off to look the other way. There is a massive amount of forgery out there with regard to these loans/notes, appraisals, mortgages, etc., and it would be great to see the judicial system come back to where it is supposed to be. I assume the next tsunami of lawsuits is going to be wrongful foreclosure.

  155. Still hawking your wares Master Swindler? Just what cases are you excelling at as we speak? List your triumphs or just slither away. How’s about it?

  156. Just a note – Glaski motion by BANA for reconsideration was denied and filed on docket today

  157. So if we got the copy of the Note and the assignment and they don’t match up,

    Case involving relief today

    Mortgage Note 8/28/2006
    Assignment: 07/20/2011

    According to what I can read into the above -the assignment is by all operations of law valid , enforceable and binding.

    Before you jump to further conclusions , find an expert who can tell you why. Then go to a established IRS tax attorney and verify with the IRS what the expert testifies to in statement. Then you open your world to the role of a nominee , charitable contribution , prohibition on …..

    Therein the violations start to calculate over and over again and ring like an odometer at 120 MPH begging the other side to consider the proper settlement ….rescind, remunerate and release

    not intended as legal advice and not for substituting a lawyers professional views and opinions

  158. Why is not simply suing the parties for forgery and stolen property not used? We know the banks committed the forgery and have settled some of these case (92,735) as Sen Warren is complaining about. But Lorraine Brown admitted to 1 million forgery and Symoniak in addition to DocX her complaint involved MERS also.

    So if we got the copy of the Note and the assignment and they don’t match up, why is not there cases to have the criminal pay restitution and damages?

  159. This society is already unforgiving enough as it is but if we end up having to shun people because of their past mistakes and misfortunes, this world ain’t gonna last much longer. Unreal… And what’s the big deal with Fico anyway. Credit worthiness is good only to obtain… credit. Learn to pay cash and you won’t need it. One thing is sure: I will never do any business with Lenddo. Even if they are the only game in town. Unbelievable!

    Facebook friends could change your credit score
    By Katie Lobosco @KatieLobosco August 27, 2013: 11:24 AM ET

    Some tech startups are using your online social data to determine your creditworthiness.

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

    Choose your Facebook friends wisely; they could help you get approved — or rejected — for a loan.
    A handful of tech startups are using social data to determine the risk of lending to people who have a difficult time accessing credit. Traditional lenders rely heavily on credit scores like FICO, which look at payments history. They typically steer clear of the millions of people who don’t have credit scores.

    But some financial lending companies have found that social connections can be a good indicator of a person’s creditworthiness.

    One such company, Lenddo, determines if you’re friends on Facebook (FB) with someone who was late paying back a loan to Lenddo. If so, that’s bad news for you. It’s even worse news if the delinquent friend is someone you frequently interact with.

    “It turns out humans are really good at knowing who is trustworthy and reliable in their community,” said Jeff Stewart, a co-founder and CEO of Lenddo. “What’s new is that we’re now able to measure through massive computing power.”

  160. Editor – this is to explain the use of the COMBO, Consultation and Expert Declaration. The only reason they are separate is that too many people only wanted or could only afford one or the other — all three should be purchased.

    This is untrue and a false and misleading statement. In testimony brought to oppose relief from stay this morning ,it is clearly shown that the Combo was for the purpose of equity and not debt . This is a view supported by procedural fact and held by state “other than trust” by all operations of law and proven by prima fascia supporting documents, instruments and recorded filings .

    expert witness

    It is a civil violation and criminal act to interfere and intimidate distort corrupt and or provide public information that is materially false and incorrect solely for furthering false witness slander and defamation of the litigants , witnesses or counsel so to willfully disrupt any state or federal case and ongoing court proceeding.

  161. Legal Maxim’s Neil, (basic truths)
    Ignorance of fact may excuse, but not ignorance of law.
    Ignorance of facts excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse.

    So someone’s failure to object due to ignorance of securitization does not remove the fact that securitization and the effects thereof violate the ‘rule of law’ and is meant to deprive the People of their Right to Property and the peaceful enjoyment thereof from illegal and unlawful seizure and/or forced evacuation.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, People, Corporeal, Life, Free and Independent State, In Jure Proprio (In One’s Own Right), Jure Divino (by Divine Right)

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: