Fines, Damages and Penalties: Just Part of Doing Business as Banks

The link below will take you to an article from It is a very thorough examination of the benefits and effects of all the sanctions, damage awards, and fines that banks are paying. The upshot is that most of the bank payments for illegally taking money and property are going to government instead of the victims.

And the obvious fact is that the penalties are not nearly enough to stop the mortgage madness. It is something that could be used in the narrative in closing argument to a jury for slander of title, slander of credit, wrongful foreclosure. Lawyers should look to ways that will enlarge the awards not only because they will make more money for their client and themselves, but because our society will continue to drag until the awards present a credible threat to the survival of the financial institutions who continue to take money and property that does not now nor did it ever belong to them.

Big bank fines aren’t working

94 Responses

  1. poppy – good catch. thanks

  2. JohnGault

    I did not file the Petition in Federal Court haphazardly. A well respected Federal judge read it, accepted it for filing in Federal Court and issued his first orders and when I filed a copy of the Docketed Petition with the NY State Court , the removal was effected.

    The corrupt debt collectors, that started their foreclosure scam by hiding four of my mortgage checks in order to fake a default, accelerate and demand legal money for their bank money ( are no longer with the bank) lied once more and fought back pressuring the Judge to go with the bank. The Judge was between a hard place and a rock.

    Most Judges understand this issue and especially now that this country is in this financial mess most can figure out how we got here

    Anyhow it fell on judge Schlesinger shoulders to mark vacated the void ab initio judgments and restore me to my properties since the banks new attorneys stated its indemnify , indemnify, indemnify and that they never owned my two condos when their corrupt debt collector attorneys auctioned them off, and then Fidelity Title and a sham title company called Coronet showed up in the picture. and the fraud enlarged.

    I think Judge Schlesingers law clerk is completely innocent and if Judge Schesinger were to be given immunity she could help the court system restore its integrity.

  3. United States: Sixth Circuit Holds That Mortgage Foreclosure And Foreclosure Lawyers Are Subject To The FDCPA

    Last Updated: February 6 2013
    Article by Victoria Holstein-Childress
    Reed Smith

    LinkedIn Twitter Facebook


    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that mortgage foreclosure actions are “debt collection” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Glazer v. Chase Home Finance LLC, No. 10-3416, 2013 WL 141699 (6th Cir. Jan. 14, 2013). In Glazer, the Sixth Circuit also held that lawyers who meet the general definition of debt collector under the FDCPA must comply with its provisions when engaged in mortgage foreclosure activities. And a lawyer whose principal business purpose is mortgage foreclosure or who “regularly” performs this function meets this definition.

    In Glazer, a property owner sued its mortgage servicer and the law firm it hired to foreclose on property he had inherited, alleging violations of the FDCPA and Ohio law. The complaint alleged that the servicer, its employees, and its law firm violated the FDCPA by falsely stating that the servicer owned the note and mortgage, improperly scheduling the foreclosure sale, and refusing to verify the debt upon request. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on the federal claims, reasoning that a mortgage foreclosure is the enforcement of a security interest, not a debt collection, and as such is not subject to the FDCPA.

    Sixth Circuit’s Ruling

    On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling that a law firm was not “a debt collector.” Relying primarily on decisions of its sister circuits in Wilson v. Draper & Goldberg, PLLC, 443 F.3d 373 (4th Cir. 2005) and Piper v. Portnoff Law Assocs., Ltd., 396 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2005), the court concluded that “every mortgage foreclosure, judicial or otherwise, is undertaken for the very purpose of obtaining payment on the underlying debt,” and, therefore, every mortgage foreclosure is a debt collection subject to the FDCPA. The court determined that was equally so even when the foreclosure was “not seeking a money judgment on the unpaid debt.”

    In reaching its decision, the Sixth Circuit rejected the view of the majority of district courts, including the one in this case, that mortgage foreclosures generally are not debt collection under the FDCPA because they are enforcements of a security instrument, not attempts to collect money.

    The FDCPA itself distinguishes between debt collectors and security enforcers. The FDCPA defines “debt collector” as one whose “principal business” is debt collection or “who regularly collects or attempts to collect” consumer debts. Section 1692(f)(6) of the FDCPA prohibits “taking or threatening to take any nonjudicial action” to enforce a security interest on property where (a) there is not present right to the collateral, (b) there is no present intent to exercise such rights, or (c) the property is exempt by law. For the purpose of that section only, the FDCPA’s definition of “debt collection” includes parties whose principal business is enforcing security interests.

    According to the Sixth Circuit, rather than exclude security enforcement from general debt collection, this provision should be read to extend the scope of this provision to include those whose exclusive role in the collection process is security enforcement, such as repossession firms. The Sixth Circuit thus declined to interpret this provision to exclude security enforcers whose primary purpose is debt collection or who regularly collect debts from the FDCPA.

    The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Glazer offers perhaps the most expansive interpretation of “debt collection” in a growing number of circuit opinions, including those in the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits, which are divided over whether persons foreclosing on mortgages are “debt collectors” under the FDCPA. For example, in Wilson, the Fourth Circuit case on which Glazer primarily relies, the defendant also made demands for the payment of money after the foreclosure proceeding began—which is classic debt collection. See also Blagogee v. Equity Trs., LLC, No. 1:10-CV-13 (GBL-IDD), 2010 WL 2933963, at *5-6 (E.D. Va. July 26, 2010) (distinguishing Wilson and finding that the plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to support an FDCPA claim because the defendant did not expressly demand payment).

    Distinctions From Other Cases

    Unlike Glazer, Wilson was not a case involving the enforcement of a security instrument without an attempt to collect money. This distinction is illustrated in the different results reached in three Eleventh Circuit cases involving FDCPA claims in the foreclosure context. Most recently, the Eleventh Circuit held that a demand for payment ancillary to a foreclosure proceeding is debt collection under the FDCPA. Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams, LLP, 678 F. 3d 1211, 1214 (11th Cir. 2012). Reese did not address whether a security enforcer could be a debt collector under the FDCPA. Rather, the court limited its analysis to a letter sent that contained both a demand for payment of a promissory note and a foreclosure notice. By contrast, in two separate opinions, the Eleventh Circuit has held that mortgage foreclosure is not debt collection covered by the FDCPA on the basis that under the FDCPA, security enforcers are only debt collectors for the purposes of § 1629f(6). The Eleventh Circuit reasoned that the security enforcer clause exempts the enforcement of security interests from being considered “debt collection.” See Warren v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 342 F. App’x 458 (11th Cir. 2009); Ausar-El ex rel. Small, Jr. v. BAC (Bank of America) Home Loans Servicing LP, 448 F. App’x 1 (11th Cir. 2011). These decisions are thus squarely at odds with the Sixth Circuit’s rationale and holding in Glazer.

    Significance for the Industry

    The Sixth Circuit’s ruling is significant because, among other things, the prospect of FDCPA liability may discourage law firms from engaging in mortgage foreclosure activity, requiring banks and other mortgage servicers to move some of these collection activities in-house. The potential consequences of the Sixth Circuit decision may be particularly acute when considered in conjunction with a recent decision in the Ninth Circuit, which makes clear that lawyers and other principals of firms operating as debt collectors for banks might be held personally liable under the FDCPA for the actions of their firms. Cruz v. Int’l Collection Corp., 673 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2012).

    These heightened legal risks will also come from anticipated scrutiny by the CFPB, as the agency charged with enforcing the FDCPA. The CFPB has indicated that debt collection activity is a priority area for agency examinations and investigations. In addition, the CFPB has stated, pursuant to its authority under § 1027(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act, that lawyers who pursue consumer debts are subject to its enforcement authority. If the law firm grosses more than $10 million of annual revenue, the CFPB has proposed that it also be subject to periodic examinations.

    Such legal and regulatory developments may make it infeasible, or at least very unpalatable, for a number of lawyers to continue carrying out mortgage foreclosure activities that might subject them personally or their firm to liability. If banks opt to move some of these functions in-house, they should be aware that they may become subject to FDCPA liability also if they use, for collection activities, a fictitious name or any name other than their own, which a borrower might believe is a debt collector other than the bank itself. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Doing so makes a creditor, otherwise exempt from the FDCPA, a “debt collector” under § 1692a(6), and simultaneously violates the FDCPA’s prohibition against deceptive collection practices. §1692e.

  4. I made one of those calls today where one gets someone in India and where one doesn’t like it one damn bit. To boot, the guy was an ill-mannered jagoff and I got, as one does (?), really close to giving it to him. Hanging up wouldn’t have done it for me. I did neither. Anyone ever give it to those guys? I’m just curious. Am I ‘civilized’? A coward?
    “It’s just business”?

  5. Well, marilyn, I do agree that any order made without proper jurisdiction is void and that lack of sm jurisdiction may be raised at any time whatsoever and yes, I agree – from the hip – that laches doesn’t apply. But I’m not a lawyer and I’d hazard there’s room for argument about which court had jurisdiction when those two orders were made. Maybe your arguments about who had juris is what’s gotten the courts in a tither? Sorry, I can’t help you – that’s also not my area. You might spend some dough on that procedural issue with the best procedure guy you can find – try contract law practice. There must be a way to narrow down the issue to present to someone “without drama”…….? I didn’t say it that way to be unkind. Just don’t waste your money on the irrelevant. You want a well-seasoned opinion of which court had jurisdition, looks like to me.

  6. I forgot to add something important. When a 20% or more prepayment is made on a loan, a borrower has a right to have the loan “re-forecast.”
    That means the monthly payment is reset for the remainder of the loan to fully amortize to zero at the end of its natural term (the term in years doesn’t change). It’s like this:

    Original loan was 250k. P & I = 1498.88
    Current balance after 7 years is 237k.
    Borrower pays 50k in a prepayment.
    Balance is now 187k. Remaining term is 23 years. The 187k must be reset (lowered) as to p & i for those remaining 23 years. New p & i =
    1250.74 (for 23 years).

    So, you see if the bums who accepted hamp funds took hamp funds and pre-paid 20%, say, on a loan, the borrowers payments would be
    reduced (in add’n to the principle relief). If they can’t do it,
    maybe they shouldn’t have taken the funds. There is no way that I know of to prohibit any other non-party (someone who has no contract with the trust / investors) from making a pre-payment.
    The govt could have grabbed some retired lawyers and law professors to fully review these issues. Guess that was too easy or else it was too much like work or else doing that might have ultimately made banksters actually have to use Hamp funds to modify loans.

    Please feel free to check this math (i get confused at 0’s on billions): if a bankster got 25B in HAMP funds, it could contribute 50k to 5 million loans. It could contribute 100k to 2.5 million loans. It could contribute 200k to 1.25 million loans!!!!

  7. “My $.02”

    Worth every penny of it…

  8. There are some here who really, after all this time do not understand how this all came to be. I am by no means a genius with this stuff, but it doesn’t matter whether the banks fail, the sky falls..of no importance here.

    The Federal Court is the commercial court and the place to be with UCC codes-notes. Jurisdiction also matters, in what you are asking the court to do and why. Opinions are wonderful, but in this fight you have zero chance if you cannot at least get the venue right and understand what you are fighting. IMHO

    I have a party(was a friend) who after 5 years is trying to file a breach of contract suit against MERS and Citi…just lost his case against a debt collector, trying to get all kinds of things that do not apply, lost up to the Supreme Court and continues to lack understanding why he is losing and argues the same thing over and over, even at the appeal level, DAH.

    My question to him: what contract did you have with a servicer and MERS? For cripes sake, get your ass filed in Federal Court against the original party, authority. I mean how can you win without research, understanding the system or the players, after all this time….this is no easy task…My $.02

  9. 2013 at 8:23 pm said:
    John Gault
    When I was in Federal Court I was very familiar with all the details of making and creating money. Much time has passed and i am wrapped up in a different aspect of why I am still fighting for possession of my two condos.
    It was while i was in Federal Court that a New york State Court judge signed two judgments of foreclosure without jurisdiction making those judgments void ab initio -a nullity as as if they never happened and without latches not toast like Christine says. Judge Schlesinger was brought into this case when i filed two orders to show cause why these two void ab initio judgments should not be marked vacated = however pursuant to the US Supreme Court case of Elliot v. Piersol even prior to Judge Schlesinger marking them void they are Void.
    More judges are starting to uphold the Constitution.

  10. johngault
    counterfeit money passes as good till the fraud is discovered and then its worth nothing.

    I have paid more money to the bank with a down payment , cash from my years and years of labor and hard sweat that totals far above the 5% cash the bank put up to get their loan of counterfeit money together with their tricky banking maneuvers.(of over night loans etc)

    John, the Federal Court has original jurisdiction of who can Create money pursuant to Article 1, Paragraph 10 Clause 1 o the United States Constitution.

  11. It’s an accounting principle and it is legal. How do you think they have been making trillions…all on paper.

  12. That’s a good question, Marylin. Using your money and credit to create debt; hence, skew the accounting on the books and make a profit off the debt…sounds like fractional banking to me!

  13. cite the law that allows a bank to create money there is none. just cause someone gets away with something doesn’t mean its legal. A lot of people get away with driving thru red lights.

  14. why would investors have to put in money if the bank had their own?

  15. It’s true that a bank can’t lend its credit, but I’d say the bank’s check didn’t “bounce” per se, Marilyn. It was honored, right or wrong. Someone got those funds because the wire went out (or whatever). Ii guess you’re saying the source of those funds which went out was fairy dust. Isn’t it so that debt creates “money” and that’s been going on for ages, right or wrong? If it’s been going on for ages, I doubt one homeowner – or even 1000 – sqwauking is going to be legitimized by a court taking the sqwauking seriously. This is definitely not my thang, but I think it’s interesting. If (your) debt is allowed to create money (got me), how is is the bank lending its credit and to whom exactly? Are you saying by being allowed to create money by debt, the bank is lending its credit? How about citing the language of that constitutional prohibition so I and anyone interested don’t have to go hunt? How do you know the bank didn’t have the money, btw? Didn’t they have a warehouse line or didn’t they get an overnight from the fed? People here have suggested, I think, that no one paid the fed back for those overnight loans, but I also don’t know that stuff…..

  16. from keepon’s link (levitin):

    ” PSAs frequently place restrictions on servicers’ ability to modify mortgages. Sometimes the modification is forbidden outright, sometimes only certain types of modifications are permitted, and sometimes the total number of loans that can be modified is capped (typically at 5% of the pool). Additionally, servicers are frequently required to purchase any loans they modify at par (100 cents on the dollar). This functions as an anti-modification provision. Moreover, all PSAs prohibit the servicer from undertaking any action, including many modifications, that would threaten the MBS’s pass-thru tax status.”

    jg: If a bankster takes HAMP funds and subsidizes the payments to the trust – or even prepays the hamp-funded modified amt , what is the effect, if any, of a modification of a loan in a trust?
    True, the (alleged) underlying obligation for the certificates has been changed, but does that necessarily change the servicer’s obligation to the trust such that it either impacts the contract or trust law? Is the answer to that question dependent on who owes the trust the money (the borrower or someone else)?
    If a third party, here the servicer with HAMP funds, prepays part of a securitized note, what negative impact would that have on a trust’s status? Obviously I don’t know. Is the trust actually “modified” by a third party (or anybody’s) prepayment? What about when Aunt Pat
    leaves me a bundle and I decide to prepay 100k of may loan, which I may do? How is it different if HAMP funds are used such that a (partial) prepayment could trigger repurchase?
    If the servicer doesn’t prepay and just subsidizes payments on a reduced loan with (gimme) HAMP funds, is the trust impacted (again I don’t know) or has the servicer simply taken on a new liability to the trust, and if so, isn’t that part of accepting HAMP funds? If the servicer takes on a new (key word) liability, here one to subsidize the borrower’s payments), what does this change for the trust? It wouldn’t change anything imo if someone, anyone, is already guaranteeing or otherwise owes the trust’s payments. I think.
    There may be some perceived “damage” to and by investors by pre-payment (reduces yield?), but is this insurmountable?

    I also beleive a big, big problem with modification is who owns the loan. A bankster surely wouldn’t want to either pay the wrong party or be obligated to the wrong party (though they have no problem trying to make us) because if nothing else, it could give rise to someone else’s claim for those funds – against both the servicer and the trust. Nor would they want to out someone else’s ownership.
    I would think unless the servicer first buys the loan to modify it,
    an assignment (heretofore missing) must be recorded to the trust.
    Actually, maybe one must be recorded before a servicer may even purchase it………. (consider that if you will).

    “To date, servicers have granted few significant modifications for several reasons: contractual limitations (discussed above); understaffing for the volume of modification demand; lack of properly trained personnel; fear of suit by MBS holders who believe that modifications hurt their investments; and misaligned incentives. Foreclosure is frequently more profitable to servicers than loan modification. Therefore servicers are incentivized to foreclose rather than modify loans, even if modification is in the best interest of the MBS holders and the homeowners.”

    jg: the most valid statements above imo are ‘lack of properly trained personnel’ (and here I re-assert that one must either own the loan
    or be appropriately licensed to modify one, requires a new Reg Z, etc) and that’ modification is a conflict of interest’ for numerous reasons, including a glaring one if HAMP recipients are not compelled to show an off-set for liability on their books to use those HAMP funds for their (alleged) intended purpose.

    “Further, PSAs prohibit any modification of the underlying mortgages that would changed the scheduled cashflow to a MBS holder, absent the holder’s consent.”

    jg: okay, this may address (without conclusion) a partial prepayment, which would or may impact cashflow, but imo does not address a subsidiation of a payment. Now that I think about it, though, if an investor were compensated for any loss of yield, in a word, for prepayment, he would have no injury x maybe return of investment v income on that investment(?) I suppose this is a recognizeable loss, but I don’t know. After all, the notes may be prepaid and some of those ugly suckers require nasty pre-payment penalties, which is a bonus to anyone who gets them (but see trust agreement for who gets them). Pre-payment in secn is probably not exactly simple because, for one, of the numerous tranches, the matter of who gets pre-penalty moolah, and which agreement by someone other than the note maker to distribute payments to others in tranches is detrimental to a borrower.
    Collectively, maybe we haven’t given these matters related to “modifications” enough thought or people who have aren’t talking here.

  17. i”ve. said this before and will say it many times again ——

    marilyn lane, on May 28, 2013 at 4:50 pm said:
    Subject: File No. S7-35-11
    From: marilyn h Lane
    Affiliation: concerned individualSeptember 5, 2011
    The abominable banking system that is in place today, gives a bank great incentive to foreclose on an Ultra Vires contract, as the bank demands lawful money returned for the unlawful money lent.
    By what Authority are the Banks doing this? There is no authority for doing this. This is in complete prohibition to Art 1 Para 10 Cl1 of our US Constitution.
    All of our cases with slightly different facts all stem from the same Fraud.
    The Bank did not lend you LAWFUL MONEY but the Bank intentionally wrote
    a bad check and gave it to you –to circulate as money
    I certainly did not know this kind of fraud was going on when I signed my mortgage and note. Did you?
    The Mortgagor puts up a down payment, the Mortgagor pays a lot of fees and probably paid an attorney to represent them, all in order to get this bad check
    Would a Mortgagor have put in all that money, if one knew the truth of how the Banks ran their illegal business. I bet not.
    Did anyone notify you after that big day – the Banks check bounced – of course not. When the check that the Bank wrote came back to the Bank that wrote it, the bank didnt say we only have 5% , if that much and it was not stamped insufficient funds the bank stamped it paid
    So since the Bank did not have the money sitting in the banks account when they wrote the check, what the bank gave you is their credit.
    That is exactly what is prohibited by Art. 1 Para 10 Cl 1 of the US Constitution.
    What authority gives the Bank the right to make contracts with bad checks
    Nothing- Nada.
    Lawful money is needed to make a contract valid.
    Over and Over Mortgagors gave a Bank a mortgage on their castle , in return for a Bank giving you a credit entry on their books and charging you Interest on this credit. Also illegal.
    Did the Bank give you lawful money or is that what you got, credit?
    Banks are not allowed to lend their credit- Banks are in the business to lend
    lawful money There is not a Bank charter that allows a Bank to lend their credit.
    And as we continued to make monthly payments the Bank collected more money on their fraud.
    You try writing a check when you dont have funds sitting in your account to cover it.
    You can be sure that check is coming back markedinsufficient funds You are not allowed to do it and either is a Bank.
    This scam of Ultra Vire contracts caused injury to us, the true homeowners.
    In addition the banks are laundering bad checks.
    The Banks violate Truth in Lending Laws.
    The Banks are collecting Interest on money that doesnt exist. (Lending you 5% and collecting Interest on 95% of thin air)
    And once the Bank gets their Ultra Vire contract going, they start flipping them to MERS, Securitizations , Wall Street, Title Companies etc. there is no shortage of people all wanting to get their piece of the illegal profits.

  18. from christine’s link at 4:19:
    “And, when the government was unable to respond, it turned to the assets held by citizens – their homes – and induced the abuse of mortgages as ATMs which in turn blew up in 2008.”

    I don’t know if it were induced by the government, but clearly a false economy was induced by predatory lending. One small set of people ended up with all the goodies by syphoning off (and absconding with?) any real dollars, leaving a citizenry which by and large can no longer spend or pay taxes, even at their former rates of each. There were laws in place which prohibitted predatory lending, they weren’t enforced, and no one is being held accountable, not the predators nor those charged with enforcement of those laws, which reminds me that in 2004, even the FBI warned of mortgage fraud. The real fraud or at least illegal activity was by the banksters, the ones statutorily charged with making loans only to people with a high likelihood of repayment. Well, we knew that, so nothing new except commenting on whether or not the govt had a role in the inducement, which I guess I’d give a 50 / 50. Given the banksters’ propensity on their own toward greed, it’s hard to say. It’s crapinski when some “moral hazard” is automatically assessed by a court against a homeowner who was the true victim of an illegal predatory loan. Doesn’t consider who was factually lawfully mandated to not make that loan and should bear the consequences of its failure. When the coast is clear, they’ll make those loans again. There’s nothing to stop them.

  19. npv- at least the Eropeans have style

    (im kiddin with the attitude- but they do-have style.

    agree the dollar is DUN by design traitors all of them.

  20. Poppy
    noticed Yahoo Hit with Class Action Lawsuit for Alleged E-Mail Spying,

  21. Iwantmynpv,

    Yep. And most people are still in denial. Here we are, paying salaries of dangerous clowns intent on destroying what’s left of this once-great country and China becoming increasingly more open as to its intentions. Personally, I’m not really concerned about China. I’m a lot more concerned about the megalomaniac imbeciles who run this country to the ground.

    Are people in the streets demanding the resignation of all those dangerous morons they elected? Hell no! God forbid they’d be inconvenienced with trivial things such as… taking a stand, demanding accountability or simply refusing to file and pay taxes. And in the meantime, JP Morgan is making a killing with food stamps… while the system is collapsing and 17 states couldn’t honor them this weekend because the friggin’ system was down!

    And for those who consistently blame people on food stamps for the ills of this world, i have yet to meet ONE person who ever got up one day and said: “I know what i want to do when I grow up. I want to sit on my ass, do nothing and wait for government to take care of me!”
    Never happened! People get on food stamps because the American elite reduces them to it by chipping all the jobs abroad and stealing all the money. it will come back and bite. That, no one should doubt.

  22. Some of you may find this interesting, it was in my email from an acquaintance:

    If you know of someone who has $250,000 to invest or just be able to show “proof of funds”, I know of a program where if someone deposits the $250,000 with JPMorgan Chase & Co. within about a month they can get a loan of $2,500,000 and invest in a program where the $2,500,000 will generate profits of 4-5 times their investment within about one year.

    I have just been introduced to a program where if someone comes up with $250,000 and deposits it in an escrow account with JPMorgan Chase & Co. they will be given a loan of $2,500,000 plus the return of their $250,000. They pay 5% interest on the loan and they have to pay it back over 5 years. (The way this program works is that the minimum they come up with has to be $250,000 but if they come up with any figure, they can get a loan for 10 times the amount they have so if they could come up with $1M, they could get a loan for $10M.) I can see someone starting out with $250,000 and ending up with $10,000,000 to $12,500,000 and then doing it all over again many times.

    They have to show a business plan or an executive summary of what they are going to do with the $2,500,000 to prove that they will have the ability to pay back the loan. Fortunately for me, I just happen to know of a program where if you invest $2,500,000 in a litigation funding program that revolves around buying debt or, in this case, pending lawsuits against appraisers who have done something wrong and their E&O insurance will pay anyone suing them money rather than go to court and there are enough of these cases so anyone who puts up $2,500,000 can expect to get back $10,000,000 to $12,500,000 in out of court settlements. I know about this program because I found someone who actually put up $2,500,000 and they are now in the process of getting back money from the settlements. This is an easy sell but it is going to be an easier sell for me to come up with now, not with someone who has $2,500,000 to get into the program but someone who has $250,000 to get into the program. If you check it out, the $250,000 is never ever really at risk and it is even returned to the investor from an escrow account when they get their loan for $2,500,000!

    Get back to me if you can introduce any likely candidates to me who may be interested in learning more about this program. I would work out a deal with them that when they end up putting $250,000 in a bank escrow account to get the loan of $2,500,000 and then invest the $2,500,000 in a program I would introduce them to where they would end up earning 4-5 times their investment, they would agree to pay me a small percent of what they get back from investing in my referral program. The fee would be, 2%, and if they earned $10M to $12,5M, they would pay me $200,000 to $250,000 every time the would earn money for investing $2,500,000 which could be done over and over again until the program ran out of pending lawsuits to purchase.

  23. @ Christine – kiss America’s superpower, or any power, status, which is now based purely on the USD’s reserve currency status, and the ability to fund half the US budget deficit with debt promptly monetized by the Fed, goodbye.

    America’s superpower status has not been based purely on the petro dollar / Fed since 1960. To date, our superpower status has been based strictly on the speedy ability of the Haliburton and Lockhead cronies to ship the war machine to the other parts of the globe so we can start dropping bombs, of course, doing such in the name of peace and human rights.

    Military might and fear keep the world I check. Unfortunately, the Chinese are not throwing buckets of rice and wonton soup any longer, and made in China is no longer considered sub-par at the consumer check out line.

  24. You can’t make this shit up…

    For 5 years I have told all that 2014 would mark the beginning of the end for the dollar reserve system.

    We are losing the war daily, without a single shot being fired. The American people need a President with the courage of John Fitzgerald. Anyone willing to bring on a competing currency to the federal reserve note gets my vote.

    The Chinese no longer hide the fact or their intentions of moving past dollar policy. We should give the NWO Bankers the federal reserve note and issue United States Dollars – and than peg at 177.6 – 1.

    That would set the creepy European’s straight, and keep the pork fried rice flowing. We are past mortgages – just a couple opportunists left making a buck or six.

  25. Christine ,

    I’ve been laughing at the rubes (governments , institutions , big investors) that use GS for 30 years… and so has the rest of the investment community… Why aren’t they prosecuted? Mainly because they deal with only “sophisticated” investors (that word is key) who are expected in a court of law to have done their OWN research. Secondly because the SEC spends 200x more time browsing porn than investigating anything… and Thirdly because most of the time it’s the “fleeced” investors ,, some peon in a city gov’t or whatever ,, that are in on the con ,, they’re getting something for steering all this money which isn’t theirs to the Giant Squid. Lastly most of the time the con takes many years to strangle it’s victim , by then all the details of the deal have gone murky and law enforcement has absolutely zero interest in the case… leaving the con in place because the vic hasn’t got the enormous resources to fight an uphill battle.

  26. @johngault

    Jeff Barnes:

  27. I strongly suggest that everyone read this article in its entirety. What i have been predicting all along (and getting serious flack for from hard core reactionaries) is slowly and surely taking place.

    China’s Official Press Agency Calls For New Reserve Currency, And New World Order

    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/13/2013 14:32 -0400

    We assume it is a coincidence that on the day in which we demonstrate China’s relentless appetite for gold, driven by what we and many others believe is the country’s desire to have a call option on a gold-backed reserve currency when the time comes, just posted in China’s official press agency, Xinhua, is an op-ed by writer Liu Chang in which he decries the “US fiscal failure which warrants a de-Americanized world” and flatly states that the world should consider a new reserve currency “that is to be created to replace the dominant U.S. dollar, so that the international community could permanently stay away from the spillover of the intensifying domestic political turmoil in the United States.”

    Of course, if China were serious, [which it is] and if the world were to voluntarily engage in such a (r)evolutionary reserve currency transition [which it is too], then all Magic Money Tree theories that the only thing better than near infinite debt is beyond infinite debt, would promptly be relegated to the historic dust heap of idiotic theories where they belong.

    Some of China’s (which as a reminder is the single largest offshore holder of US Treasury paper, and the second largest of all only second naturally to the Federal Reserve whose $85 billion in monthly monetizing “flow” is what is keeping rates from exploding higher) thoughts as captured in the Xinhua Op-ed:

    Reform of the world’s financial system should include the introduction of a new internatonal reserve currency to replace the U.S. dollar
    The international community could thus permanently stay away from the spillover of intensifying domestic political turmoil in the U.S.
    Fiscal impasse in the U.S. is a good time for “befuddled world” to start considering building a “de-Americanized world” [currently in the works]
    Impasse has left many nations’ dollar assets in jeopardy and the international community agonized
    Other cornerstones should be laid to underpin a de-Americanized world, including respect for sovereignty, recognizing authority of UN in handling global hotspot issues and giving developing and emerging market economies more say in major international financial institutions
    Purpose of such changes is not to “completely toss the United States aside,” rather to encourage Washington to play a much more constructive role in addressing global affairs

    Of course, if and when the day comes that the USD is no longer the reserve currency [coming up as we speak, and faster than anyone wants to consider it], kiss America’s superpower, or any power, status, which is now based purely on the USD’s reserve currency status, and the ability to fund half the US budget deficit with debt promptly monetized by the Fed, goodbye.

    Finally, as a reminder…

  28. Neider,

    Since it is all completely out in the open, what are we waiting for? What’s the hold? Why is it taking so long to close in on all of them? I don’t get it!

    And why aren’t people more pissed? The more time goes by and the fewer excuses they have for not taking action. Is this some kind of collective suicide by the American people? Is everyone brainwashed to his last cell?

  29. @Christine ,

    re: GS and conflicts of interest…


    Everyone KNOWS that GS only has their customers best interests at heart and the would never trade a customers account differently than their own.


  30. “Just a quick reminder. When the Federal Reserve was born, the long-dated asset (the 30 year Treasury) was meant to serve as a stabilizing economic keel for the economic ship called the United States. In its first maturity cycle, we entered the Second World War masking illiquidity with massive wartime consumption. In its second maturity cycle, we had the combined suspension of the Bretton Woods gold standard and Congress and the White House paved the way for foreign governments – including the Communist People’s Republic of China – to purchase our debt and call it an “asset”. In the third turning, we had a string of atrocities in September of 2001 which distracted the nation from the grave statements made by the Bush Administration regarding “trillions” of dollars of fiscal holes in the coffers of the country. And, when the government was unable to respond, it turned to the assets held by citizens – their homes – and induced the abuse of mortgages as ATMs which in turn blew up in 2008. The “monetary system” that we extoll as our succor has, in fact, never completed a full cycle without war or manipulated intervention and has never stood on the full faith and confidence of American productivity. Rather it has relied on propaganda and inducement of foreign interests to be buoyed as the most tolerable illusion. –

    See more at:

    When 1/10 people have read or heard it, we will be in a position to effect change. We’re getting there…

  31. Lawsuit: New York Fed Examiner Fired for Goldman Sachs Findings
    Sunday, October 13, 2013 9:17

    A former senior examiner at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York filed a wrongful-termination lawsuit against the bank. Carmen Segarra, a lawyer who spent seven months examining the Legal and Compliance Division of Goldman Sachs, found that the Wall Street bank did not have policies in place to prevent conflicts of interest as required by government regulations. When Segarra brought this information to light, she says she was pressured by New York Fed officials who oversee the Fed’s relationship with Goldman Sachs to change her findings, and, when she refused, she says she was fired. RT’s Ameera David has more details on Segarra’s lawsuit.

  32. Have people here been aware of NIMS? Have people here been aware that servicer fees go from a range of .25 to .375 to .625 when
    teaser rates adjust to the true note rate (say libor plus some heinous
    margin like 6%)? Have people known that a default servicer is one who takes over servicing a loan which has been removed from a pool (that’s what I think I’m getting just now, anyway). I’m just curious since I didn’t know these things til recently and no one I might expect to know has brought this stuff up, for whatever it might be worth.
    Has everyone who understands what closes down a pool and the
    “then what” (something I don’t yet understand) left the building?!

  33. “Catherine Austin Fitts: I would say so far the Fed’s policies have worked for what they’re intended to do. We’ve moved a tremendous amount of money out of the economy. We’ve now basically run through the statute of limitations or done whatever management needed to cut the cords so that what I call the legacy systems can’t get the money back. So the financial coup d’état has been successful and now the cover-up is pretty much over and successful.

    So now you have big decisions. You have two economies. Before this started what I call the legacy systems had $100 trillion of liabilities and $100 trillion of assets – now, I’m just pulling those numbers out of the air – and the coup moved $40 trillion of assets over into NewCo, if you will. Now we’ve got the legacy systems trying to reconcile $60 trillion of assets to $100 trillion of liabilities and there is a long, drawn-out, grinding process by which some people will get 50 cents on the dollar, some people will get zero cents on the dollar, some people will get 100 cents on the dollar. It’s just a very difficult, complex and tangled political scene as to how that’s going to all happen. Meantime, NewCo, with $40 trillion dollars, is investing and going gangbusters. NewCo is enjoying an unprecedented boom, investing in lots of new technology and new frontiers, including space. So I think the next step is to manage the lowering of expectations in the legacy systems. That’s basically what the administration and the Fed are going to be doing for the next couple years, is just gutting their way through retirees’ disappointment.”

    – See more at:

    If she’s right, don’t expect any prosecution, any change, anything other than a greater leveling down. I sure as hell hope she’s dead wrong…

  34. NBC/WSJ poll: 60 percent say fire every member of Congress

    By Domenico Montanaro
    Deputy Political Editor, NBC News

    Throw the bums out.

    That’s the message 60 percent of Americans are sending to Washington in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, saying if they had the chance to vote to defeat and replace every single member of Congress, including their own representative, they would. Just 35 percent say they would not.

    According to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, the shutdown has been a political disaster. One in three say the shutdown has directly impacted their lives, and 65 percent say the shutdown is doing quite a bit of harm to the economy. NBC’s Chuck Todd reports.

    The 60 percent figure is the highest-ever in that question recorded in the poll, registered in the wake of the government shutdown and threat of the U.S. defaulting on its debt for the first time in history. If the nation’s debt limit is not increased one week from now, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew warns that the entire global economy could be in peril.

  35. “Fees and Expenses

    Before payments are made on the certificates, the related servicer will be paid a monthly fee…”

    For approximately 22.04% of the Mortgage Loans and approximately 67.49% of the Mortgage Loans in pool 1, at the end of the fixed period for such Mortgage Loans that are Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loans…
    the monthly fee will change from 0.250% per annum to 0.375% per

    The master servicer will receive as compensation the investment income on funds held in the collection account. The trustee will receive as compensation the investment income on funds held in the certificate account.

    Expenses of the servicers, the custodians and the master servicer will be reimbursed before payments are made on the certificates. Expenses of the trustee will be reimbursed up to a specified amount annually before payments are made on the certificates”.

  36. from a prospectus:

    “Ginnie Mae Certificates
    The Ginnie Mae certificates will be “fully modified pass-through”
    mortgage-backed certificates issued and serviced by Ginnie Mae-approved issuers of Ginnie Mae certificates (the “Ginnie Mae Servicers”) under the Ginnie Mae I and/or the Ginnie Mae II program. The full and timely payment of principal of and interest on the Ginnie Mae certificates is guaranteed by Ginnie Mae, which
    obligation is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of
    The Ginnie Mae certificates will be based on and backed by a pool of eligible mortgage loans and will provide for the payment by or on behalf of the Ginnie Mae Servicer to the registered holder of the Ginnie Mae certificate of monthly payments of principal and interest equal to the aggregated amount of the monthly constant principal and interest payments on each mortgage loan, less servicing and guarantee fees aggregating the excess of the interest on the mortgage loans over the Ginnie Mae certificate’s pass-through rate. Each repayment to a holder of a Ginnie Mae certificate will include pass-through payments of any prepayments of principal of the mortgage loans underlying the Ginnie Mae certificate and the remaining principal balance in the event of a
    foreclosure or other disposition of a mortgage loan.

    The Ginnie Mae certificates do not constitute a liability of, or evidence any recourse against, the Ginnie Mae Servicer, the depositor or any affiliate of the depositor, and the only recourse of a registered holder, such as the trustee or its nominee, is to enforce the guarantee of Ginnie Mae.”


    and giving the “lender” your keys.
    This looks like good info for those in CA about deficiency judgments.
    (It doesn’t address a statute, if any, in CA which itself would address what a 2nd lien holder must do to protect its junior interest against a f/c by the owner of the 1st, i.e., must a holder of a 2nd cure the first?)

  38. UKG,

    I too laughed my heart out ’till I read the rest of the article. It is not a straight $380 million loss. it is a loss only compared to the same time last year. It is a “projected” loss.

    So, it kinda means very little in and of itself.

  39. usedkarguy, anyone: Payment of the debt releases the coll instrument as a matter of law.
    **What I need to know is if that’s also true – the coll instrument is toast when a lender writes off the debt.**

    If a bankster got a “death-benefit”, my new phrase for compensation for a loan in default in which it held the interest, the security interest would be toast by that, also, but maybe only if the death benefit
    paid off the note entirely. If they further rigged the game by leaving
    some thousands still outstanding, that’s pretty cold because the coll
    instrument would still be alive and kicking. I think. But I don’t know that much about cds’s. Is it that they pay when an entire pool is declared in default? What do they pay?
    I’m still astounded, and not in a good way, at the acts of AIG in 1) insuring loans and 2) providing software to banksters so banksters could do it themselves. AIG, on info and belief, is currently the subject of one of those billion dollar-admit-no-guilt-and-stay-out-of-jail civil fines. **
    Did banksters non-deliver to have insurable interests, were they just bets (not “supposed” to be with an AIG), do we actually know for a fact?
    Why would B accept a bet from a party with no skin in the game? Why would D be a counter-party to a bet by a party with no skin in the game? The only reason I can think of is because I get guaranteed a big fat salary and bonuses and also because I’m further covering my own tail incognito by buying puts on my company’s stock and puts at the idiot counter-parties, also, (and if anyone interferes with my puts, I’m gonna do something ELSE to move the market myself, like maybe a “wrong key-stroke”). Can anyone imagine the value of puts on
    AIG, say?

  40. Humor me and say that one party, B, who paid for a note from “A” but the note wasn’t transferred has a security interest in the note and it’s collateral.
    Is the note’s servicer a debt collector if he goes after the maker?
    Ordinarily a mortgage loan servicer is not, it appears, but here that’s a trick question imo, because in that state, the note is enforceable against its maker by no one. Not by A for lack of 1) interest in the note and 2) injury, and not by B for failure of the transfer. That’s absurd, one might say. The note has to be enforceable by someone. Not really. Parties are free to enter into binding agreements and people are entitled to rely on the law, as well, but that same law, in addition to prescribing remedies for breach, also prescribes consequences for
    poor planning and bad acts: the guy who caused the loss must bear it (even if it results in a windfall for another). And on that note, I’ll say it’s my understanding that in the agreement, the secn trustee disclaimed any duty to do jack as far as the loans and their delivery, which imo is an unconscionable, unenforceable provision, since it left no one to
    stand for the trust beneficiaries’ interests. Both the secn trustee and the party charged with the actual transfer and delivery stand liable to the investors imo but that’s an acknowledgment the gov’t wants to avoid in favor of “morally-hazardous” windfalls to homeowners.

    B must compel transfer or demand his moolah back. And in that state, for whom is the servicer servicing? The guy who was paid for the note but still has it – or the guy who paid for it but doesn’t have it? I think in the absence of a contractual agreement, a court would find in favor of B, but B’s problem here (and so the servicer’s) is that this particular B may not accept a post-cut off transfer. What B may have had at the time of the closing date was security interests. Can these trusts convert a security interest to ownership post-cut-off?** If they can’t, then the servicer may not be the servicer who may avoid being deemed a debt collector, because even then, the question remains: for whom? (If the trust acquires only security interests, isn’t the seller still the note-owner, albeit one with no enforcement rights against the note-maker as described above? But may such a note-owner be described as the “creditor”? Doesn’t seem like it, since it has no right to payments since it was paid for the note) I hope attorneys involved with homeowners either know these answers or find them.
    these are lay opinions made for discussion

    Even if a trust could, why would anyone do that since doing so could impede his $$$$ claim against the note-seller for the face amt of the note at the time of his payment for it?

  41. I have thought that too, john, but most of these guys collect more than mortgage debt. The universal disclaimer does not offer them the ability to commit fraud, forgery, and perjury with immunity. These are the actual issues we’re confronting now.

  42. okay, usedkarguy, I guess then the question is what is being said (admitted) when a dunner by any other name identifies itself as a debt collector. Why do some (alleged) servicers, who on one hand alleged to be acting for the (alleged) creditor yet identify themselves as collection agents? (Pretty sure the id as a debt collector is statutory for debt collectors). Seems to me they don’t get it both ways. Isn’t their own identification of themselves as debt collectors prima facie evidence
    of SOMEthing – that the debt in dispute is in fact now contained in a controversy having nothing to do with a “creditor/kender”? I’ve posited (because case law says so) that when a debt is paid, its collateral is 86’d as a matter of law. When people here say a debt is unsecured when it’s being sought by a coll agent, is it that it’s because the debt was written off by the creditor and all that remains is whatever the heck, but one way or another unsecured? If that’s the case, hmmmm…
    hmmm certainly in any state which has a “security first” law (if the dot doesn’t just plain say that), because that security first law requires a lender to first exhaust the security before going after the borrower’s other assets (and generally, even this – deficiency – may only be done in one-action for judicial foreclosure). In other words, I think I’m saying that any schmoe who has id’d itself as a debt collector has no security for its purchased bad debt and can’t try foreclosure. This security first law, for anyone interested, was legislated for the benefit of borrowers:
    “you can take my home, but not my gold bullion or my Ameritrade account, etc.” Well, they can where deficiencies are allowed, but only after realizing what satisfaction is available out of the home and getting deficiency judgment for the balance.

    This makes me wonder how many criminals are in fact debt collectors
    not identifying themselves as debt collectors. Who is a debt collector?
    (A creditor’s agent (on a debt not written off)? No, I’d say not.)

    “Regarding the second element, a “debt collector” under the FDCPA is either (1) “a person” the “principal purpose” of whose business is the collection of debts; or (2) “a person” who “regularly” collects debts on behalf of others. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). “[A]s a matter of law a `debt collector’ under the FDCPA cannot be a consumer’s creditor.” Rispoli v. Bank of America, No. C11-362RAJ, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85053, at *7, 2011 WL 3204725 (W.D. Wash. July 1, 2011)”

    Imo, when MERS foreclosed in its name, it was acting as an unlicensed debt collector. It wasn’t the creditor and it wasn’t the loan servicer, either. Being named nominal ben doesn’t change either of those imo. Apparently, they thought otherwise.
    If I’m right and trusts can’t foreclose (well, can’t own a new asset), long and short, then the relationship between a trust and a servicer can’t be one of agency, since the act of an agent is the act of the principal.
    Without the ‘secn factor’ and REMIC trusts, the servicer COULD be the agent of the creditor for foreclosure purposes.
    So I’m wondering what the heck relationship could exist between a party and the trust which would allow that party to foreclose (by credit bid and take title), not create an agency, and yet also not require disclosure of itself as a debt collector requiring 1) disclosure and 2) appropriate licensing.

    Remember when dot trustees were trying to sell the lien (which is not contractually or statutorily authorized)? We thought it was
    about the clouds on title. Maybe there were other reasons….

  43. gault, if they are collecting on a mortgage, directly, they’re not debt collectors. If they’re coming after a deficiency, a defaulted unsecured account, or any other type of third-party debt collection, they are not exempt.
    check local laws.


    ha, ha,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,ha, ha,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,ha, ha,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,ha, ha,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,

  45. As I recall, mortgage loan servicers are exempt from the fdcpa (right? My memory leaves the bldg at will these days)
    Is this because they aren’t considered debt collectors – or – is it because as debt collectors, they’re exempt? I think it’s important to know that answer. If it’s the former, and a svcr (or other bankster or bankster-related enterprise) identifies itself as a debt collector, what might this change in relation to the fdcpa? Anyone?

  46. Since when are government agencies routinely engaged in settling criminal acts perped against the citizenry, absolving, no, actually endorsing these same industries that are regularly and repeatedly engaged in these criminal acts? How is it at all possible, or believable, that a consortium of AG’s or any other so-called regulators can step between the criminal and the victim, and run away with all the proceeds of a settlement? Shouldn’t that be a crime in itself?

    It’s kinda’ like from the movie Jaws, when Roy Scheider says, after witnessing the massive size of the shark, “You’re going to need a bigger boat!”

    We’re going to need plenty of lampposts.

  47. “What could work however is to force repatriation of the banks wealth from the Caymens and such by imposing a 100% tax on any funds not repatriated within 6 months…”

    While theoretically possible….have you noticed that we’re going in the complete opposite direction across the board?

    Have you seen what the supreme court is up to (with a nearly total silent MSM) in McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission? Election donations (bribes) up from $123K to $3.5M per individual. And Scalia remarks, “I don’t think $3.5 million dollars is a lot of money.” Which leads me to believe that 20’ isn’t high for lampposts, for some.

    The Salon piece that Neil points too….starts to reveal the ugly truth going on with the direct pipeline loop between NY and DC, and back again. Behind their masks they’re all the same people. DC gives free money to the banks, or gives it to them through purchases of garbage loans, then with lots of war paint and a pretend coup de grace, they claw a little back in the occasional regulatory fine. And we’re left out of the loop entirely, with most of the populace simply trusting that our government is doing the right thing. And the noose tightens on the wrong group.

    Before the USSR’s demise, they had a saying that referenced the fact that in their communistic view of the people and the state, everything was a faux relationship, demonstrated aptly by their phrase, “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.” All society toiled for the communist state, doing very little in actuality, while at the same time, the pay was barely enough to keep up the charade, or, in fact, the country as a whole. That’s exactly the state America finds itself in, with these bogus regulatory agency fines and the pretend angst from the bankers, while America slides further off the cliff.

    We, the citizenry, continue getting raped around every bend, and they pretend to do something about it, however, we receive zero rewards from the atrocities. Something always present in these programs (or in bankruptcy) is the establishment and funding of “Financial Literacy Programs”, as if the problem lies in our ignorance. There’s never any mention of the widespread criminality that caused each and every one of the problems being paraded through the streets. Shouldn’t there be a “Financial Institution Criminal Prosecution Program” attached to these fines? It’s all really bad summer stock theater, where the actors yell their lines so that they can be heard at the very back of the venue over the clatter of salad forks and coughing patrons. And we dine on.

    We are so easily duped, time and time again. We need a nationwide, grass roots effort at GPS’ing the exact locations of all easily accessible lampposts. If for no other purpose than putting responsibility (and fear) back in representative politics.

  48. @ Christine 6:25p

    The “FED” as you know is a private consortium of banks ,, not a federal agency , the US Gov’t has no official control over it’s actions … that said of course it listens to and follows orders from the fedgov. but ordering a private non-gov’t bank to discard $2t of “money” owed it is never going to happen… and the fedgov would never ask for that as it would be throwing away the figleaf that the $80B/month to the banks isn’t just naked theft from the American people in the form of forced inflation and anyone throughout the world that owns US Treasury debt ,, and removing the payback makes it plausible that the amount “lent” to the banks could increase to any amount ,, $800B … $8T/month?? why not?

    I don’t want to have to pay $2billion for a postage stamp.

    That “free energy” video post was funny.. hope you understand there is no such thing..

    What could work however is to force repatriation of the banks wealth from the Caymens and such by imposing a 100% tax on any funds not repatriated within 6 months… and reducing the corp tax rate on repatriated funds from ~40% down to something more reasonable ,, maybe 15==>20%

  49. @ justme and Chris

    Was that little ditty – a take from Greens Eggs & ham?

    I would not like an attorney here or there…
    I would not like them anywhere.

    I would not like them with me in Court…
    I would not like them to defend my fort…

    I would not like them to support my feat…
    I prefer my kids shit out on the street.

    You get it

  50. all—we need some help—the banks’ attorneys have gone nuts in last two days in writing letters to the CA supreme court to get the Glaski case decertified. the letters are due in there by Monday Oct. 14th.

    we need more attorneys and folks to write letters in support of keeping Glaski certified for publication

    this is critical

    I hope you can all help and contact every attorney you know to assist.

    here are a couple to use as templates and you can see the gist of the last letter as to written by the bank to depublish the decision

  51. Users can now search by country in the ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database
    By Margot Williams
    October 11, 2013, 2:30 pm

    Today ICIJ added a country search to help online researchers explore the secretive world of more than 100,000 offshore companies and trusts in the publically available ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database. The new country filter provides a way to narrow searches to more than 170 countries and territories named within addresses in the database.

    Something to do for when it gets cold and dark out. Transparency is good. I haven’t gotten to John Kerry yet but working my way through.

  52. An idea whose time has come…

    Ending the debt limit crisis: Dear Ben Bernanke
    By Alan Grayson
    October 9, 2013

    With this crisis, America is risking financial Armageddon. The default of Lehman Brothers on its $613 billion of debt ignited a chain reaction in the financial system, nearly destroying the U.S. economy. A default by the U.S. government on $17 trillion of debt — debt that has been considered the safest in the world — could be far worse.

    But at heart, this is not a debt problem. It is an accounting problem. The Treasury Department issues U.S. debt, and lots of it. So you would think that America is deeply indebted to its bondholders. Yet increasingly, it is the U.S. monetary authority, the Federal Reserve, and not private investors, who buys this debt.

    So a simple solution to the impasse is as follows: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should simply cancel the Treasury debt that it owns. The government can just forgive the government’s debt.

    This wouldn’t solve the debt problem entirely. The Federal Reserve doesn’t own all U.S. government debt; it owns only roughly $2 trillion of it. (Well $2,076,927,000,000.00, as of last Wednesday, but who’s counting?)

    Yet canceling this debt would give the government substantial room under the debt ceiling to manage its finances. It would end the debt ceiling standoff in Congress, and it would prevent a default.

  53. If you put your private details in a ‘timeline’ so only your friends can see it, and the privacy is removed by the owner and controller of the app (they own and control and charge no fee to use it, so everything you give them in the app, belongs to them)., then if someone searches it for a particular time frame, say you called in sick but posted pics while you were on a quick duration trip, or you didn’t go to your sister’s wedding saying you had to work, but she pokes in your timeline and find out you ditched her wedding to go out on a blind date, or any number of reasons people lie to others but post their details in the public.

    Well the truth shall set you free.

    The app is removing the protections and your employer who doesn’t have to be your ‘friend’ can find out if all your sick days were posted online showing you doing something else, or if your “I got sick on vacation” moment is true when you are posting parasailing photos on the days you were sick on vacation.

    Or what about those, ‘so and so’ posted from this location, when you are supposed to be at a convention and your post is from a cell tower near hotel at a beach.

    We want to open pandora’s box of government, banks, servicer, and more. Now pandora’s box is opened even more. By their own words, people will find out that their credit card company will find out what they spent the credit on, and people will find out more about you than you ever wanted them to know, including your job or life/home/auto insurance company

    You can tell anyone something is a trap and if they don’t see the trap they step right in it and act like the trap doesn’t exist.

    The trap had a timing delay before it tripped and now is the time.
    What are the intended consequences for those that didn’t heed the warning?

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Life, People, State, Independent, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino.

  54. That’s what happens when research is backed by government and government listens to the people. Tough break for US drillers. Monsanto out. Fracking out. Nuclear on its way out. Speeding up… worldwide. Except here.

    France’s Ban On Fracking Is ‘Absolute’
    Friday, October 11, 2013 11:24

    France’s ban on fracking was finally completed Friday, as its constitutional court upheld a 2011 law prohibiting the practice and canceling all exploration permits. The decision posted on the court’s website said the ban “conforms to the constitution” and is not “disproportionate,” effectively protecting it from any future legal challenge.

    U.S. driller Schuepbach Energy brought its complaint to the court after two of its exploration permits were revoked due to the ban. Schuepbach attempted to argue that since no study had established fracking risks, there was no cause for the ban, and that since fracking isn’t banned for geothermal energy projects, it was unfair. The court didn’t find that convincing, citing the differences between geothermal and shale gas exploration.

    Environment Minister Philippe Martin framed the decision as a victory in the larger effort to limit fossil fuels and carbon emissions. “Beyond the question of fracking, shale gas is a carbon emitter,” he said in a statement. “We must set our priorities on renewable energies.”

    And that’s not just talk. France has ambitious goals for a low-carbon future and is currently considering a tax on carbon emissions and a nuclear tax. Revenue would go to renewables and energy efficiency standards. France plans to cut fossil fuel use by 30 percent by 2030, at the same time that it de-emphasizes the nuclear power that provides three quarters of the nation’s energy.

    “It’s a judicial victory but also an environmental and political victory,” Martin said. “With this decision the ban on hydraulic fracturing is absolute.”

    The post France’s Ban On Fracking Is ‘Absolute’ appeared first on ThinkProgress.

  55. JPMorgan Chase Reports $380 Million Loss As Legal Costs Jump

    Reuters | Posted: 10/11/2013 7:18 am EDT | Updated: 10/11/2013 11:02 am EDT

    (Reuters) – JPMorgan Chase & Co , the biggest U.S. bank by assets, reported a rare quarterly loss after incurring $9.2 billion in legal expenses, including money set aside for future settlements.

  56. record the *modification*

  57. and the servicer vp of the mod which brought in MERS – there was two sig’s needed – vp of servicer, and sig of vp of MERS. she signed both pages. Kicker of it – Indecomm was hired to record the note — they were hired by some broker (dont remember name as of now)- but this mysterious broker had my loan- not the servicer. And this came straight from Indecomm. They hired NREIS who hired a traveling notary for the mod. The servicer had nothing to do with the mod- the”true & certified” copy they produced- different notaries and it was dated a month AFTER it was even recorded- which was years end- do the mod they brought was dated 2011.
    funny, I made it in 2010.? golllyyyyyyyy geeee whiz funny how that happens :}

  58. johngault,
    I’ll bite and step in and say, yes MERs owns nothing but someone was claiming ownership of that land making us tenants before MERs was created. Was it IMF and it’s owners? Was it World Bank and it’s owners? So the Secretary of the Treasury is a governer(?) of the IMF and does not work for the United States? (I forget what condition would make that Secretary of the Treasury work for our benefit). So the corporate veil is hard to pierce because there are so many layers.

    How do you take back something that someone else has taken from you through force, fraud, or coercion? Well if you work within their system, you create a corporation to put all their goodies under the same umbrella and they get so happy because they have so many goodies, and then you botch the transfers within the corporation so bad that no one knows if anything in there should be in there or out of there, and anything out of there should be in there and now the one with all the ‘goodies’ can’t even find the docs to prove they are the real party owning it all.

    Then it reverts back to the people (in general). So each people owned a marble, and all the marbles got pulled into the same jar. when the ownership is so mish mashed that you can’t tell who had when and when they got it and if their proof is legitimate proof because everything in place to prove someone owned the marbles has been destroyed,; when the jar of marbles is poured out everyone gets a marble but not necessarily their marble.

    We are only so many years old. None of us are 200 years or older. This ownership thing was put in place before we were born, and we don’t see how it was working against us. Someone on both sides of that transaction knows the true history.

    If per chance everything we thought was ours was our use of something someone else claimed, then it would benefit us if the ‘thing’ is taken from the someone else (unfortunately it’s taken from us too), and collected back to it’s original unowned state (notice no new titles issued, no promises of titles as before, and no title insurance) and when everything is taken back then the people will have true use of their property.

    Right now, the actions of an HOA let me know that even if I owned the home, it’s still not mine when they can fine me for not doing what they want me to do and they aren’t even a government! and then take my property if I don’t pay their feudal penalty. Even worse, I could not own the property (ie rent/be a tenant) unless I agreed to let them govern me while I lived there.

    That’s a big clue we were lied to about true ownership. If you own something and you pay for it, no one, no one should be able to take it away from you unless you both agreed that you had to perform some action and if you didn’t, they (specifically them) can have the home and that was with a full meeting of the minds and not being incompetent to enter into such a contract of your free will, when the decision was being made.

    Would seem with the return of ‘people’ and not ‘persons’ which all statutes, codes, provisions, public law, acts, orders, etc are made for persons; that people will be able to rule by strength (no killing and hurting but by the the strength of our character, and our ability to step out of the box and analyze a situation from more than one angle. Yes your mortgage or Deed of Trust identified you as a person, a single person, married persons, if it went so far as to indicate a single man or single woman it still legally means person.
    The document is a legal document they enforce legal documents in court, they used legal terms.
    etymonline definition of ‘democracy’

    from demos “common people,”
    + kratos “rule, strength”

    also from

    Democracy implies that the man must take the responsibility for choosing his rulers and representatives, and for the maintenance of his own ‘rights’ against the possible and probable encroachments of the government which he has sanctioned to act for him in public matters. [Ezra Pound, “ABC of Economics,” 1933]
    Getting rid of the harmful familiar can feel more painful than living as a slave within the confines of the harmful familiar. When the pain of letting go, goes away, true living can begin.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Life, People, State, Independent, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino.

  59. My experience with MERS has been a really odd one.1. got loan. 2. same day assigned to servicer. ( the servicer and the loan closing papers I got that,one did notify us the “servicing rights, that is, the right to collect payments from you” were being sold, assigned, or transferred- and “will not affect any other terms and conditions of the mortgage instruments other than the servicing rights themselves” this was in the welcome letter from the servicer as well- so I dont know how they turned into the “lender” when both parties knew they would service the payments- nothing else- …( quick question too, they did not send us our payment coupon until 3 days after it was due so it was late- they bought it in default, – debt collector- how does that pan out in the F/C mess? when the servicer is none other than a DC? )ANYWHO- (yyeahh coffeeeeee)
    We got a terrible mod in `10. It turned the servicer in to the “lender” and MERS in to the mortgagee as of record etc…there is NO nuthin recorded anywhere to MERS, from MERS- well I want that chain! assmt to MERS, and the assmt back to the servicer! I called MERS. Talked to a Steve, nice guy. He worked with me and said my loan is absolutely not a MERS loan. The min # on the mod -MIN:000000000000000000.
    Thats it. Steve got in touch with my servicer to clarify why they have recorded my mod with MERS as nominee.mortgagee…..they wrote back a letter stating, “unfortunately, we used the wrong form” ….whaaat?! Sure, little blip there. Maybe they used the wrong borrower, too.
    In my case- MERS was being used – not the was it was designed to be- they were saying it was MERS, saying it was recorded as MERS and I know WHY.
    Because it gave them the ability to NOT ENDORSE THE NOTE IN BLANK when they pooled it. It’s supposto be pooled, they said it was, but MERS keeps track of transfers, not them, so …psh! They USED MERS to hide the Note keeping it from being endorsed in blank. But I busted them by going directly to MERS and asking them to contact the servicer, asking why are using MERS when it just wasn’t so. Honestly- I was expecting to see a made up assmt to MERS and then one back…nope. MERS was used to save $$ from recording fees,and allow for the notes to be pooled and sold, and pooled and sold but never really endorsed on each sale. My servicer used the theory of MERS but used it to keep the note that was endorsed to THEM. (which came from who knows where) Nifty, eh. Pool it, but keep it in your name, swift.

  60. If anyone cares to, you might “try on” my theory of why MERS was created (actually, there were numerous reasons): to deal with default for a structure which couldn’t, nor could its agent. Why not have someone else, some other non-agent do it? Well, there are probably lots of reasons, but one easily identified is that “MERS” is bullet-proof, apparently owning exactly Nothing (but, Bull, it isn’t impossible to pierce a corporate veil. Course, since you know this, you probably don’t own anything, either).
    The reason I’m suggesting (okay, actually it’s a request) one try on my impressions is to see what else starts to stack up.

    MERS has to go. I see absolutely no reason MERS isn’t liable for every single robo-signed document executed in its name. Why the sam hell the guns weren’t and aren’t aimed at MERS over that baloney, I’m afraid (literally) I’ll never know.
    Did I get it right that LPS was ostracized and then when the coast was clear, they were once again a favorite child?!

  61. okay, just me. Ftr, I know the frustration of which you speak and man I hate it when that happens!

  62. Yeah for our truckers. Way to go, fight for our Constitution

    Anyone listening to Christine’s dumb idea of fighting to get a mod for the origination fraud – the purpose being to get one’s signature on a new contract will only get you deeper into the banksters clutches.

    I am as right today as I was many ions ago about creation of money issue and I sure don.t plan to stop fighting for my two condos. This is
    a a right and a country worth fighting for.

    The first Bank of the US and the 2nd Bank of the US went under AND America went on. we will go on. We just have to change our banking system and some politicians .

  63. Let the fun begin! And yes, it is on topic. Everything is on topic nowadays. people are (finally) getting fed up and ready to take action.

    Truckers for the Constitution to shut down D.C. roads, arrest violators of oath of office

    Wednesday, October 09, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes

    (NaturalNews) The rumbling sound that will be heard around the
    nation’s capital in a few weeks could be one of the most terrifying
    heard in Washington, D.C., in quite some time, for it will represent
    more than just another angry American demographic. It will represent the very lifeblood of our nation, for without them, commerce all but stops.

    Hence the movement “Truckers for the Constitution,” an ad hoc
    assembly of ticked-off truckers who are fed up with the shenanigans in Congress and the White House. And they aim to make their voices – and their trucks – heard.

    According to US News & World Report:

    Tractor-trailer drivers will intentionally clog the inner loop of the
    Washington, D.C., beltway beginning on the morning of Oct. 11,
    according to a coordinator of the upcoming “Truckers Ride for the
    Constitution” rally.

    Organizers of the three-day ride want to call attention to a litany
    of trucker frustrations and express their disapproval of national
    political leaders.

    Georgia trucker Earl Conlon, who is currently handling the logistics
    for the protest, told U.S. News that drivers plan to circle the
    Beltway “three lanes deep,” and that he and other truckers are riding to Congress to seek the arrest of congressmen for violations of the Constitution.

    ‘It’s going to be real fun for anyone who is not a supporter’

    He said truckers circling the Beltway, which is formally known as
    I-495, will keep the far left lane open for emergency vehicles but
    “everybody that doesn’t have a supporter sticker on their window, good luck: Nobody in, nobody out.” He said the trucks plan to adhere to the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit.

    Commuters to the capital who want to be allowed to pass must have
    “T2SDA” written on their vehicle, said Conlon. That stands for the
    event’s original name: “Truckers to Shut Down America.”

    “It’s going to be real fun for anyone who is not a supporter,” Conlon
    said. “If cops decide to give us a hard time, we’re going to lock the
    brakes up, we’re going to stop right there, we’re going to be a three
    lane roadblock.”

    Which, at that point, would amount to instant gridlock, with no hope
    of a quick solution to clear the highways.

    Former country music singer Zeeda Andrews is helping to promote the protest. The singer said recently that participants are planning to present demands to lawmakers – which will include impeaching President Obama – and will give congressmen the opportunity to agree to their demands in exchange for ending the ride.

    However, Conlon said, that wasn’t quite accurate.

    “We are not going to ask for impeachment,” Conlon said. “We are
    coming whether they like it or not. We’re not asking for impeachment, we’re asking for the arrest of everyone in government who has violated their oath of office.”

    He hit on the idea of a citizens’ grand jury, of sorts – a pool of
    jurors convened without court approval – as the preferred method of indicting elected officials.

    “We want these people arrested, and we’re coming in with the grand jury to do it,” said Conlon. “We are going to ask the law enforcement to uphold their constitutional oath and make these arrests. If they refuse to do it, by the power of the people of the United States and the people’s grand jury, they don’t want to do it, we will. … We the people will find a way.”

    The U.S. News reporter fretted, “It’s almost certain that anyone
    attempting to ‘arrest’ a member of Congress would be arrested
    themselves for attempted kidnapping.”

    And therein, as they say, lies the rub.

    For now, that threat doesn’t seem to be stopping Conlon’s convoy of truckers.

    ‘If they decide to get ugly with us we’re going to do what we have to

    More from the magazine about whom truckers are targeting specifically:

    Conlon and Andrews say Obama committed “treason” by allegedly
    funneling weapons to al-Qaida-linked rebels in Syria. Members of
    Congress who support arming Syrian rebels, Conlon said, are
    accessories to the alleged crime. He identified House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., as politicians he will seek to arrest for alleged acts against the

    “What we want to do is go in nice and peaceful and keep it as
    peaceful as possible… but if they decide to get ugly with us we’re
    going to do what we have to do,” said Conlon, who added that more than 3,000 truckers had RSVP’ed to the event.

    “If all I get is one or two congressmen walked out of there in
    handcuffs, that will be a shot across the bow that will ripple across
    all branches of government. … I hope they are all civil enough and
    brave enough to step out onto the congressional steps,” he said.

    In addition to being fed up with particular lawmakers, the truckers
    also have industry-specific grievances, including Environmental
    Protection Agency fuel efficiency standards and the high cost of
    diesel fuel, as well as Fourth Amendment encroachments into truckers’ cabs.

  64. And why the 50 + year old agonizes over what was and tries desperately to hold on to John Wayne and Charlton Heston, the kids are creating the future. Here, with no money other than what they can collect from neighbors and supporters, away from politics and the circus. Focused kids intent on seeing that humanity pulls through and eliminates the old paradigm.

    Imagine what they are creating in countries where research is backed by government… Russia, China, India, most of Europe, S. America…

    The world economic crisis was deliberate and intended to stop the advances by starving all those governments and all those people of money. the money needed to go forward. Whoever was behind it has lost. No one can stop progress. And nowadays, progress refuses to be limited by patents. The kids understand that the planet belongs to the people. Life belongs to the people. Energy belongs to the people. The are reclaiming it all.

  65. And now, for the hilarious tidbit about the “new” $100 bills. What i noticed and mentioned happens to have been noticed by others. And yes, it is absolutely true that the US hasn’t had a printing press since 2009 and that the “new” bills, which were printed in 2009, before the presses were dismantled and sent to China, were originally supposed to come out in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 3 times in 2013. Each time, there was a new excuse.

    Do you understand that the US dollar is done and over with? This is not a theory, this is not a joke and yes, this government will keep on lying and lying until it no longer can. With Congress’ blessings.

    Shall i remind you who pays their salaries? Have you people no pride?

  66. Warning totally heeded. I hope one day you do not need to say ” I told you so”…
    I had almost finished answering *almost* every question you had, to my ability. I dont know wth I did but I deleted my entire detailed loooooooooooong arse post. A truly, maddening,very sad, crushing, pist off, I’m a dumbass because I know better feeling and no crtl+z will bring it back. I’m going to go reconcile with my inner idiot who knows better than to write a few hundred words and not SAVE IT. Hopefully I return.

  67. Justme,

    No need to apologize. At least, you think for yourself and you try to find solutions. All i can do is warn you against going at it alone. In the end, it’s still your decision. Don’t worry about what anyone else thinks. It is your battle.

  68. Most of us, me included, don’t know too much about trusts, depositors, issuers, or securities or their laws. But we know some, I think. Is this what we know for sure:
    The trust can’t accept post cut-off assets first and primarily as a matter of law and any attempted assignment post cut-off is void?

    I, for one, am at a loss as to how this whole scheme can be legitimate.
    Even if a depositor appropriately transferred and “deposited” loans with a trust, the trust beneficiaries (are the investors not?), who bought certificates which allegedly represent interests in those loans, are not paid pursuant to the notes. There is no true correlation between the payments made on the loans and the payouts to certificate holders, which surely must have some ramification to the notes. For one, not only do the dollars not match, it appears the lengths of time differ. The majority of notes pay out in 30 years – that doesn’t appear to be so with the certificates.
    But what’s even more troubling to me is the remedy for a homeowner’s non-payment. I don’t believe these trusts may own
    real property** – not from the get-go and not now. It isn’t so much that it’s real property per se, it’s that real property is a distinctly different asset than loans (or certificates?), which as it allegedly stands, form the basis for a pass-thru tax-preferred payment. And I believe this was the real purpose of “MERS”: to create a party, a NON-agent, who could take title to real property, get it re-sold, and then, theoretically at least, pass those proceeds thru to the trusts. But I still believe they blew even that plan when they started making MERS the original ben and not assigning the dot to MERS after first naming the “lender” as the original beneficiary – because imo, the note has been bifurcated from the get-go which also imo 86’s any shot at RE-unification for enforcement (or at least the collateral instrument hasn’t been perfected and I’d like to see them try to fix that mess at this date)
    Buried in the contract (fact) with the trust is a provision which allows someone other than the trust to do this and that in regard to borrower-default, “lest the trust be seen as “doing business” in some states, quote, unquote. BS, say I. It’s any state, any “doing business”. Simply put, imo the trusts can’t do ANY business ANYwhere; they may only collect and disburse their pass-thru payments. So what is the value of a note and dot to a trust which has no remedy for the maker’s non-performance? Far as I can tell, and yes I concede I’m no expert on sec’n, still imo it’s an illusion willfully created to make certificate buyers believe they had recourse on notes secured by people’s most prized possessions (in other words, of course the maker’s payments would be made). Before the MERS Consent Order, no one much paid attn to the alleged credit bid at the f/c sale, no doubt made by “MERS”. Now that MERS is outie in the role of foreclosing party, they are having to get more creative – with the credit bid “assignment”, which is crapinski, and further there really is no evidence a payment-pass-thru-trust, a remic, is entitled to a credit bid on real property or a credit bid on a piece of lint. I think the Consent Order messed them all up royally, but we haven’t figured it all out – yet. And btw, why the Consent Order in the first place? Because “MERS” has no interest in the debt (for one) and because MERS’ (the deliberate non-agent’s) initial presence in the collateral instrument did in fact bifurcate the note and dot for reasons I believe and am trying to explain: MERS = remedy / conduit for buyer default. Now that MERS is no longer doing foreclosures, they see no problem in alleging the agency which would have theretofore been fatal since the act of an agent is the act of its principal (fact) (taking title to real property), plus we hadn’t yet figured out “why MERS”, which again, I posit was to create a party who could 1) act, a verb and 2) take title to real estate. I think we need to 1) attack those credit bids and2) just exactly who is otherwise the seller at a f/c sale with everything we’ve got.
    **Real Estate MORTGAGE Investment Conduit
    lay opinions

  69. Apologies if I you feel like talking to me is similar to talking to a wall.
    Or if it appears I think in circles.
    It happens.

  70. Why thank you Christine.
    I seem to not be able to rationalize why if I can adequately convey what I want, correctly apply it in court, argue precisely my case in detail surpassing (and internally grinning when you see the confusion of the other party beside you) the argumentative verbiage of the opposing party and create the powerful image of what is so short and sweet in it’s most elementary form- why I just cannot be my own attorney. UKG has a good one I looked her up long ago. Most the good ones are busier than busy and will easily drain my secret stash with the length this thing is proving to be. Local ones, I’ve spent a few hundred bucks on consultations. – I could not make a joke that is even close to the misunderstood thought process they have looking at new age foreclosure/banking with. Strategy wise- I was a sliver away from asking how the hell they were still in business. I agree with you on the mod – I will seek help when it is needed. One of my last posts for help, all the collective minds on here gave me exactly what I needed. With a little thinking outside the box and extremely careful observation of the courts prior decisions on other cases, I have made what I would say would be a breakthrough, if granted, for the pro`se and otherwise that creates an impenetrable opening that acts as a forced discovery without having to even get to ask for it and shifts all the burden of everything permanently back into the plaintiffs court. I think 😛
    I am a bit of a contract nut after all this. When these guys start playing business and not bankster I will lawyer up. I think.

  71. I do not need an attorney.
    I do not want an attorney.
    Not here, not there, not in my personal thinking chair.
    I do not want an attorney in my hair, getting paid for my despair.
    I do not want an attorney arguing my journey.
    If I fail, I fail alone.

    I did read you loud and clear. And by the way, this is really, really good! Talk to a WI peer about going the loan mod alone. there is no reason you should fail… unless you go to it alone! In which case, it’s almost a given.

  72. Justme,

    That’s exactly why I pressure everyone considering a mod to consult an attorney. The game is rigged and homeowners don’t know how much. Most of that jargon doesn’t even hold water until somebody naive enough… signs that it does!

    If anything, just having an attorney accomplishes 2 things: first of all, the bank knows that you won’t be so gullible and such a good prey AND the bank also knows that you now have somebody who speaks their language in your corner. You would be very surprised how, as soon as you have an attorney, the documents they have you sign become rewritten and half that crap disappears!!!

  73. Whats the fine for messing with a HAMP affidavit??…sounded funny to me too until I looked closer. I looked up every version of a hamp hardship affidavit I could find, all fairly similar. Except compared to the I got (09 version) I’d agree to all the terms and conditions of the servicers agreement and the hamp because they are – GET THIS- “incorporated in full by reference” WTF! ..they merely mention the fact there are ‘terms and conditions’ but under penalty of perjury I’d be consenting and agree to them- all of them. Hollyyy cow. I’d also agree to no waiver of acceleration or foreclosure until the ENTIRE default of the loan is paid in full. As the whole shabam. Last but not least = by signing this little gem I would “fully understand and agree” to any and all terms the servicer makes with any government agency- investor – loan or lien owner, insurer,again- HOLY SHIT.

    They could of at least had the courtesy to attach a freeking tissue for when I would of realized that form was custom made and specifically modified for my personal self destruction,providing for the ultimate dismantling of my own counterclaims. woweee. what assahts.
    ~ GAME F^CKING ON! Yyeahhhhhboy

  74. “And that’s why they had to come up with MERS. The all-unifying, catch-all recourse against any and all borrowers. The solution for all problems of rehypothecation. Makes you wonder why they don’t do that for all “securitization” transactions. Or maybe they do…”

    Well… they must have been doing something pretty gross and intricate, for regulatory agencies to shy away so much… Part of me sure as hell wants to know what it is so we can fix our economy and the other part would rather not… ‘cuz when it comes out, it will probably be explosive!

  75. So an endless supply of government funding by bank owners and employees violating the law, and judges and lawyers ordering fines and penalties via he court to be paid to the government? Hmm.

    Trespass Unwanted, Life, People, State, Jure Divino

  76. Great rehypothecation analysis, johngault. I watched the video too and was surprised that the guy explaining it seemed to think what he was describing was just peachy. He admitted that it COULD be problematic, but only if it got, you know, TOO fucking crazy. But you’re exactly right, the devil is in the details–was car buyer’s note to lender A endorsed to lender B in the rehypothecation? If not, lender B has no recourse against car buyer.

    And that’s why they had to come up with MERS. The all-unifying, catch-all recourse against any and all borrowers. The solution for all problems of rehypothecation. Makes you wonder why they don’t do that for all “securitization” transactions. Or maybe they do…

  77. What was Karen Hudes saying about 30 states starting to crack down on fed fraud and looking to create their own state banks? That wouldn’t be a bad thing, given the surplus N. Dakota has consistently been showing.

    New Jersey sues Standard & Poor’s for fraud

    2013-10-09 —

    At issue, according to the suit, are “structured finance securities” that S&P rates. Those securities, the state claims, were rated without disclosing that the firm was “acting in its own business interests, and in the interests of favored clients whose fees provided the company with a significant revenue stream,” said New Jersey Acting Attorney General John J. Hoffman.

    The state’s suit is similar to a suit the federal government filed earlier this year against S&P. The ratings firm argued in a September filing that the federal government’s suit was retaliatory because S&P downgraded its bonds in 2011.

  78. And the cleanup goes on…

    Like an Offshore Paradise: Vatican Moves to Close Dirty Accounts

    By Fiona Ehlers and Fidelius Schmid

    More than 1,000 customers who have no business holding accounts at the Vatican Bank have parked more than 300 million euros there, money the institution’s officials suspect is illicit. They are now calling for the funds to be removed.

    In late May, two Germans stood in the heavily guarded interior of the Vatican Bank and gazed out over St. Peter’s Square. Ernst von Freyberg, 54, had just been appointed as the bank’s president — and now he had been interviewed by Father Bernd Hagenkord, the director of Vatican Radio’s German program. The two servants of the Catholic Church took stock of what had been achieved thus far and concluded that the head of the bank had survived his baptism by fire.

    “I am convinced that we are a well-managed, clean financial institution,” Freyberg had said into the microphone. He also rhapsodized over the morning masses with the pope in Saint Martha’s House and found words of praise for the bank’s directors. “When I came here, I thought I would primarily have to do what is generally known as a cleanup,” Freyberg admitted, “but I haven’t, as yet, discovered anything amiss.”

    The aristocratic bank president — who in his spare time organizes pilgrimages to Lourdes for people with physical disabilities — apparently had to rapidly and fundamentally change his opinion. Indeed, at virtually the same moment when the interview was broadcast, over 20 experts from the US consulting firm Promontory Financial Group marched into Niccolò V, a fortress-like medieval tower, to comb through some 30,000 accounts that customers around the world maintain with the papal bank. The external auditors are specialized in detecting and tracing irregularities like corruption and money laundering.

    [Click on link for more]

  79. One agreement at a time, the fate/demise of the US Dollar as world currency is being sealed. And don’t believe for one minute that whatever carnival is going in DC just happened… because we’re dealing with morons. We are but it is not the primary reason for the standstill. That standstill was planned for a very, very long time. All the circus around it is to make sure the American people have somebody to blame (as usual. the response of irresponsible people is always to blame. This is a national sport in this country…) and are distracted enough not to dig into what really is going on. Obviously, it’s working…

    China, EU sign $57bn currency swap agreement
    October 10, 2013, 9:18 am

    The currency agreement will be valid for three years [Getty Images]
    China’s central bank, the People’s Bank of China (PBC) on Thursday signed a three-year currency swap agreement worth 350 billion yuan ($57 billion) with the European Central Bank (ECB).

    “The swap arrangement has been established in the context of rapidly growing bilateral trade and investment between the euro area and China, as well as the need to ensure the stability of financial markets,” said a statement from the ECB.

    The currency agreement will be available to all eurozone countries through their national central banks.

    It will be valid for three years and will allow the ECB to access up to 350 billion yuan and the PBC to access up to 45 billion euros.

    The ECB said from the eurosystem’s perspective it will serve as a backstop liquidity facility.

    Trade between Europe and China has doubled since 2003 and is worth more than $1.3 billion a day.

  80. Thursday, Oct 10, 2013 08:00 AM EST

    Big bank fines aren’t working
    The penalties are greater than ever, but financial firms keep turning profits — while the rest of us pay

    By Lynn Stuart Parramore

    Since the recent financial crisis and housing collapse, some of Wall Street’s biggest banks have faced fines from regulators reaching into billion-dollar territory. In the latest news, JPMorgan Chase is looking at $11 billion in fines for pushing crap mortgage securities on unwary investors.

    That sounds like a hefty amount of cash—it’s about the gross domestic product of Kenya, and tops that of Iceland and Bahrain. As journalist Pat Garafalo has noted, $11 billion is equal to what all the major banks paid together in 2012. The sum would be the largest single financial fine in history, if in fact it ever is paid (JPMorgan Chase is reported to be in negotiations that might reduce it).

    So what happens to all that dough? Will it really change anything?

    Let’s follow the money trail…

    …What if you decided to go after a bank yourself for harmful activity? Alexander Eichler at the Huffington Post has pointed out that there’s some very interesting fine print on fines buried way down in the terms-and-conditions agreements you have to sign when you open a bank account with big names like HSBC, TD Bank, and PNC Bank. Basically, if there’s any legal disputes over your account, and the bank has to fork over any fees, like attorney fees and so on, you get to pay them. In other words, if you sue your bank over a credit card dispute, you may have to pay for the bank’s losses, even if you win.

    Here’s HSBC’s clause: “You agree to be liable to the bank for any losses, costs or expenses the bank incurs as a result of any dispute involving your account. You authorize the bank to deduct any such losses, costs or expenses from your account without prior notice to you.” The LA Times reports that though the practice is on shaky legal ground, what it’s really intended to do is scare consumers out of taking a bank to court.

    Such is the peculiar reality in our banks-gone-wild universe.

    In fact, taxpayers are paying for big banks to make all those heady profits and enabling their bad behavior through our subsidies. The megabanks can borrow money at a lower rate because creditors assume the government, on behalf of taxpayers, will come to the rescue in an emergency. Ironically, this subsidy only encourages them to engage in more risky behavior, for which we all end up paying.

    Despite JPMorgan’s potential $11 billion hit, the company stock has barely registered the fine. Maybe that’s because the fine, though large, would only amount to about two quarters worth of profits. Or because no one really believes a sum like that will ever be paid.

    There. You have it. Over and over. But you still keep your money there. Don’t clamor for justice when you won’t do the very minimum to stop it.

  81. Do you know the difference between a hustler and a good con man?
    A hustler has to get out of town as quick as he can, but a good con man, he doesn’t have to leave until he wants to’ – Gabriel Cane, Diggstown, 1992

  82. Carie,

    Get a life and a job. I make it a point to ignore your antics and I won’t be dragged into your collective insanity.

  83. Uh oh—the Nazi bitch is at it again…

  84. The other day, christine linked a deal about hypothecation.

    Let me see if I can do this. In christine’s video, the car buyer (“CB”) gets a loan from I forget, so “harry”. CB retains possession of the car she bought, which is the collateral for harry’s loan to her. Harry borrows money from Jimmy, using CB’s note as
    collateral. Harry has hypothecated CB’s note to Jimmy. But what we don’t know is if harry endorsed the note (in blank or to jimmy) or if jimmy took possession of the note. In hypothecation, I think not: it’s just a pledge. If harry merely pledged CB’s loan to jimmy, jimmy does not own it and merely has security interests in both the note and the car. (I think – no expert on hypothecation)

    What happens when harry stops paying jimmy if jimmy is only “pledged’ and doesn’t have poss of CB’s note? What if anything must jimmy do to get CB’s payments on her note? He
    can’t call it because even as it’s collateral, it’s subject to the terms of the note and CB is making her payments to harry and jimmy now wants them and is entitled to them. Again, dunno about hypothecation remedies.

    I think it’s akin to the position of trusts who (allegedly) paid for notes and dots. In the example of hypothecation, harry is primarily liable to jimmy for his 10k loan from jimmy (this was not a sale of the loan between harry and jimmy – CB’s note was merely
    pledged as security for harry’s loan). Must jimmy barrel thru harry before he has any rights against CB? I don’t know how that works on hypothecation, tho remedies are likely prescribed by law.

    The diff between sec’n, far as I can tell, and this hypothecation is that in sec’n, “harry” was supposed to sell and endorse and deliver CB’s loan (transfer) to “jimmy” (or so we’re told). If it were sec’n and harry didn’t transfer, under 9-203(g) – (though
    banksters claim that under 9-203(g) the collateral follows the note, which is not what 9-203(g) says – it says if one has a sec interest in the note, one also has a sec interest in its collateral) – jimmy has a security interest in the note and its collateral. AND, harry is still primarily liable to jimmy and further, harry is (primarily) liable to
    jimmy for the face amt of the note at the time of the sale (not its current value), less any payment harry made to jimmy.

    Note was 10k when sold (we’re in sec’n mode) to jimmy. By the time jimmy gets it that he isn’t getting paid by Harry, CB has quit making her payments. I don’t know what jimmy has to do to get paid by anyone, harry or CB, but I believe it’s in the UCC. And I do believe his only claim against CB can be for the balance of her note, while he has a claim against Harry for the 10k less any
    payments, if any, harry made to jimmy.

    Harry would like to say, if anything, okay here’s the note. Jimmy, who knows the collateral is diminished, says not so fast – you owe me 10k (minus any payments) and wants his full 10k he paid, not the value of the car/collateral which is now 6k.
    It looks to me like this is what a bankster is doing. Because the bankster (harry) didn’t fork over CB’s loan, the bankster (harry) is primarily liable to jimmy (the trust)) for 10k and now wants to give jimmy (the trust) something essentially worth 6k on a good day and in default to boot). If the bankster (harry) had transferred the loan to jimmy (the trust), the jimmy-trust would get what it got (not considering any other facts, like guarantees), including the risk of severely diminishing collateral: to avoid owing jimmy the 10k, the face amt of the note at sale (less any payments to jimmy / the trust), the bankster MUST pretend it transferred CB’s loan to jimmy (the trust and its investor-beneficiaries at the time of sale.
    So, long and short, the difference is who is going to eat any shortfall by way of the diminished value of the collateral for the note. Further, if CB lives in a state which prohibits deficiency judgments, jimmy is further harmed because CB’s car
    (a home in secn) is now only worth 6k. And in states which allow deficiency judgments, jimmy must generally bear the expense of and seek the deficiency judgment in one-action, that is, by way of judicial foreclosure and must forego non-judicial foreclosure or lose
    any deficiency. I have argued, albeit without support, that if a lender chooses non-judicial instead of judicial foreclosure wherein he could get a deficiency judgment, he has no right to ‘dun’ the homeowner with a debt forgiveness 1099. I have argued, again
    without support, that any person who issues a debt forgiveness 1099 does so on an allowable debt which is uncollectable, and by opting for non-judicial foreclosure, the lender has made no attempt to collect the shortage; therefore it can’t be demonstrated
    that the debt was in fact uncollectable, which imo is the basis for such a 1099.

    But, again, if the note were not transferred when paid for, the bankster remains primariily liable, anyway. I don’t know if the trust has to barrel thru the primary obligor before going after CB / the homeowner, but I would think so.

    If I’m correct, and the bankster remains primarily liable to the trust on a note which was not appropriately transferred to the trust, for one thing, this makes the note borrower only secondarily liable to the trust by way of the trust’s security interest. In order to make anything in our favor about this, we need to know what a party
    who has paid for a note but not received it must do as a matter of either contract or law, and that’s further complicated by who Jimmy is here – a NY trust. I don’t think we’ll find any answers in the contract(s) because the contracts called for and assume completion of the dea, and are likely devoid of any remedy for non-performance. That leaves law. Because these are strictly-regulated trusts with strict cut-off dates, these facts seem to rule out a trust taking the loan at this date even if for some unknown reason it wanted to, leaving the trust’s only remedy against the bankster, whom it appears is trying to use the non-existant credit bid of the trust to end its liability for the 10k paid and to
    also foist the loss of value of the collateral onto the trusts. I’m not capable of deciphering these issues entirely, but I think I’ve got the framework right. The biggest thing, imo, we care about here is what allegations in this regard we can make that will be sustained coming from us. We’re all witness to the stink from the
    banksters over Glaski, which found in favor of a borrower’s ‘objection’ to a post cut-off assignment. We’d have to be well-armed in alleging the bankster’s primarily liability to the trust.
    And I still maintain the recent assignments of the note and dot (disregarding “MERS” inability to so assign) is prima facie evidence of a post cut-off transfer.
    These are as always lay opinions

  85. I like what ELEX said. AND.. it is not libel if you speak the truth. Not sure what to make of this Christine person. She obviously is not understanding the FULL picture regarding the Laws of the Land!

  86. ML,

    For the last time, it is not WHAT happened in your case but HOW that matters. You are not a judge, an attorney or anybody knowledgeable, as evidenced by the insanity you keep posting. Better yet, you have absolutely no idea what you’re saying. Delusion doesn’t make you right. It only makes you pathetic and a real haunt.

    Once a judge used in writing words such as “frivolous”, “non meritorious” or, even worse, “vexatious”, your case is done, finished, finito, fertig, over and done with. Once 4 judges have the same take on it, this is it. What the hell is wrong with your brain?

    You want to commit suicide by going at it again? You want to offend personally a judge and risk being sued for slander, libel and defamation? Go right ahead please. In fact, it might even be what you need to learn to shut the F*%$ up and move on.

    You’re too thick for me to even dignify anything you write. i’m done with you. Keep harping on the judges. Bob G and I will have a real good laugh when they decide to take you to task. We’ve been trying to put some sense in your sick, delusional brain. Pure waste of time and energy.

  87. ELEX-
    Judges have their jobs because of our Constitution.
    Without defending our Constitution, they will be without jobs.

  88. Christine
    You had better learn the meaning of Void ab initio. A judgment signed in a State Court while the case was under Federal Question in Federal District Court is VOID AB INITIO. A nullity, never existed, no laches no time limit nada nada nada

    Pursuant to United States Supreme Court case Elliot v. Piersol :

    Under Federal Law which is applicable to all States, the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT stated that is a Court is “without Authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable but simply void and form no bar to recovery sought, even prior to reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentence are considered in law as trespassers.”

    Judge Schlesinger and her law Clerk Rose Ann Magaldi know this Supreme Law of this land. Our Supremacy Law of the US Constitiution trumps everything. But Since you always want to try to destroy our wonderful Constitution, I don’t expect anything but disrespect and garbage from you about our Constitution.

  89. “The upshot is that most of the bank payments for illegally taking money and property are going to government instead of the victims.” Been wondering about that for a while. Between the MSFraud article of yesterday and this from Garfield today, it is abundantly clear that homeowners will neve5r see a cent of anything, infamous settlement included.

    ML, delirious moron: you lost under such conditions and with such an indictment from not only Schlesinger but also the three appeals court judges after her (frivolous, non meritorious, vexatious and you name it!!!) that if you want to end up in the loony house or in jail, indeed, starting the battle again is the way to go.

    How friggin’ thick can someone be? Are you on meds? Get some real fast, for Pete’s sake!

  90. @ML – bear in mind the judges have no support from the Federal courts or Federal government. They will only make very small incremental changes for the borrower as a result of sticking their necks out. The guy who oversees the bankster regulators and Justice Dept is the same guy who opened the Wash. DC Mall to illegal aliens while denying veterans access to their memorials.

  91. I feel I have to really start up the fight again. I was hoping that Bob G.. whoever he is.posted accurate information that the Judges are starting to get it and correct the fraud especially Judge Schlesinger and as he stated would be calling me into her Chambers soon and I would be back in my properties by now.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: