Livinglies Recalibrates Forensic and Litigation Support Services

Responding to specific requests from lawyers and homeowners, the livinglies store has changed its offering.

You can still get the old Combo of just a title and securitization report, but we have added some levels and services to meet the demand for our services. Of course pricing has been adjusted to reflect the increased workload. Actual litigation support is provided throughout the country to any attorney by Garfield, Gwaltney, Kelley and White (GGKW) with offices now in Broward County and Leon County. We will soon have offices in the Florida Panhandle and Dade County. I’ll be posting separately on each office and the attorneys we have selected to litigate in accordance with our requirements.

GGKW represents homeowners throughout the state of Florida. Do not ask us to provide the full range of litigation support if you are a pro se litigant, even if your case is in Florida. You would be asking us to provide services that might be the unauthorized or unethical practice of law in states where we are not licensed. It would also be a bad idea because you cannot expect an attorney from another state to know the laws of your state, how they are applied in your courts, and the differences between individual judges. Sometimes local rules are dispositive of cases. Florida homeowners can get some additional assistance from GGKW or the livinglies store, but there is no good substitute for an attorney who knows and can argue rules of procedure and laws of evidence as they relate to your case.

The first additional the Combo offering is the Qualified Written Request and Debt Validation Letters. These are rising in importance and an increasing number of lawyers are asking us to prepare these. We can’t send them out but we can prepare them for the signature of the homeowner. We ask more pointed questions about whether the originator actually loaned money to the homeowner — that is, whether there was any transaction between the homeowner and the party stated on the note and mortgage (or deed of trust). This has grown in importance because of the absence of a fundamental allegation by the pretender lenders — that someone in their chain of paper actually entered into an actual transaction (offer, acceptance, consideration and execution) with the alleged borrower. It appears in many cases that the actual funding of the loan was a stranger to the paperwork and that the parties on the paperwork are strangers to the actual transaction.

We also are offering affidavits and declarations from the auditors or experts, including myself, together with a consultation to answer questions on the methods used and the conclusions to be drawn. Where an attorney for the homeowner is available during the consult, the homeowner will hear suggestions on specific strategies and tactics for the battle in court.

We are also just now adding to the package, Freedom of Information requests to the FDIC, OTS, OCC and the Federal Reserve, where applicable. In all likelihood the request you make about the results of their investigations against the banks that led to the Consent Orders and any filings after those orders were entered will be met with some sort of stonewalling. After all, the investigator grilled by Senator Warren admitted to finding thousands of wrongful Foreclosures but refused to tell her or anyone else in Congress which mortgages were effected or the names of homeowners who were illegally thrown out of their homes. It is important to note that these investigations, like the San Francisco study, found serious defects in which the foreclosure should never have happened.

The the response to FOIA requests will undoubtedly require you to push the agency in court to make the disclosures. And interrogatories directed at compliance with the Consent Orders may reveal the actual findings and the names of homeowners who are living outside the homes they still should ow and possess.

We recommend that the other companies providing these services follow our lead. We believe it will lead to better results and a more comprehensible presentation in Court.

Of course I need to remind you that nothing in this article nor the services and products on the store are a substitute for a licensed attorney. You should take no action at all without consulting with a licensed attorney, hopefully one that is familiar with the issues of securitized loans. Most of these cases are being resolved on the basis of the the rules of civil procedure and the laws of evidence. This is above the head of most pro se litigants. Failure to at least consult with an attorney licensed interest state in which your property is located could well result in losing a case you could have otherwise won.

49 Responses

  1. Hey, Neil Garfield! if the investor funds never made it into the trust, the trust has no beneficiaries and they can’t make anyone beneficiaries by now dumping some (toxic) assets in there, even if the trust accepts late transfers of those (toxic) assets. Even if the loans were timely transferred to the trusts, if the funds weren’t there and no where else, the trust has no beneficiaries. Is that not so? Something to add to the heap? Not only empty of assets, but devoid of
    beneficiaries? What happens to a trust with no beneficiaries? It’s not a trust at all? That isn’t a rhetorical question.

  2. A-man – I’m with you. In Glaski, was chapter and verse of the relevant law literally cited in support of the decision? In other words, do we now exactly which law makes a transfer to a trust post-cut-off void? Asking in case you or anyone knows so I don’t have to go hunt and hunt. I don’t recall it cited in the decision and I have no way to access the pleadings in the lower court. I have one or more briefs from the appeal case which I’ll link yet today.
    That was good advice – beware the master manipulators.

  3. hman – Neil is all about whose money is used to fund a loan. I can see an issue if it were actually the money of the mbs buyers. But when a GMAC funds a loan for a broker, as likely here, I don’t see the problem. Companies like GMAC and its brokers have been operating like this for years. It’d be a very fine hair to try to split to attack the
    arrangement. Like one judge recently pointed out, you can’t sell a loan until it’s a loan. The broker contracted with GMAC to sell GMAC the loan when it became a loan. The fact that the broker and GMAC have a contract which provides that GMAC will fund the loan for the broker I don’t think changes anything. If the broker didn’t fork over the note to GMAC, it would be the broker who owes GMAC, not the note maker. imo. Even if the contract gives GMAC some kind of rights, like subrogation mol or security interests in the note which could result in the borrower owing GMAC, the broker remains primarily liable to GMAC , and at the point of origination, the broker is the lender.
    To try to get real, what would it change if GMAC used the mbs investors funds to fund the loan at the broker’s? No diff than if GMAC used the mbs investors money to fund a loan it made directly imo. But even then, who has a cause of action against whom? I think the bottom line is the borrower got a loan with stolen money, and I don’t think that vitiates the loan as far as the borrower goes. BUT, from there, it does gets complicated because of what happens next. the loan is allegedly sold and transferred to a trust which beneficiaries of are the very guys whose stolen funds were used to fund the loan, and further, in order to BECOME beneficiaries of that trust, the investors funds HAD to be deposited therein (yes?), and they weren’t. (This is dependent on the mechanics of buying mbs’s on which I’m no expert – but no money in trust is no money in trust)
    Neil has suggested (as I recall) that this makes some kind of partnership between the thief and the investors instead. I say first of all, it makes the thief a thief and if it’s theft, it’s one which obviously impacts the rights and status and rights of both the mbs’ investors and the borrower. I can’t go any further, for one, because I don’t know from whom the mbs investors were to have purchased the original securities. I still don’t get those mechanics.
    I have previously posited that the trust had security interests in the both the notes and the collateral instruments if they paid for them (not if their money were used to fund the loans ) but didn’t get them by way of either a purchase and sale agreement with delivery or an article III transfer of the notes with an assgt of the collateral instrument, but if there were no funds in the trust, then obviously there were no funds to fork over to even create security interests.
    Bottom line of that for me is the borrower owes a thief and the investors got robbed and have cause of action against the thief and its accomplices. But the thief is attempting a large band aid by now assigning the note and dot to a trust and relying on Article III holder status for enforcement against the notemaker, when the thief really owes the investors the face amts of the notes – and damages (if the thief is a thief because he in fact stole the monies intended to long and short be deposited in a trust as either cash or MBS’s. If making a loan with stolen money yet makes the note maker liable to the thief,and if the thief received the benefit of any third party payments on the note, the note is retired dollar for dollar.
    Fascinating, but worthless one and all if there is no discovery and if none of the players (just now trusts) is forced to demonstrate its own injury caused by the BORROWER, and instead are allowed to rely solely on possession of the note and the “MERS” assgt. The trust is litigating a claim against one party – note maker – for an injury to another party – a thief – to avoid that other party’s – the thief’s – bad acts. How nice of them! I don’t believe, as I’ve said, that these investors have to take this. Someone is making a choice of remedies and we’re losing by that choice.
    Since the government is buying up the certificates, at what – 85 billion a month, and here I note my lack of knowledge, doesn’t this seem like it’s an acknowledgement they were never purchased because there was no money in the trusts (also making them worthless)? But then why buy them? Got me! Here I’ve steered way out of my area, but maybe those who can will weigh in.

  4. hman – you said (i think) the loan didn’t fund until the 12th and that your cash out wasn’t wired to you until the 13th. I think you need that final HUD, which should only have been generated after all disbursement (pay off and cash out) imo so that it shows accurate figures, primarily on any interest charged on the second page. I’m guessing you never got it because it wasn’t done. It’s troubling that the dot was recorded before any disbursement (way I’m getting it) – recorded on 10th. Since the settlement stmt you signed says it was generated on the 12th, looks to me like they intended it to be the final HUD – weird. Time saver for them? those two issues remain – the recordation of a dot for an unfunded loan and interest charged before funding. If the dot were recorded when no loan had been made yet and if they charged interest before disbursement, seems like there’s an issue, but I don’t know the “so what”, unfortunately. Only thing which comes to mind easily is that if interest were errantly charged before disbursement, all subsequent figures on the loan are wrong.

  5. christine all we can do is inform the people.

  6. The A Man,

    About MS… You know it. E.ToLLe knows it. Anonymous knows it and called him often on his nebulous, self-serving posts and he managed to con a few bloggers on this site and on other ones. You can warn people; they still have free will…


    The Glaski case was published through a grass roots effort for all to be able to use and cite in our cases. Which is such an important piece of the puzzles that we are all trying to expose. Currently the banks and several foreclosure law firms have requested that this case be de-published and removed from us. (hidden from the public) They are in the process of trying to change the status of this case, not through the court system which they were given the opportunity to do, but chose not to appeal, but through their efforts to first bury and hide the decision, and then to move to have it overthrown without the knowledge of their actions being publicly available to us.

    Again the grass roots efforts are in full swing to let the Justices know that the “people” support this decision and that it needs to remain published and accessible to all. Vicious attacks on several foreclosure support web-blogs are going on in the banksters’ attempts to discourage and stop the people from fighting to save this case law from being removed. Beware of what you read out there at this time even from the respectable sites, is it from a friend or foe? They are very well educated “posters” and they are attacking as “friends”, but given the opportunity to air their poison it quickly turns very negative and destructive to our very will to fight.

    If given the opportunity we all need to respond to the California Justices letting them know that they did a good thing and it needs to remain standing. Due to the current situation, cite the case if you are at a point that you can, we all need to get it into our cases as the banks are scared to death of this decision.

    Read the case, it is a very interesting and educational read. READ IT, USE IT, SUPPORT IT, DEFEND IT! It is just that important to you and to everyone in our quest for justice.

  8. MS-Loan closed in 2006. I more recently obtained the underwriting paperwork.

    JG-It reads at the bottom of the DOT Single Family -Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Uniform instrument-MERS. Also, yes it was a cash out refi. The wire for the cash I received was on 11/13. A day after “funding”.

    I believe you are correct in regards to the date of the HUD-1. I don’t think it is the final copy.

    I think it’s pretty clear the the “lender” was misidentified, therefore the loan was never secured? I need to research but any info would be useful.

  9. hman – don’t’ know when the loan disbursed. It isn’t necessarily the same date the final HUD is generated. If a refi, which it appears, 10th meets the three day right of rescission timeframe if signed all docs on the 4th. Only final HUD will tell you disbursement date. Well, should. It will at least tell you the date they started collecting interest. (That should be the disbursement date.)

  10. “am seeking some answers that I hope here some can answer. I have been reviewing my docts. I received at closing. I also obtained some underwriting docts not obtained at closing.

    1. Original Mortgage note signed Nov. 4th.
    2. Deed of Trust recorded Nov. 10th.
    jg: 1) says what? ( as to that date) 2) When was it executed?

    3. HUD-1-Settlement shows the “funding” date and the settlement date as Nov. 12. jg: okay

    The HUD 1 was also ran on the same date Nov. 12th and signed on Nov. 6th
    jg: a document run (created generally) on the 12th can’t have been
    signed on the 6th, right? Sometimes there is an estimated HUD provided on the date docs are signed and another “final” HUD which is generated a little later to reflect real figures – like the real payoff amt of an existing loan, real interest charged on the HUD (only thing that should change is number of days, not daily amt). This generally only happens – two settlement stmts, estimated and final – in “escrow” states (don’t get me going!)

    4. GMAC underwriting paperwork shows the loan be submitted for evaluation on Nov 3rd. Thru the “Assetwise underwriting program.
    jg; probable name of the software used for underwriting.

    It does list the “seller” as the broker’s name that is on the note.
    The broker is identified by GMAC as the party selling the loan to GMAC. The broker generally has a Broker Agreement with companies like GMAC.

    5. Convential Loan approval from broker states loan must close as “RFC” (Residential funding). This was signed off on 11/4.
    jg: my guess: the loan was underwritten to the guidelines of an RFC loan program (because GMAC was going to sell it to RFC, which took jumbo and other non-conforming loans. How that might impact a closing – “must close as”, got me. Look down at the bottom of your note and dot for the id of the document? FNMA uniform anything or ?? And maybe RFC had their own little closing requirements.

    It also has a section that Reads “Prior to funding” The items under this section are all signed off on on 11/12 (the funding date that matches the HUD-1).
    jg: When a loan is underwritten, there are often “conditions”. The loan is approved subject to those conditions being met. “Signed off on”? (Interesting – that’s generally not written per se, but IS terminology.) Apparently those conditions were met.

    Nothing amiss here that I can see, X you said dot recorded on the 10th, but the loan didn’t disburse until the 12th (as I get it). If the loan didn’t disburse until the 12th, 1) your interest charge couldn’t start til then (see final HUD) and if the loan hadn’t disbursed by the 10th, since it was unfunded on the 10th, don’t know that the recordation on that date was proper.

    “OK-Can anyone make sense of this”? jg: And who originally serviced your loan? If a loan goes from a GMAC to F or F, the
    GMAC generally sells it to F or F servicing-retained (by GMAC or one of its subsidiaries). RFC may have wanted the servicing, as well as the loan – more big bucks. My guess is your loan was jumbo and an arm to boot.

  11. Thanks, KC. Jeez all this back-biting….this is serious business. They are stealing our homes and life, literally! The house is almost incidental. These gansters NEED to be stopped at all costs. If they’ll do it to me, they darn sure will do it to you or anyone…they care less. In the day an insurance lapse or late tax payment NEVER meant foreclosure. Easy problem to solve if that’s what they really wanted to do…this is all shit and it damned well is intentional.

  12. You two knuckleheads put your listening ears on for a minute and read this .. If your going to Battle for the Helm here … Can you Battle together instead of against each other? Please?

  13. If only people looked at what is really going on worldwide… 7 billion people are. 320 million Americans live in some surreal vacuum, hoping for the return of John Wayne.

    “Former World Bank lawyer Karen Hudes says the global opinion of America is tarnished. Hudes contends, “Is the United States a credible super power? The answer to that is ‘we are neither.’ We’re not a super power and we are not credible.” Hudes goes on to warn, “The biggest game changer is something that people are just ignoring, and they ignore it at their peril, and that is the creation of a fourth credit rating agency. . . . If they do not get our act together, they will have no choice . . . We are losing our credit rating.” Hudes, who is also a whistleblower, charges, “There is fraud and corruption from top to bottom in the financial system.” As far as global central banks are concerned (including the Fed), Hudes claims, “The central bankers have a scam going on. It’s a Ponzi scheme. The citizens of the world are paying interest on their currencies. These currencies are not being issued by the governments; they are being issued by private bankers.” Don’t give up hope because Hudes says, “The U.S. has to come around to the rule of law. . . . and we are on track with a 95% likelihood, and that is why I think the dollar is not going to tank.” Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with whistleblower and former Senior Counsel for the World Bank, Karen Hudes.”

  14. MS – I have, I think, an inkling of what you’re trying to say, but….
    – admitting I know nada about that, so remember I know nada about that – I’m yet hard pressed to believe that a borrower, or anyone’s, mandate to do something within a time certain (2 years?) could be triggered by an event he had no reasonable basis to know about. You’re telling us the rules just say “if no one objects”?!

  15. Hman What Year What year

    Christine…let it go now. peace.Its your attorneys who said I was a bad guy …and they have all abandoned you…. Lets it go CM let it go …..

    As for Bad Santa …..stop selling hopelessness

  16. 20% down …. never late on a mortgage payment over 10 years….. foreclosed because fell behind on property tax ….SO I THINK I DESERVE TO KNOW IF I WAS SWINDLED……actually more than a “free house” I want to know the true answer !!!!

  17. HERE! HERE! POPPY! Kudos!!

  18. I am seeking some answers that I hope here some can answer. I have been reviewing my docts. I received at closing. I also obtained some underwriting docts not obtained at closing.

    1. Original Mortgage note signed Nov. 4th.
    2. Deed of Trust recorded Nov. 10th.
    3. HUD-1-Settlement shows the “funding” date and the settlement date as Nov. 12. The HUD 1 was also ran on the same date Nov. 12th and signed on Nov. 6th
    4. GMAC underwriting paperwork shows the loan be submitted for evaluation on Nov 3rd. Thru the “Assetwise underwriting program. It does list the “seller” as the broker’s name that is on the note.
    5. Convential Loan approval from broker states loan must close as “RFC” (Residential funding). This was signed off on 11/4. It also has a section that Reads “Prior to funding” The items under this section are all signed off on on 11/12 (the funding date that matches the HUD-1).

    OK-Can anyone make sense of this?

  19. Java, what have you got to lose, trusting MS, nothing. Don’t listen to anyone, you are in trouble….I cannot address any negative comments about MS. But I know one thing, having been self-employed for years, there are always people who are unhappy and it is a subjective value many times. Expectations of perfection always exceed the task at hand. Some of these cases are not legitimate or winnable….some simply are fakers and don’t have a case and they scream the loudest…IMHO

    FYI: in court with 2 broads that financed 100% of their houses and clearly bought more than they could afford. Lived there free for 3-4 years and are raising hell they have been victimized. I stated right in my hearing they should not get a claim…they invested nothing, where I have lost tens-of-thousands of dollars and counting. How dare they claim to be just like me…Bull Shit. Go for it! Good Luck, let us know

  20. PBS short debate on whether individuals should be held accountable for 2008.

    JP Morgan Chase is close to striking a reported $13 billion settlement with the government over the sale of troubled mortgage securities. Gwen Ifill talks to Dennis Kelleher of Better Markets and Bert Ely, a banking consultant, for reaction on the penalty and how the government is seeking accountability for the 2008 crisis.”


  22. MS,

    You can resort to empty insult as much as you want. I still have some difficulty with people who use someone else’s blog to peddle… what is it again that you sell? I don’t see people rushing to buy whatever that is… and those who did have left some pretty disgruntled comments all over the web. Any idea why?


  24. The mortgage is calculated as a future interest
    Bonds are traded as future interests

    The deed is converted into a notional value.The note cannot exist under a discounted bond as a linked transaction with a option traders maturity date. Its called a Due on Sale clause and its identified on EVERY NOTICE YOU ARE GIVEN

    A due on clause is an obvious restraint on alienation that violates Federal Law under claims your given an executory contract or contract in perpetuity, adhesion etc .

    But your statement holds all of this so foreclosure mils can fake a foreclosure .. The foreclosure is by are possession attorney who must wait out a year before returning the property to the issuer lender

    Get a statement out and look at it .Or we are happy to uncode it ….watch the lender demons come out and attack me on this.

    As for the foreclosure attorneys on our side….Its MALPRACTICE time Hozo ….crank it up MALPRACTICE time ; Your own state Bar said stay out of it but you did not listen …ouch

  25. Chris Go away .you stole the home from he old lady and I would not help ..would I ? Now…go away Your a load of reckless hear se and article reading …blogger trash

  26. Java I am not charging you anything. get me a 2009 or late 2008 statement or publish here for me the following

    settlement date _______Ill do the rest (w/o practicing law of course)

  27. Eggs, I never heard the one sentence from Iwantmynpv either. She/he has promised words of wisdom before and has not delivered??

  28. Holder Demand for JPMorgan Plea Signals Hard-Line Shift on Banks

    Tuesday, 22 Oct 2013 10:35 AM

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon went to Washington almost a month ago to see if U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder would settle a criminal probe of mortgage fraud at the bank if it paid more money to resolve related civil investigations.

    Holder’s team, which included Deputy Attorney General James Cole and Associate Attorney General Tony West, said ending the investigation by the U.S. attorney in Sacramento would require the bank to plead guilty to something, according to a person familiar with the talks, which were held in a conference room that was Robert F. Kennedy’s office when he had Holder’s job.

    Later, the department proposed the bank plead guilty to making false statements related to sales of toxic mortgage bonds. The bank proposed a nonprosecution agreement, which Holder rejected, the person said. The bank agreed to assist the continuing criminal probe. The negotiation typifies the harder line the Obama administration is taking in its second term.

    Holder, 62, in an interview with Bloomberg News about the department’s new aggressiveness on bank probes, said: “It was clearly a priority for the president, it was a priority for me and for this Justice Department. One look at the magnitude of harm and the number of people suffering [when did that become a consideration? it sure took a long time to see that there were people suffering… Is it noticeable now because… it can no longer be ignored? What, with the disappearance of offshore banking accounts and all..] as a result of these acts that we’re looking into made sense to me that my personal involvement was needed.” [or… has it become completely transparent that Holder couldn’t justify having received a salary for so long… and the days or reckoning are upon him?]

    Holder, a Columbia University law school graduate who has spent much of his career at the department, gave the interview just a few hours before he and Dimon agreed Oct. 18 to an outline of a $13 billion accord to resolve the civil investigations.

    Massive Penalties

    Holder’s refusal to let JPMorgan, the biggest U.S. bank, escape criminal liability for its mortgage-bond sales, and the move to extract massive penalties for wrongdoing that led to the financial crisis, may go a long way toward appeasing critics of the Justice Department who have been urging charges against bankers since the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in 2008.

    Joe Evangelisti, a spokesman for the New York-based bank, declined to comment on the talks.

    The effort began on marching orders from President Barack Obama, who promised in his 2012 State of the Union address to hold banks accountable for their role in helping trigger the deepest recession since the Great Depression. A mortgage task force of prosecutors and regulators set up to carry out the president’s mandate produced the record $13 billion deal, which requires a formal sign-off by both sides.

    Read Latest Breaking News from
    Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

    So… way back then, 2 years ago, when Poster Boy was trying his hand at religion (and not doing too well with it), he already had some indication that the games he was plating would come back and bite him in the ass. Coming to roost…

  29. “Because I know not what you speak of”

    Nor does MS, Java. Nor does he. That’s why he keeps it nebulous on purpose. If he ever tried to make sense, everyone would realize that he’s got none to make…

  30. MS. Do what ????

    I have argued on the assignment post dated , broken chain and robisigning. All of which you seem to make great jokes about.

    I am out of time Friday , so I will object to sheriff sale. Then you can be hired and take over. Because I know not what you speak of. I have seen a bank payment statement since 2008. WF locked me out of website.

  31. Sumbuddy over charged us at Sale. Owes us lots of Money for our Overpayment! And If I could (without going to jail)… I’d slap the stupidity and greed right out of the moron who had my title slandered! Twice!! . Lucky for Me … he resides near stripes! I’m safe and he is not! I get to keep my bail money!! Maybe I should help bail stripes out? What do you say?

  32. Your 2009 Payment staement holds a coded back dating scheme that says if you dont make a claim the house is there.s for abandonment

    Java do it damn it

  33. RECON as in Reconstitution….The statement can be uncoded -you all still talk about gibberish Judge says show me …un-crack the code and you win for Gods Sake -pay me ill do it . or GO TO YOUR CPA HE KNOWS LET HIM DO IT .But font waste time here Oct 31 is anniversary and all bets are off and over

  34. So we have Recon Trust who got the Mortgage and we have CW dba BOA who got the note Free… made lots of money…. took no losses on the note. Can you saayy … “”SSSPLITTTTTT” ?

    Then we have debt collector/buyer/attorney/inside trader… who .paid pennies on the dollar (taxes & ins). And sometimes 20% interest held by bank as losses under FDIC agreements.

    Can you say buy back your estate at salvage price? Were you offered? Offered in a way you understood at least? In the NOD? Due on Sale?

  35. Oh dear, dear, dear… Poster Boy keeps finding religion. Yep, Jamie Boy. Everybody is going to sue! And you ain’t got no offshore account secure anymore. What you gonna do… when they come for you?

    Dimon Says Mortgage Clash Swells as ‘Everybody Is Going to Sue’
    By Rick Green – Jul 14, 2011 3:14 PM ET

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said clashes over faulty mortgages may drag on as investors and regulators demand compensation for soured loans issued at the peak of the housing market.

    “There have been so many flaws in mortgages that it’s been an unmitigated disaster,” Dimon said during a conference call today. “We just really need to clean it up for the sake of everybody. And everybody is going to sue everybody else, and it’s going to go on for a long time.”

    JPMorgan disclosed about $2.5 billion in second-quarter costs tied to faulty mortgages and foreclosures. The bank added $1.27 billion to litigation reserves, mostly for mortgage matters, and incurred $1 billion of expenses tied to foreclosures, according to a slide show accompanying today’s earnings report. Repurchase losses were $223 million, according to the company, which ranks second by assets among U.S. banks.

  36. The “It’s Not Real Money” Argument – Perhaps the Best Way to Make the Banks Look Good in Court

    Below is a case brought by a homeowner arguing that there was no real money involved in their loan. It was dismissed without leave to amend, and the homeowner was lucky that they managed to get out of court without being sanctioned. If you want to make the banks look good in court, while at the same time making homeowners appear certifiably insane, here’s how to do it.

    The problem is that this is hardly an example of anything extreme, in fact, I heard some so-called legal theories that make this case look like Brown v. The Board of Education just a couple of days ago on Linked In and Facebook threads. One in particular had to do with identity theft, and I’d explain the rest but I can’t without the risk of brain damage. Look around, you’ll find it… and more, I’m afraid.


    No. C13-01569 HRL.
    United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division.

    October 16, 2013.

    HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.

    The homeowner in this case (found below), the plaintiff, alleged that the defendants (Countrywide, Bank of America, et al) only provided an estimated 5% of their loan’s face value in actual money. In a reply, the homeowner clarified that the actual amount loaned could not be greater than 10% of the face value because that’s the percentage of cash deposits that the bank is required to keep in reserve, and that the rest of the money for the loan was created by the bank itself through a series of book entries.

    For all those kamikaze willing to tempt it and all those who advocate using that argument (which, incidentally, has kept Anonymous in court NINE FRIGGIN’ YEARS and counting) read the rest here.

  37. Recon Trust… they are cons alright, don’t Trust them as Investor or Homeowner. They are Cons that lack standing to invoke jurisdiction of the court.

  38. Does anyone want to take a guess why after we reinstated in April of 2010 with BAC (bogus fees and all) as attorney advised us to do, to show their gratitude BAC transferred loan to BOA na right away and BOA na sent us bills for property taxes and ins.. huh? Already escrowed them.. Right? So I didn’t pay them again. And because I was disobedient and didn’t comply …. BOAna send NOD for Ins and property tax…. now why would they do that? Oh the two year charge off and reconstitution of the loans was ohhh so near.

  39. Eggs,

    ReconTrust got in trouble in a few states, one of them being WA, for operating without a state license. it cost a lot to B of A as well. i believe UT was also one of those states.

    August 15, 2012
    ReconTrust settles foreclosure lawsuit

    SEATTLE – The Washington State Attorney General’s Office has settled a case with a trustee company formerly doing business in Washington for failing to comply with the state’s laws governing foreclosure trustees.

    In Washington state, foreclosure trustees are legally required to be neutral parties with local offices, available to borrowers during the foreclosure process, and willing to postpone a foreclosure when they deem it appropriate. Trustees must provide accurate information about how homeowners can stop their foreclosure, how much they need to pay to reinstate the loan, and to whom the money is owed.

    A lawsuit filed last year by the Attorney General’s Office accused Bank of America-owned foreclosure trustee ReconTrust of not following these requirements.

    And then, there’s this… ReconTrust was mostly operating in non judicial states.

    BofA Unit Ordered to Halt Foreclosures in Nevada
    By David McLaughlin – Jan 25, 2011 7:19 PM ET

    A Bank of America Corp. unit, ReconTrust Co. N.A., was ordered by a Nevada judge to temporarily stop foreclosures in the state that aren’t approved by a court order.

    Judge Robert W. Lane in Nye County, Nevada, issued a preliminary ruling that blocks ReconTrust from conducting nonjudicial foreclosures until he holds a hearing Feb. 28 on whether to make the ban permanent, according to a Jan. 20 order provided by the court. The injunction was sought in a Nevada homeowner’s lawsuit against Bank of America and ReconTrust.

    Stopping the foreclosures is necessary to prevent the “irreparable injury” that would result from “unlawful” seizure of the plaintiff’s home by ReconTrust Co., the judge wrote. The ruling applies to any real estate or personal property in Nevada.

  40. Also, I never heard the one sentence from iwantmynpv that can thwart a foreclosure. Anybody hear the sentence? Please share!

  41. Java,

    There are 2 issues this country has tried forever to occult: its debt to China which is largely in excess of the alleged 1.6 trillion (it’s been incurred over decades and the US originally was trying to pay it with gold, it’s own, the German’s and other countries’, hence 911 to take hold of all the gold kept under tower 7, the one that was NOT hit but still. collapsed). Until it ran out of other people’s gold after having disposed of its own, and started sending to China tungsten bullions covered with gold and all hell broke loose, China reacted and demanded repayment.

    Enter the foreclosures: China’s been after the land and it won’t take prisoners.

    The 2nd issue (and it is bound to come out as well in short order) is the occulting of all the zero-point energy developed since Roswell in order to allow the 4 major banks to take hold of all energy sources, i.e. waterways, oil, gas, etc. worldwide. That has been going on since JP Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller and cohort and it’s coming to an end.

    Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria are only distractions meant to enrich further the banks while creating enough disruptions to prevent people from poking their noses in what really has been going on in this country since 150 years. So were WWI and WWII. The American way: create wars to distract people. Create economic crisis to force people into a survival mode and stop them from thinking…

    We’re seeing the end of that.

  42. Anybody have info on this: Recontrust has apparently stopped doing foreclosures in 4 states, according to their website. I used to go check the Recontrust website every day for a foreclosure listing for my property, which is in Mississippi. Recently, I noticed that although they still listed Mississippi on their website, they didn’t have any properties listed. Just went to the website today again to check for a foreclosure listing for my property and found that there are now only 4 states listed: Arizona, California, Nevada, and Texas. Mississippi is gone from the listings.

    And the main text of the website used to say “We provide foreclosure services in eight states”–I think it was eight. Eight or nine. Now it says “We provide foreclosure services in four states.” WTF? Anybody have any inside baseball on this?

    I’m trying to remember all the states that used to be on the site: Arizona, California, Mississippi, Nevada, Texas…there were at least three others. I wanna say Utah, maybe. I always looked at the site, but I pretty much only ever went to the Mississippi section. Shelley Erickson probably has the score on this…

  43. MS…. My friend and former attorney wears the decoder ring to. Except she has had it for a longs time. 🙂

    I don’t want the money as its dirty money …. And I don’t need a lawyer like my friend said. Unless attorney / wanna be plaintiff wants to take another go around with me. They made the rules .. I just play by them. That makes me a Good Sport..Right?

  44. I have my Release! But they delayed the recording until after the reconstitution of the loans. Sorry BOA … I made demand for release long before …. !!

  45. I like me Gold, yellow and white. I like me Silver shiny and flat. I love me coins collections …. Thanks to Great Great Uncle Jack. I do not like green eggs and spam … I do not like US currency or Uncle Sam.

  46. Again the loan was charged off in Oct 2008. You had to get a release of lien in those next two years

    Instead you jacked off here listening to the bearded fool, because in
    2010 they reconstituted and now the laws says your loan is back

    If I or Garfield said anything we go to jail – I stopped soliciting in 2010 as the law now supports reconstitution …but the old fart is still at it

    This is wrong all of it ….Your PAYMENT STATEMENT CAN BE UN CODED It has all the answers to the questions your asking .

    Neil forget your re-discombulations and crack the statements Neil …do it Santa . If you do they get there home – (how do i know- I just do …crack the statement and the embedded code Neil).

  47. Christine. Probably why the banks are moving to foreclose now quickly. Must buy assets. I say buy GOLD.

  48. Looks to me like we’re going back to individual currencies worldwide. We ain’t gonna have a New World Order after all… or so it would seem. And every new international agreement to transact outside of the petrobuck is one more nail into this country’s hegemonic coffin… The first such agreement was signed in June 2012, between Japan and China. I picked up on it right away and got all kinds of flack for warning people of what in store. So did Iwantmynpv and David E. Martin made a big deal of the complete silence of MSM in the wake of the forthcoming demise of the UD Dollar. Well… this isn’t going away by any stretch of imagination. In fact, it’s getting more solidified each day that goes by.

    John Wayne ain’t coming back…

    Tuesday, October 22, 2013
    Singapore and China will introduce direct trading between their currencies, Bloomberg reported. The move is expected to help the city-state cement its status as Southeast Asia’s yuan trading hub. The two states also agreed on a 50 billion yuan ($8.2 billion) target for Singaporean investors to buy into Chinese domestic securities under the Renminbi Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor program. Under the program, Singapore will be included in the locations where Chinese institutional investors can buy securities overseas with the yuan.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: