The rules matter — CASE DISMISSED, without prejudice

For assistance with your mortgage go to or call 520-405-1688. Remember these issues not only apply to homeowners not paying their mortgages. They apply to everyone who has a mortgage or who has acquired title from someone who had a mortgage that was subject to claims of securitization.

Lenders and buyers can get a risk assessment report and recommendations to clear title from GGKW, with its home office in Tallahassee. Those in litigation can get information and their lawyers can get litigation support by calling 850-765-1236.

For information on direct representation of clients in Florida, call 954-495-9867 in Broward County, and 850-765-1236 for Northern Florida. GGKW is the acronym for Garfield, Gwaltney, Kelley and White, a law firm with offices currently in Tallahassee and Fort Lauderdale.


When the dam breaks, the speed with which the water starts moving increases dramatically at first before it subsides. This is what is happening in the courts. Judges are increasingly becoming aware as they read the newspaper, that the big broker-dealer banks at the center (Master Servicer) of this mess in mortgages, committed civil fraud, and probably committed criminal fraud in connection with the sourcing of money for originating or acquiring loans from homeowners. The presumption of trustworthiness of the banks is gone, except for a fast shrinking group of judges around the country.

  • If there was fraud at the top of the sham securitization chain then why wouldn’t there by fraud at the bottom?
  • And if there was fraud in the origination of the loan, or the sourcing of money for the loan, then why wouldn’t there be a question of whether the note or mortgage or both were invalid empty pieces of paper referring to a non-existent transaction?
  • And therefore might that not explain why the banks do not allege in judicial states that a loan was made by the payee listed on the note?
  • Why didn’t the Trust show up in the County records within 90 days of its creation and right on the the original note and mortgage?
  • Why wouldn’t there be a question about whether there was any lien to foreclose because the banks were too busy screwing investors to create a perfected encumbrance on the collateral for the investors whose money was improperly channeled and used for the sole benefit of the banks.
  • And why are the banks not alleging the existence of a loan or financial injury in their complaints? Are they avoiding a can of worms that will show they have no transaction to sue on?
  • Are the real lenders so much in the dark that they don’t even know the case has been brought by someone without authority or consent of the lender of money (not the lender on paper)?

The colloquy between judge and counsel in the link below clearly shows what is happening in a growing number of cases where the Judges have stopped ignoring the rules of civil procedure, stopped ignoring the rules of evidence, and stopped assuming that the borrower is a deadbeat looking for a free house.

They are now getting the idea that the homeowner is in search of a lender, not a free house.

The homeowner is in search of a balance on his loan whether it is secured or not and is fully willing to execute new documentation in favor of any investor with an unpaid receivable attributable to the property of the homeowner. The banks are playing fast and loose with the rules and the judges are coming down as hard on them as they were knocking around borrowers just a few months ago. I know, I am seeing it in court over and over again. The entire atmosphere has changed.

So when the bank fails to send out a notice required by the judge’s order, civil procedure or the rules of evidence, they lose. And when they lose, without prejudice, if they have been sitting on it for more than 5 years in Florida they are barred by the statute of limitations at least as to the default that occurred 5 years before and probably everything up to the time of dismissal. The payments might not be cutoff by the statute but foreclosure or collection is barred. payments due after such an order are probably subject to a collection or foreclosure action but they should be met with an argument that due to the statute of limitations they are forever time-barred.

If the bank sends a pretrial statement to you saying “corporate representative” is their witness or even worse, attaches a list of 35 potential witnesses, that is the equivalent of not giving any notice of who the witness is going to be. That is subject to a motion in limine to prevent the bank from putting on witnesses. So far the judges are either extending the trial date out further and requiring compliance with the rules or they involuntarily dismissing the case thus entitling the Defendant to recovery of attorney fees in most cases.

Teaser: Take a close look at the laws of evidence passed by the legislature of your state. You will find some things in there that might prove deadly t the bank at the time of trial if you follow the path required and make your motions and preserve your objections. Those business records don’t belong in evidence and we all know it. They are not complete because they don’t include payment OUT to the creditor thus establishing WHO the creditor is and requiring an explanation of WHY the creditor is not the foreclosing party. But the fact that they are not complete is not nearly as strong as that they are by definition hearsay and inadmissible unless they are business records that follow the requirements of the evidence statutes that carve out an exception to the hearsay prohibition. 

Practice Hint: Judges always seem inclined to think they have discretion in virtually all matters. The evidence statute is a rule of law that the Judge has sworn to uphold, defend and enforce. Unless there is some ambiguity in the statute no judicial interpretation is allowed. The ambiguity must be raised by the party seeking to state that the statute is ambiguous. Without that, the Judge has NO DISCRETION, because it is a law and not a rule of civil procedure.

We are sitting on the edge of a cliff where the judges are ready to tip for the borrower. The sanction for trickery in notices and discovery will be judgment for the borrower or dismissal with prejudice. The conversation below shows just how close we are to that moment.

58 Responses

  1. Please forward these articles to your state and local officials as well as media outlets.

  2. Thank you for your response and reference. I have two friends who los their home to foreclosure. One of the houses got sold. The other is in limbo. Many attempts have been placed to sell the property. But it appears it cannot be insured…. Looking forward to see more loses against the banks and MERS.

  3. Yes.
    Please reference; Neil Garfield has insurmountable evidence on this issue.

  4. Yes! At this point.

  5. @ justme

    I am for sure in good old non-judicial GA! Read your post – wish you all the best too!
    When I sent my lettters I was checking to see if they would figure out I had found the information -I included “at any time was this loan marked paid in full?” both the “trustee for the trust they say the loan is in” and the servicer replied that both of my loans are collatereal for the trust. (Yes, I printed the page where it shows ‘Paid in full” and other pages too!) The master servicer replied (but only to an email) they could not reply and I should send my questions/concerns to the servicer.

    In GA we are blessed in BK- filed CH 7 and motion to strip the jr loan was granted. Still, almost a year later – no release has been recorded. Hummmm????

    Don’t trust my servicer – because I read the moody’s report on how they are so careful to review all loans before FC – and I know for a fact they would have noticed the multiple issues my loans had -they could not miss the mess because I sent many certified QWR to them for both loans telling them of multiple screwups and fradulent documents filed by my former servicer (sent a few examples – NOT ALL) – and the reply letters I recieved – I found them to be as unhelpful/dishonest as they were insulting!

    Today at 5am I got an email that my account (on the Master Servicers website-to check the trust my loan is said to be in) has been deactivated due to I have not used the account in over 12 months – I am sure it is a concidence (at least I hope so)- after fighting for my home for the past few years I may be paranoid – but just because I’m a bit paranoid doesn’t mean I am wrong about the fraud!

  6. Illinois or GA? or are you sneaky and your “ge(tt)inya” JenninGA! ….Resulting from all this contact mess I’ve began to look at words differently, and your username – well one could see it as Jenn in GA …or your out to get me. *laugh laugh*
    If you know who the “trustee” is and can prove that is your loan on that masterservicers site and it states paid in full – In my lay persons opinion, not legal advise, take that, copy it, send it to the master servicer, the servicer, and ask for an explanation. ASK for verification of what it is exactly. ASK them to tell you what that is, ask if that is your loan……..MARK it. Put an “attachment number on it, watermark it- whatever- and always be sure to refer to it as that attachment. When they reply- if my coffee has kicked in and I am thinking correctly….possibly….you have a signed payoff/release that can be authenticated and made admissible in court as evidence your mortgage is paid off. Where there is no mortgage, there is no note.
    Granted, if your loan is not with who you made it to in the first place that’s an issue in itself. Did you agree to that? I sure didn’t. You took out a loan for a home with PERSON X,really did not get any loan… promised to pay it back to PERSON X, and they sold your promise? Was that in your agreement? That they were going to sell your promise?….MISLEADING.That right there is breech of contract. Adhesion contract. To me it should apply to not only the mod but the Note. Judges want it simple, that’s simple. I would love for the simplicity to exist in the court when that is what they want to see….they are ruling on foreclosure. Sure, maybe you did not pay, but your mortgage says when the sums are paid the agreement ends, no? Mine does. #19 on the mortgage; RELEASE:upon payment of all sums secured by this security instrument, lender shall release security instrument to borrower without charge. Well, ..this attachment you have says it’s paid. This trustee was kind enough to pay off your loan in exchange for your servicer’s promise to pay him back. Kind folks, aren’t they?
    Point blank there are 100 ways to play ball here, you could have a personal note from the bank telling you they are sorry, but unfortunately they are stealing your home. They did not intend to ever let you keep your home, but business is business and that’s just how they make money. …..It’s all in the Judges hands I spose. According to Neil here, the courts are beginning to see the bigger picture. I would not know. Good luck to you.

  7. JenninGA! …….my my don’t you have a keen eye. I will catch up with you tomorrow.

  8. Another thought on Modifications – would it be safe to say that most homeowners modify in a time of duress???? If so, then how could a loan mod sign over homeowner’s rights if they enter a contract with a servicer when it is almost a “given” that the actions of most of the servicers today are “WRONGFUL IN A MORAL SENSE?”

    Contract modifications procured through duress are unenforceable by the party causing the duress. “Duress is a condition where one is induced by a wrongful act or threat of another to make a contract under circumstances which deprive him of the exercise of his free will, and a contract executed under duress is voidable.” De Fontaine v. Passalino, 222 Ill.App.3d 1018, 584 N.E.2d 933, 940, 165 Ill.Dec. 499 (2d Dist. 1991). To constitute duress, “[t]he acts or threats must be wrongful, and wrongfulness is not limited to acts that are criminal, tortious or in violation of a contractual duty but extends to acts wrongful in a moral sense.” Id.
    Economic duress, also known as business compulsion, consists of a wrongful act and the “absence of the quality of mind essential to the making of a contract.” 584 N.E.2d at 941. Although “wrongful acts” vary, there must be more than annoyance, vexation, personal embarrassment, a difficult bargaining position, or the pressure of financial circumstances. A court must find wrongful or unlawful pressure before it will void a contractual modification based on duress. Id.

  9. RE: justme, on October 24, 2013 at 8:48 pm said:

    In HAMP they cannot technically repurchase it until after the trial period. Then, they repurchase, modify to permanent, and re-pool, by Ginnie anyhow, and by then you have signed away any rights you have to fight that. Who owns the note- who paid for it- it does not not matter- you agreed to…….here…here, here, and here and you didn’t even know it. PAH

    Hey justme – wait a sec.
    Would it not be a contract law issue after the mod???? Would the servicer be held to a higher standard when entering this contract? Lets say a homeowner sends a certified QWR to the servicer – asking who is the “beneficiary” of my loan and also disputing the amount? What if that same owner did the same to the “Trustee to the trust the loan is said to be in”? What if the reply letters from both the servicer and Trustee contain information which is WRONG? What if the homeowner checked the masterservicers site – and found the trust and notice on of the 2 loans just happen to be marked “Paid in full” when it was charged off??? Now if the homeowner wanted to keep their home, and a modification was the homeowner’s only option they had, while facing foreclosure – then after getting fradulent information from both the servicer and trustee for the trust the loan is claimed to be in – the homeowner knows they are not concerned about the facts and will FC in a non judicial state – leaving the home owner no options….would not a modification agreement then be a fradulent contract???? It seems to me if you enter a contract with someone and they mislead you about the facts of the contract….that is fraud????

    PS – the MERS numbers for the loans are mixed up on the documets they have used in the past court and recorded – yet they file them anyway….they don’t care if the information is wrong!!!

  10. I am arguing my own arguments.

  11. In HAMP they cannot technically repurchase it until after the trial period. Then, they repurchase, modify to permanent, and re-pool, by Ginnie anyhow, and by then you have signed away any rights you have to fight that. Who owns the note- who paid for it- it does not not matter- you agreed to…….here…here, here, and here and you didn’t even know it. PAH!

  12. JG- I’m serious! I have it all written up and I stare at it everyday. Why not!? How simple,you know…Judges are there to simply yea or nea a foreclosure action. They want simple, I am going to make it just that. Note and Mortgage,… your Honor…I do not know what ‘they’ did – but they sure as shniddleditz did not keep a note a note… ohhhh my what did they do!?! ……. Peg a big ol’ Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act suit on the originator, and the servicer, wishful thinking

  13. HSBC Corporate Rep. Says “HSBC Does Not Hold Any Notes” | The Housing Justice Foundation

  14. “Make a motion for the servicer to repurchase your note to provide for ownership and holder, LOL.” Another idea: produce judicially noticeable material which evidences that a servicer MUST repurchase a loan in order for it to be modified. Also produce any relevant HAMP agreement with the particular bankster-servicer.
    The agreement to repurchase to modify is not in the PSA (pretty sure) – it’s in the servicer’s contracts with the agencies.
    Or just find the GSE material and ask the servicer, “Aren’t you bound by such and such agreement?”, citing chapter and verse. I don’t believe any agreement, other than HAMP, compels a bankster to modify, but I’m clear that in order to do so, the bankster must in fact repurchase it (and then at least FNMA won’t take it back). Now what we have to do is figure out (yawn) the mechanics of them actually doing it. Like whose money is used to comply with the contractual agreement with the GSE to repurchase? And …..hmm….even if the note itself doesn’t call for anything other than repayment such that that anything could negate the instrument as negotiable, how about all these third party contracts which control it? These are not agreements by the parties to the note (unless they are and this is all one big collossal lie from start to finish).

  15. Melissa – a secn trust trustee does not own notes, any more than a dot trustee owns an interest in one’s home. The trust (is alleged) to own the note.
    The beneficiaries of the trust are the MBS securities owners (so they say). If all things were legit, the secn trustee holds the note as trustee for the investors, making it the proper party to be called the lender / creditor (even though factually Deutsche isn’t itself). Deutsche apparantly doesn’t want to identify the trust your loan is allegedly in. Deutsche is not properly called “Deutsche as trustee”. It’s imo only appropriate to say “Deutsche as trustee for XYZ Trust”, something left out of many cases. Deutsche isn’t literally the creditor, but it’s the representative of the creditor / beneficiaries. Imo, if one asks for the creditor, if an answer is forthcoming, it has to include the name of the trust the loan is allegedly in. So if they just say “Deutsche”, they have not answered the question. The creditor is (allegedly) the trust. but it’s expressed with the trustee in the act. But hmmmm….now that I think about it some more, I think the answer is just “XYZ Trust”.
    The fact that Deutsche is the trustee doesn’t make it the creditor, of course, and it’s inclusion is or might be misdirection. We don’t say
    “yeah, I signed a dot to First American Title as Trustee’, right?
    We say ‘I signed a dot to (well, used to before stinking MERS ) ABC Lender’. So, bottom line imo, the trust is the creditor and should be identified as such (IF it is, that is). The trust is the creditor and the investors are its (alleged) beneficiaries. Deutsche is only the trustee.
    But, dang, I need to think some more about whether this deal makes the trust or its beneficiaries the creditor. It’s definitely not the trustee. Any thoughts?

  16. elex at 1:41 – sounds about par for the course. I’m convinced mediation is a trap.

  17. hman – As to when the other lender was paid off, one would need the payoff statement and the HUD to determine this. But nothing seems amiss there if the release were recorded on the 16th. Between the 10th and the 16th, the new lender would be in second position, but they would slide into first when the release was recorded. Whether or not a borrower ever got a copy of the old loan payoff stmt probably varies from lender to lender. It’s often ordered by the title company.

  18. hman – at a previous post, I weighed in on your docs. Did you see my comments? When an U/W says an item on the exceptions page of a title commitment (report) must be removed, she is saying the exception is an unacceptable exception to title insurance and has to be dealt with. it might have been something like mineral rights (which means somewhere in history, someone obtained mineral rights in the ground – not unusual). Title companies issue a thing, can’t think of the name!, to “insure over” the exception. It’s like a rider and it costs a certain percentage, generally, of the cost of the title policy – around 10% as a guesstimate. So, yes, this may be done.
    You’re right that the broker probably didn’t use its own funds to make the loan. I’ve weighed in on that already. I said, in my lay opinion, your best bet was the dot being recorded prior to disbursement (10th v 12th) and any interest charged to you prior to disbursement. Interest may not be charged before disbursement.

  19. In Oct 2006 I filed a chp 13 bk..The bk was brought on from my employer lying about the right to sell mortgage notes for Chase. It’s not like I could of known they (NARS) didn’t have it in their contract to sell them. Here’s how sinister they really are. Nars board of directors Dave Kreisman & Gerald Shapiro are over 35 of America’s top law offices. In with every servicer, title company, and are probably the judges golfing buddies. They also are over the majority of the bk trustees and judges.

    After several things like putting fraud into the court knowing its fraud WF was dismissed w/o prejudice here in the Eastern Dist of MO on my 2nd mortgage. The 1st was endorsed the same way as the 2nd. I was accused of wanting a free house.

    My own atty refused to assist w/whistle blower protections. Subsequently, I found out he works for a chp 7 bk trustee.That he also is a atty for the banks. At any rate he refused to file an adversary even though they put fraud into the court knowing it was. Putting in a false proof of claim to be paid should carry a $500,000 penalty. But since no atty will take the case here we are still in the messed up financial land.

    After he refused to help I let my 1st chp 13 get dismissed. Filed another, and put in my own adversary, and the one the atty typed but refused to file. As in MO there are “Merchandise Practicing Laws” that are supposed to be followed. At any rate they removed my atty adversary (POOF OUT OF THE FEDERAL RECORD!) So I filed another suit as the judge appeared to be on the take. As the only way I have to pay my bills being a banker is if I can get any of them to do honest biz!

    Citi had the nerve to say one investor wasn’t spending enough cuz he was only spending $150,000 per month. Not the $3-$4 million they wanted him to spend. So that didn’t make me any money! Then the next investor with Citi wanted to spend $10 million to $50 million per month on deficiency balance notes. Which this transaction didn’t happen either..Why? Once Citi sold the worst possible notes they still wanted to make money on them! How do you make more money on something like this if you just SOLD IT? Needless to say the investor wasn’t hip or stupid. At any rate no money there either.

    So after the removal of court records and suing for all the right reasons for Americans I sued the Bk Judge along with all of them! put in my initial claim then requested a TRO. The TRO was Denied in less than 10 days. Thereafter, I did a Motion to Vacate her Denial of my TRO. Instead of less than 10 days Judge Hang Em High Jackson took about 60 and Summarily Denied Everything As Frivolous! Subsequently, 60 days later she Sua Ponte Disqualified, and Recused. Then Judge Charles Shaw Recused as well. Then Judge Moody out of AR let them steal my home!

    Where it gets interesting is after all this is when I found out my former employer was the Board of Directors over 35 of the top law offices nationally putting fraud into the courts knowing its FRAUD!

    Where it gets real interesting is when I started doing research on my ancestors I found out they’ve lied to me my whole life about my TRUE IDENTITY! I was asked to research what happened to my great grandfather. So one of the 1st things I did is see if he ever updated his social security card. He did and well its been a wild west of adventure finding out who I really am. It’ll be interesting to find out one day as according to my family pictures I’m the great great grand daughter of the REAL KATIE O’HARA as in Gone with the Wind! That she wasn’t a fictional character! That my family was one of the wealthiest and we can’t be told who the HELL WE ARE! Welcome to the ILLUMINATI! Don’t be distracted with what’s happening in court the attys for the most part will not HELP YOU!

    Me and my group have also had a way to prevent the whole crisis since 2008 so that tells you how much CORRUPTION there is!

  20. What is going on here??

    After 3 years , I’m actually starting to understand some of MasterServicer posts !!!


    Defendants cannot provide 30 years financing as 360/360 and then fall back on a five year Due On date for triggering acceleration. The mortgage is therefore sold as one thing and revealed as a 360/60.

    Defendants offer a consolidation mortgage that records as a single loan. Where the mortgage is discounted by 25 percent the 100% Loan to Value is made into an 75 percent advance. Whereby the bifurcated transaction is valued at 75 percent, the advance is reduced by 30 percent or an adjusted advance rate of 60 percent.

    Assume the loan charges 5 percent annually or collective 25 percent discount At five percent annually the mortgages face value is restored in year five.

    Defendants cannot provide the borrower a 100 percent advance upon discounting the top 25 percent in order to prepay the mortgage and thus, allow for rating agencies to provide Aaa rating for bond quality. If so the lender is lost to the promissory note as the security instrument prevails as a notional value and yield bearing security instrument.

    If the note were to prevail and the transaction includes all borrower monthly payments as well as all accrued discounted payments , the dual consideration would be subject to a call date or undue acceleration.

    These elements of mortgage lending and the private sector are arguably an unfair restraint on alienation by undisclosed acceleration, excess over charging in violation of RESPA and TILA .collectively give rise to dual consideration.




    October 3, 2013

    Several of our clients have recently received letters from Ocwen Loan Servicing in response to inquiries as to who owns the homeowner’s loan. The response from Ocwen is a form letter, which states: “There is no single investor of the loan.

  23. Consider the substantive claims for estopples by laches . I prepared a brief response in a detainer matter citing unlawful estopples, misjoinder and estopple by laches. The presiding judge was tough and that day blew out one after another foreclosure defenses citing the foreclosure claim, albeit had merit , was not to be confused with the matter of a holdover post sale.

    The Judges response was a repetitive “I like this response..I really like this response , I like this response.”

    No doubt, its important to qualify laches or the substantive element of laches in the context of the requirement that the “foreclosure victim” invoking the doctrine has suffered from a change in the claims made as a result of the undue wait.

    The court will evaluate the extent the defendant is in a worse position now than at the time the claim should have been brought. Take for example where delay in asserting the claim may have caused a great increase in the potential damages to be awarded

    In a private label mortgage claim, consideration should be given for how the asset accrues interest and how it cannot be disturbed until maturity.

    This is the basis for a laches claim and should include claims for unenforceable executory contracts interwoven into what appears on its face as a conventional deed of trust

    Another claim is for undue acceleration barring counter claims for waste by enforcing a non judicial claim under a Due On Sale Clause .

    Its obvious to the insider that the devisee and instrumentalities used to create the depositors account and move all existing liens off title , are cause arguing the subject “whole loan asset” could at no earlier time have been used to satisfy the claim . Nor could the loan have been allowed to be paid at anytime earlier by requesting a lenders payoff demand. .

    The household cannot be held from all the entitlements provided fee simple ownership whereby the rights in the property in question are conditioned and thus held as a restraint on alienation

    Raising the defense of laches against a 12 (b )6 motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim may argue the foreclosing attorneys are entering the court late in the day -too late to grant the relief sought, at least not without causing irreparable harm that the plaintiff could have avoided.

    A successful defense of laches will find the court denying the 12(b)6 request for dismissal.

    Ref. However, even if equitable relief is not available, the party may still have an action at law if the statute of limitations has not run out.
    Under the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, laches is an affirmative defense, which means that the burden of asserting laches is on the party responding to the claim to which it applies. “When the defense of laches is clear on the face of the complaint, and where it is clear that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to avoid the insuperable bar, a court may consider the defense on a motion to dismiss.” Solow v. Nine West Group, 2001 WL 736794, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2001); Simons v. United States, 452 F.2d 1110, 1116 (2d Cir. 1971) (affirming Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based, in part, on laches where papers “reveal no reason for the inordinate and prejudicial delay”). The United State Supreme Court case Costello v. United States (1961) is often cited for a definition of laches.[3]

  24. The party moving to remand to federal Court wins 85% of the time. Most households can find a merit able District court question. Jurisdiction and diversity

  25. Speaking of rules… next stop for me is the U.S. Supreme Court on removal procedures. I am looking for a citable statistic on how many or what percentage of cases brought by homeowners in state court are removed to federal court and then dismissed on a 12(b)(6) motion, or summary judgment granted against them. Anyone know of a source?

  26. PS…

    That video is Bill Black’s take on the 13 billion settlement. And he ain’t excited. Actually, he is very, very critical. And we’re getting screwed again.

    What else is new?

  27. What else is new?

  28. Let me try this again ….

    My averment to the subject matter controversy establishes JP Morgan Chase , not BofA as creditor under a bank note bank Seller carry-back arrangement.

    JP Morgan Chase is the Payoff demand $420,000
    CWHL Inc is the Mortgage Originator for $546,250

    The wire into settlement NEVER made it to the closing agent.
    JP Morgan Chase carries back the cost of the wire by foreclosing its payoff for balances outstanding. The consolidation loan is nothing more the a General Ledger accounting gimmick that wrapped the $420,000 with the cost to carry the mortgage five years.

    That would be the difference of $420,000 and $546,250 or $126,250. In his fashion the ABA wire is sent off shore financed in a bank to bank scheme that is in no uncertain words , a banker note seller carry back and bank to originator – installment sale contract

    Later , RBS through Greenwich will purchase the $546,250 demand for payoff promised in five years for the amount owed JP Morgan Chase ; $420,000.

    This is the means and methods for rerouting wires off shore and financing the cost to carry with household equity , doing so at the expense of a foreign national central banking private sector bond issuer scheme

    Its the ABA wire that was rerouted that brings out the magnitude of the criminal acts in this 80-20 international money laundering scheme familiar to EURO Banks for decades …..


  29. UKG,

    I hope it is your own case. Indeed, it can be fun. The biggest law firm in Ohio is stalling discovery because i want the entire computer listing of every employee who ever accessed my account within a 3 year time frame so as to depose them all. I know who did: i can prove it, with names, dates, business cards and such. And all those employees have been let go… under some cloud. They’ll be happy to talk I’m sure.

  30. In other words, do we now exactly which law makes a transfer to a trust post-cut-off void

    FEBRUARY 1996 – OCTOBER 2008
    The case I am reviewing for counsel is as follows:

    The originator Countrywide holds the note and security deed of trust under the conventional mortgage obligation owed to it by the household. Bank of America NA alleged to have wired the funds into settlement to fulfill the HUD 1 disbursement schedule for the closing agent pays offs and all settlement closing fees.

    However, BofA, is discovered to have allowed CWHL inc to finance the existing payoff amount balances “off title”. In this way JP Morgan Chase the successor to WaMu FSB, will finance the wire by carrying its balance due as an installment for six year commercial obligation
    My averment to the subject matter controversy establishes JP Morgan Chase , not BofA as creditor under a bank note bank Seller carry-back arrangement.In this financing of bank debt off title scheme the ABA wire is diverted.

    Herein discovery will show where BofA wires the amount due as was originally promised at settlement , but wire funds into an offshore account. The cash is used to fund the capital stock held in the formation of trust as in the “bond Indentures”.
    I aver in testimony that The common stock can raise up to 10:1 ration its value by offering preferred shares written as 30 day commercial paper . The scheme in turn is recognized as an unlawful banker to banker capital stock financing. The clever financing leaves CWHL inc carrying the cost for the wire into a Cayman or Geneva Depositors Account. Its is JP Morgan then who covered the financing cost for the rerouting of the wire by way of a seller carry back obligation provided by Bank of America NA .

    The cost to finance the ABA wire that is carried back is the amount i due JPM Chase as if no loan was ever obtained at origination The cost to carry the JPM Chase installment contract over the next five years is absorbed by discounting the demand to a foreign national central bank
    I aver that under an installment sale contract all the off title transfers result in the title being siesed of the estate leaving the borrower “you” with an estate for years, a leasehold or what early common law called a livery in seisen . This transfer of title or condition for loss of the household estate is held in the security instrument the household executed at the settlement

    Read where it states as follows:
    1) Borrower is lawfully siesed of the estate 2) Does hereby irrevocable grant and convey Title to the estate 3) Grants ad conveys to trustee in trust


  31. Would that Phyllis Walsh had this sort of assistance before she committed foreclosure-assisted suicide. I dedicated next Monday’s City Council Candidate forum to her.

  32. Usedkarguy-


  33. No, not really. What the papers say and what the truth is are two very different things. I have gotten 7 attempts to modify from Ocwen in the last 6 weeks…LOL. I sign “nothing”, NADA. My case gets real interesting in that it appears from court documents the lawyer for Ocwen; Mathias Hunoval, Poore’s Substitute Trustee of Charlotte, NC) bought my loan, a writ of possession for $26,140.00 in 2010. Now, in 2013 they have sent me a 45 day notice of foreclosure from the same SP200 proceeding it was bought from? WTF? And the lawyers is/was the substitute trustee, the lawyer for Ocwen and the buyer at the same time…we are looking to have him charged/sanctioned…at this time. He SHOULD lose his license.

    As for Deutsche…the HUD says RBC was the lender, they say no, New Century the lender/originator, lending cut-off at that time, loans did go unfunded..the list is long…so far, ghosts are out there all trying to grab the land. He, he, he…

  34. Does any one have on your documents the following names?
    Judy Faber
    Christie Bouchard
    Gina Gerwig (maynot be a Robo signer but a rubber stamp is found on my allonge above Judy Faber)

    Sandy Kinnunen a.k.a Sandra Jean Kinnunen
    Lee Lisa Vang
    Vickie Ingamells

  35. That is hilarious UKG! That’s priceless…and the look on the plaintiffs face!…ahhh

  36. so the judge says (in a case that shall remain nameless)…..
    and I’m third-handing this to you all…….
    “Well, I’m kind of beginning to wonder whether any of these people really exist?” (One of the signors in the chain was Linda Green).
    “I’ll give plaintiffs thirty days to produce the W-2’s of these (officers of the bank assignor) affiants and signors.”
    The high-power national law firm exited shortly thereafter, dumping the case back on the foreclosure mill.

    I’ll let you know how it all turns out. This is getting to be fun……

  37. h-man, send me your e-mail.
    I have something for you.

  38. Here is a link to the Examiners report into the Rescap BK for anyone dealing with GMAC, Ally or Homecomings Financial.'s%20Report%20–%20Section%208.pdf

    Here is a statement from the report regarding homecomings financial

    “RFC did not originate loans in the traditional sense, but rather acted as a conduit that acquired mortgage loans from 3rd parties with the intent to sell those loans as part of wholeloan transactions or securitizations. RFC acquired “closed” loans from correspondents who are originators that funded their loans prior to sale. In many cases the correspondents funded the loans using warehouse lending facilities provided by RFC.89 RFC also acquired loans from
    brokers who are originators that sell unfunded loans.90 Unfunded loans would typically be
    acquired by RFC subsidiary Homecomings Financial which would fund the loan.91 RFC
    typically acquired loans in two ways: (1) through bulk or group loan transactions; or (2) (2) on a
    continuous loan-by-loan flow basis.92 These transactions were entered into with three channels
    of clients:
    • Correspondent—This channel was comprised of smaller to mid-size
    correspondents that typically committed loans to RFC on a flow or bulk basis.93
    GMAC Mortgage was considered a correspondent client.94
    • Institutional—This channel consisted of larger companies that typically committed
    loans to RFC on a bulk basis.95
    • Broker or Wholesale—This channel was essentially Homecomings Financial, an
    RFC subsidiary that worked with brokers to fund loans.96

    OK So I’m trying to figure out if my loan was funded by the lender on my DOT or if funded by someone else. My first loan servicer was Homecomings financial. The statement above strongly suggest that the loan was funded by homecomings but it does not say with certainty that homecomings funded the loan.

    Like I said the DOT recorded is dated 11/4 and so is the note I signed at closing. So how could the loan be unfunded by the broker? The HUD 1 shows the “funding” date as 11/12 so about a week after. Also, I got funds from my cash out refi on 11/13.

    I’m trying to look at this from a judges standpoint. How can I claim the lender didn’t fund the loan when the note and DOT are signed and recorded about a week prior to funding? His conclusion can be that the broker must have funded it and sold it to RFC. (Even though the funding date on the HUD-1 clearly states otherwise). How can I prove otherwise.

    I’ve called the bank the wire was drafted on and all they can tell me is the funds were disbursed by the title company. Of course the title company says they don’t have the funding instructions and the AZ statutes only require them to hold them for 5 years.

  39. you know what- as far as forgery & alteration go- I have the closest thing to the ORIGINALS. The note is undeniably Fake, neither note nor mortgage can be authenticated…the original ‘lender’ has stated they did not sell the note to the current servicer, …all they have is their argument they submitted the documents for their legal effect, not the truth. So- I owe the original lender- who is 6 feet under.

  40. Christine I have the same as well. I have all docs from walking out of closing. None notarized, not even the mortgage. The copies the servicer sent me from a qwr are perfect signatures, but were ‘copy & pasted’. The HUD-1 they had to redo to show a purchase of title insurance- because it was not filled in. We paid for it, but it must have been looked over when they noticed they did not say we did. Either way closing company says there is a policy- which First American says there is not.I was literally chewed out and hung up on a few hours ago by the owner of the closing/title company. He told me I should not be trying to figure out what happened so many years ago. That I should bite the bullet, save my pennies until get foreclosed on – because I will- (he said) and never mind how the closing was done. –Psh. I was respectful. I was calling asking why their office had no closing documents…..I was curious as to the dispersal of funds….the “payoff to sellers Mortgage at bank such & such” was BLANK……the previous owners mortgage did not get paid off, but at closing they told them they paid it off with the funds. …..Central states was just indited.One of the previous charges was selling loans onto secondary market and keeping the funds instead of paying off the underlying mortgages. Fits…but my loan was table funded, so how that fit’s in I’m not sure. I just know the servicer has NO way to prove they paid piddly squat for my house the way they got it.

  41. hman,

    It probably is a dumb question but do you have 2 sets of your docs? The one you got immediately at signature and the one you requested (or should request) from whoever the broker/lender/money handler appears to be on your paperwork?

    I did and, strangely enough, they do not match. Certain pages forwarded 5 years after the fact by the “lender” are different from the pages of the copies I got at signature. What is remarkable though is that the signature and/or initials are exactly the same. In a slightly different position on the newer paperwork. Which led me to realize that my signature/initials had been lifted and affixed to the newer set. Don’t know when, don’t how and don’t know by whom. Also, there was no notary at signing… but everything ended up notarized. Worth looking into.

    A bad case of obvious forgery, obviously. But banks did that because they expected that people would toss the copies they got or that they would simply lose them. And unfortunately, it is true in many cases: we are inundated with -and choked by- so much paperwork from so many sources that we end up discarding things we shouldn’t lest we end up buried.

  42. elexquisitor,
    Make a motion for the servicer to repurchase your note to provide for ownership and holder, LOL. We hear it all too well, The mortgage follows the note. Soooo, they endorsed your note to______(or blank) and released all rights….and along with that, the mortgage. How can they modify if they don’t own the note, that is not within their power. How can they reinstate the loan with your house as collateral – it’s collateral for a MBS- I am damn close to filing that – a motion to reacquire my loan from the pool- LAUGH LAUGH – I want the investor himself to endorse my note back to the servicer and affidavits from the investor and the servicer MY mortgage is ONLY functioning as collateral for MY home. Biggest BS, mediation. How can you make a new agreement in a mod for payment without it being unsecured? The fricken mortgage is occupied at the moment – it’s collateral for the servicers obligation. Bring the elementary basics back to the meaning of note & mortgage. I am dam near done with this mediation junk. ….”just sign this modification (we don’t intend to make permanent and screw you again with a bigger debt), and, Oh yes- drop your counter claims, then we will be a-ok” they say in mediation LMAO. Do or die. I am happy to hear things are turning up. Learn from the best eh?! Modifications for all,,, like congress got lol. …add some of our own earmarks, take out a few mil for the shit of it with no equity….and come back in a few months and do it again, why not.

  43. Melissa you “owe” your payments in accordance with your note. The servicer takes those payments and forwards them to the investor because they bought your note. They just “service” the loan for Deutsch, and Ocwen as servicer needs permission to modify your loan from Deutsch because they own your note.

  44. Poppy,
    I spoke with Deutsch 2 days ago and they told me straight out, DEUTSCH DOES NOT LEND ANY MONEY, THEY ARE A HOLDER OF LOAN DOCUMENTS ONLY! So my question again is if my documents show that Deutsch is the investor does that mean that is the party I owe the money too? Ocwen wants to modify my loan and tells me that the original investor will be my investor again, but Deutsch doesn’t lend money. Confused yet?

  45. The homeowner is in search of a balance on his loan whether it is secured or not and is fully willing to execute new documentation in favor of any investor with an unpaid receivable attributable to the property of the homeowner.

    Speak for yourself. I haven’t spent the last half-decade studying law and how to keep frost out of front doors with zippers to simply start afresh with some hedgie like that rat-bastard John Paulson.

  46. @NG – LOL. CA trial judges may not have discretion, so they force pro se parties like me into mediation and ‘discovery facilitation’, then abdicate their lack of discretion to the ‘mediator’ or ‘facilitator’ to kill discovery efforts.

  47. I wonder if those who purchased a foreclosed house are affected… If the previous owner changes the assignment and files for quiet title, could the new owner loose the house they have purchased in good faith? Does it mean they are victims of Fraud by the Banks? Are real estate agents and brokers responsible as well?

    If this is the case. Banks could start folding…

  48. JG-I looked at my paperwork again.

    So the date the note was signed and excuted was 11/4 but the “funding” date on the HUD-1 showed 11/12? The loan was submitted from the “broker” to GMAC for approval on 11/4 the date the note was signed. The last few condidtions were not signed off on until 11/12.

    Something else that is sticking out is one of the conditions reads “#3 on prelim requirements to be removed from final title policy.” Umm can they do that? I don’t even see this condition on my copy so I am assuming they did it.

    Anyway, like I stated earlier this was a cashout refi. It’s not clear the date the other “lender” was paid off but the date on the lien release that is recorded is dated 11/16 but that doesn’t necessarily mean payment was received on that date only that the document was executed on that day I believe.

    Anyway, what I’m trying to figure out is if I could make a case that the $ didn’t come from the broker and the party identified on the note as the “lender” is incorrect. Therefore, the note was worthless etc…

  49. Wow

    Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4 Active™, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

  50. I will agree, judges are turning the tables and finding for the home owner. Glaski vs BoA is a good example. Banks are now starting to shake. Do they see the Glaski case as a revelation to the fraud committed and that is the reason banks want to depublish the Glaski decision?

    Good luck to all of us.

  51. They can mean the same thing, as some of the money was lent from Deutsche Bank Trust, mine was…it is the investors money, taken from an investor pool. I would say they are not the same, but Deutsche made that happen…so they say, in wiring instructions…I too am dealing with Ocwen…a**holes.


  53. My question is, Is the word Investor the same as Lender? If my Investor is Deutsch Bank,as Trustee, and my servicer is Ocwen, Do I owe the money to the investor or the Lender? Do the words investor and lender mean the same thing?

  54. Thats 12-16192 USCA 9th circuit

  55. See my case
    uSCA 9th circuit 13-16192 and see that indeed the rules matter. I may be pro se but i did my homework mr Garfeild.

  56. These past years have taking me down
    If only I was able to see this full page instead of trying on my iPhones small screen
    Also my comprehension is not working
    My heads overloaded
    Plus I’m unsure what’s what today
    After my wrongful foreclosure lockout day march 29 2011 after making our house into a home 22 years
    Frustrating more today then ever not having the knowledge of legislation

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: