Why Are We having So Much Trouble Connecting the Dots?

Matt Weidner reports that he went to court on a case where IndyMAc was the plaintiff. IndyMac was one of the first banks to collapse. It was found that they owned virtually zero mortgages and had “securitized” the rest which is to say they never loaned the money or got paid off by a successor. Now the servicing rights on IndyMac have been sold. So when the time came for trial he finds the lawyer fighting with his own witness. It seems that she would not say she worked for IndyMac because she didn’t. That meant there was no corporate representative present to testify for the plaintiff. case over? Not according to what we have seen where IndyMac foreclosures continue to be rubber stamped by Judges who do not understand the gravity of the situation.

The precedent being set is for anyone who knows about a default to race to the courthouse with a complaint to foreclose after fabricated a notice of default and asserting themselves as the successor to whoever the borrower was paying. The borrower doesn’t know the difference and generally doesn’t care because they mistakenly think they are screwed no matter what. So the pretender lender that was collecting takes it time partly because they are simply collecting fees on “non-performing” loans. Meanwhile our creative criminal goes in and alleges that he is the holder of a lost note, submits affidavits, but of course stays away from the essential allegation that there ever was a transaction between himself and the borrower. These days Judges don’t seem to require that.

Judgment is entered for our creative criminal and he becomes by court order, the creditor who can submit a credit bid at auction. He makes the non-cash bid at the auction and presto he just got himself a free house which he sells at discount on the open market. He only needs to do a few of those before he vanishes with a few million dollars. In fact, we have learned that such “foreclosures” are going on now sometimes creatively named such that it looks like the name of a bank. That is why I have been saying for 7 years that  the foreclosures, if they are allowed to proceed, will eventually create chaos in the marketplace.

You might ask why the banks don’t raise a big stink about this practice. The answer is that there are only a few such scams going on at the moment. And the banks are relying on the loopholes created in pleading practice to get their own foreclosures through the same way as our criminal because they really don’t own the loan or even the servicing rights. Yup! That is called a syllogism: if the creative criminal is a criminal for doing what he did, then the bank or anyone else who engages in the same behavior is also a criminal.

And that is why the justice department and regulators are ramping up their investigations and charges, getting ready to indict the bankers who thought they were untouchable. If you read the reports of securities analysts, you will see three types of authors — those who obviously have drunk the Kool-Aide and believe Bank of America and Chase hinting the stock is a good buy, those who are paid to plant pretty articles about the banks, and supposedly declining foreclosures and increasing housing prices, and those who have looked at the jury conviction of Countrywide, looked at the pace of settlements, and looked at the announcements that there are many more investigations and charges to be resolved, and who have seen the probability of indictments, and they conclude that BOA is soon going to be on the chopping block for sale in pieces and the same will happen with Chase, Citi and maybe even Wells.

While the media is not paying attention to the impending doom of the mega banks, the market is discounting the stock and the book value of these companies is dropping like a stone because real investment analysts under stand that much of what is being carried on the books as assets, is really worthless garbage. Charges of fraud are announced practically everyday, saying that the banks defrauded investors, defrauded Fannie and Freddie, and defrauded each other, as well as insurance companies and counterparties on credit default swaps. In other words it is pretty well settled that the sale of mortgage bonds was a sweeping fraudulent scheme and that the word PONZI scheme is accurate, not some conspiracy theory as I was treated back in 2007-2010.

So now that we know that there was complete fraud at one end of the stick (where the funding for the origination and acquisition of mortgages took place), the question is why is anyone looking at foreclosures as inevitable or proper or even possible. It is the same stick. If one end is burning then it is quite likely that the other end will be burning soon and that is exactly what I predict for the coming months.

Having been in court multiple times over the last month representing clients seeking to retain their homes it is readily apparent that the Judges are changing their minds about whether the foreclosure is inevitable or that collection by these creative criminals is wise or legal — i.e., whether the enire exercise involves an arrogant willingness to commit perjury. Since the mortgages were part of the scheme and the part where the lender appeared with the money is covered in fraud, it is certainly reasonable to assume that the the fraudulent schemes included the origination and transfer of mortgage paper. And that is exactly the case.

If it wasn’t the case there never would have been fraud at the top because the investors would be on the note and mortgage and some some nominee of the broker dealer (“BANK”) or they would have been on a recorded assignment closed out within 90 days of the start of the REMIC trust, which would have been funded by money from investors paid to the investment bank (broker dealer) who then forwarded the net proceeds tot he Trust. None of that ever happened, though, which is how the fraud was enabled.

Practice Hint: I like to demonstrate by drawing a large “V” where the bottom is the closing agent, the left side is the money trail and the right side is the paper trail — and showing that they never meet. That means the paper trail is a fictional story about transactions that never occurred. The money trail is actual facts and data showing actual transactions where money exchanged hands but there was no documentation. The “Trust” was never funded with money or assets, so the money went straight down the left side from the investors at the top of the left side to the closing agent, who applied the investors money to close a transaction that was documented as though the originator had loaned the money. The same reasoning applies to transfers and assignments.

The core of the cases filed by the banks is that the Note is prima facie evidence that a transaction occurred. It is entitled to a presumption of validity. But where the borrower denies the transaction ever occurred, and files the right discovery to get evidence of the wire transfers and canceled checks, the banks go wild because they know their entire case will not only fall apart but subject them to prosecution.

Which brings us to Marshall Watson, who seeks to be licensed again to practice law, and David Stern who is about to be disbarred forever. The good news is that they were disciplined for fabrication and forgery of documents. The bad news is that the inquiry stopped there and nobody ever asked why it was necessary to fabricate or forge documents.

FRAUD! In Foreclosure Court Indymac/Onewest Doesn’t Own Notes and Mortgages, But “They” Continue To Foreclose Anyway

Suspended Ft. Lauderdale foreclosure mill head seeks return

Florida Bar referee calls for ex-foreclosure king’s disbarment

195 Responses

  1. did you get my 60 b motion 864-787-2880

  2. did you get my 60 b motion? I have an atty to help do the all research thanks Shirley

  3. When I went to Kingcast movies.Re.Suffolk County Clerk Judith Pasqualle.Fein, Such and Kahn.Utube of Henry Fein ROBO forclosure.Damn, I had to put my glasses on turn on the light.Henry Fein, looks like a polished up version of my former husband Mike Figat.Check it out.

  4. It is usually noted on the bottom right corner of the note.It will state pool # followed by a bunch of numbers.My house has definate mortgage fraud.I found Web Title, First American Title,

  5. Nancy, do you know how I can find out if a deed of trust is or was suppose to be in a Securitization Pool? Specifically, the one below.

  6. The entire MERS is a scam.I dare a group of curious mortgage fraud victims get real.Get to the core of this entire buolshit system of fake notaries, bank vice presidnts with strange names.Notaries without notary numbers.Get a handwriting expert to examine a few hundred documents.Guess what, he will find?

  7. A big group of organized criminals.Hell bent on covering their dishonrst asses.

  8. Below is a really bad scan of my Deed of Trust From Citi Mortgage. Have a couple of questions that someone may be able to answer. 1. You can clearly see that MERS is the Assignor. Question I thought that was illegal. 2. You see a stamp on there that says Certified True Copy. Actually you cant see the stamp, on here but its on the document all by itself and nothing else. The notary on here is part of the original deed. Question shouldn’t this be notarized I requested a certified copy through a QWR? 3. Can someone tell me how to find out if this loan was securitized? As you can see some the stuff did not scan very well such as the signature.

    When Recorded Return To:
    PO BOX 29071
    GLENDALE, CA 91209-9071

    MERS SIS # 868-679-6377 MIN: 100052550053155353
    Assignor: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity Financial Corp., its
    successors and assigns
    Assignee: CitiMortgage, Inc.
    For Valuable Consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Assignor hereby assigns
    and transfers the following described Deed of Trust unto. the Assignee:
    That certain Deed of Trust executed by James A Smith and Rhonda E Smith, dated
    021:2212005 recorded in the land Records of Baltimore County, Maryland in liber: 0021536 Folio: 333 ,
    securing a note executed of even date therewith in the original principal amount ot $295,000.00, and
    granting a securing interest in the property commonly known as 9411 Lyonswood Drive, Owings Mills,
    MO, 21117, which property is more particularly described on: Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
    herein by reference.
    Description/Additional information: See Exhibit A
    Original Beneficiary Name: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity
    FinanCial Corp. its successors and assigns
    Original Beneficiary Address: P.O. Box 2026. Flint, MI, 48501-2026
    Current Beneficiary Address: P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI, 4650′-2026
    Witness my hand this -:–+-’-::-L……:::.~—
    Mortgage Electronic Registr ion Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity Financial Corp. its successors
    and assigns

    ~me Geraldine Ann Belinski
    Title: Vice President
    Page. 1 39147374 2~49 MDOO~ 8a~rmo,e County Inlernal

    On 1- Z &-20 t.3 before me, Ihe undersigned, a nolary public in and for said
    state. personally appeared Geraldine Ann Belinskl, Vice PreSident of Mortgage Electronic
    Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity Flnilnclal Corp. Its successors and
    assigns personally known 10 me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
    individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she
    executed the same in his/her capacity. and that by his/her signature on the instrument, the individual, or
    the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument

    Page’ 2 391″7374 2«49 1.10005 Banimore COunly Internal

  9. Suffolk County New York Judges.They hate me.They know that I know what I know. Deny my rights, verbally abuse me.Submit forged documents to deny me a trial re.fraudulent traffic tickets given to me by the Suffolk County Police Dept.Also written by my ex.Mike Figat.Can post here.

  10. Cont.I began to visit the county of Suffolk New York clerks office with my court documents in hand.When I would type in thr judges name that I went or was
    supposed to go before. Every time, said judges would show a MERS mortgage satisfaction corresponding to within weeks of my legal filing ir my court date. One Sup.Court Judge Suffolk county New York, Hon.Denise Molia.She has a March 19th.sat.the exact day that my court case had a Decision not In my favor.March 19th.09.MERS satisfaction same date and timeframe.Also family court magistrate Melissa Wilmott gave me an answer same date.Busy day for Mike.

  11. I found out, that my former husband is the MERS ROBO signer and much more.Each time, that I have had to make s court appearance re.my divorce, child support.The judges in Suffolk courts were very vile, sarcastic and outright nasty to me.
    That is, if I was able to even get before a judge at all.My requests always denied or dismissed.Became suspicious after the first ten years of this.I began to notice and compare the signatures on my court orders. They all had the same scribble as that of Mike Figat.my ex..husband.

  12. NE, what info do you have that judges are receiving money because of mortgage fraud? Would be very interested. I am sure others would be as well.

  13. @eviction services of all monikers I have seen on this blog. Fraud is all over the real estate industry and all of its subsets, appraisers, title insurance companies, banks, mortgage brokers, sellers, attorneys who do closings, attorneys who work on foreclosure actions (both sides) mortgage companies–look at Catherine Austin Fitts about mortgage fraud in this country. It will be a real education.

  14. Fraud in the inception.Fraud will follow thereafter.

  15. My Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust’s Date of Assignment was September 9, 2011. As you can see below the cutoff date was January 1, 2006. Based on this information Beth says that the document is void. I don’t understand all of this. What does that mean to me? What do I do with this information? Who do I address this with, the Servicer? MERS? the Lender? or the Assignee? Is this enough information that I can negotiate with whomever, without having to hire an attorney?

    @ James Smith – here is the info regarding the claimed trust your loan is supposed to be “pooled” in. If the Assignment you have is after the cut off date 1/2006, then you have an argument that your loan is not in the pool. Also it is the depositor, not MERS, that is to assign the loan to the pool.


    Residential Funding Corporation
    (Master Servicer and Sponsor)

    | sale of mortgage loans

    Residential Asset Securities Corporation

    | sale of mortgage loans
    U.S. Bank National Association
    (owner of mortgage loans on behalf of issuing entity
    for the benefit of holders of certificates)


    The following summary provides a brief description of material aspects of the offering and does not contain all of the information that you should consider in making your investment decision. To understand the terms of the offeredcertificates, you should read carefully this entire document and the prospectus.

    Issuing Entity……………………………… RASC Series 2006-EMX1 Trust.

    Title of the offered certificates…………….. Home Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-EMX1.

    Depositor………………………………….. Residential Asset Securities Corporation, an affiliate of Residential Funding Corporation.

    Master Servicer and Sponsor………………….. Residential Funding Corporation.

    Originator and Subservicer…………………… Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc.

    Trustee……………………………………. U.S. Bank National Association.

    Cut-off date……………………………….. January 1, 2006.

    Closing date……………………………….. On or about January 20, 2006.

  16. Thank you Neil for this wonderful forum.I am being denied civil rights, harrassed, falsely arrested.Accused of being delusional..here in county of Suffolk NY.Support needed.There is much more involved.

  17. Food for thought. Hindsight being 20 / 20. My former husband,I found long after divorce. When I did some forensics on some suspiscious mortgages filed in Suffolk County NewvYork, clerks office.Dating back to the mid 1990s.
    I was the designated bill payer, in my household.Papers arrived in my mail. Assigning our mortgage to a Union Planters Mortgage.I wrote a check made out to Union Planters every month, put it in the mail.
    Fastforward to 2009. Now divorced, becoming aware of some descrepancies in a few mortgage assignments.
    I call Union Planters, now having been acquired by another bank, which I don’ t recall.Spoke to a rep.asked for verification on my former Union Planters mortgage, long ago paid or transferred.
    Gave the account #…nothing found.Gave both mine and for ex.s Soc.Sec#s..still no record of any Union Planters mortgage.
    Rep.then asked.”Maam where is your property located? I replied..in Suffolk County, Long Island, New York.
    Rep.says..”Maam..Union Planters, never financed properties or serviced loan outside the Southern states. Certainly, not in N.Y.
    Dumbfounded, I wonder where my checks were going..being cashed?
    I went back to the Suffolk recording office in Riverhead.In the print room, where Titles are researched etc. Punched in Union Planters as Mortgagee…and waited..
    What came up? In Sept.2001.There were ecactly, three thousand, three hundred and thirty three mortgages that had satisfactions filed that month 09/01.Including mine..that the bank could not locate. Stunned? An understatement. 3333.
    None of which had property discriptions noted.All 000000000 as description.
    This goes another level. Our income tax returns also wrote off the supposed mortgage interest paid??
    Need innocent spouse relief.

  18. My original Lender on the Deed of Trust was Mortgage Lenders Network. I have a Corporate Deed of Assignment that MERS assigned to US Bank, National Association, as trustee for RASC 2006-EMX1 at 4801 Frederica Street, Owensboro, KY 42301. The recording was requested by Wells Fargo and they are also listed as the default assignment. Wells Fargo recently sent me a document which listed Ocwen Loan Servicing as the investor. If that is the case, shouldn’t there be a document assigning the loan to Ocwen Loan Servicing? Im so confused with this stuff. Something is truly wrong with this loan, but I cant afford to hire an attorney to get to the bottom of this. jsmith5915@msn.com. James Smith

  19. Has anyone ever dealt with Ocwen Loan Servicing out of Fort Washington, PA. Wells Fargo is telling me that Ocwen Loan Servicing is the Investor for my 2nd Mortgage which America Servicing Co/Wells Fargo is the servicer. What I need to know is what is the best way to go about finding out if they are the actual investors and if they even have any records of my loan. My guess is that I am going to get the run around and probably will find out that they know nothing about the loan.

  20. I have to get in touch with kingcastmovies.asap.

    I have the answers, the paperwork.Suffolk County ROBO signers.Got it.expose it.

  21. It’s an amazing thread. Thank you for sharing. I think fraud can only be done to those who are not careful enough.

  22. Below under “Fighting MERs in CA” someone stated.
    3) Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent.
    I live in Maryland and I have a Deed of Trust that MER’s assigned to successor. Can someone tell me if this is a true statement.? Do I now have a fraudulent document. Would someone be willing to send me their email address so I could scan and send to them, so they can let me know in fact this is a fraudulent document. My email address is jsmith5915@msn.com 443 677 2799. James

  23. Ex husband began employment as an F&I Manager at a Long Island Chevy Dealership in 1988.Finance manager he got financing approvals for customers buying cars.

  24. Ok.Will try to comment usingba different email.Everything I do is watched, tampered with accts closed etc.Why?I found out that MERS signatures look very much like the signatures on husband.myex

  25. Nancy Evans, you said you had some answers for me. You can email directly at jsmith5915@msn.com. Thanks James

  26. This is James Smith, my email address is jsmith5915@msn.com

  27. This fraud began around 1988 in Suffolk County New York.S

  28. Ok.Being stalked on my AOL account.Explained a lot of what and who is MERS ROBO signer.Somehow my comments remained in being moderated until I changed the email

  29. Cant get my replies posted.

  30. James I have some answers.

  31. Cease and Desist Order against Citi and Wells Fargo.
    There is currently a Cease and Desist Order against Citi Mortgage. Below is the complaint that I sent to Office of Comptroller and Currency.

    There is currently a Cease and Desist Order by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency against Mortgage Electronic Registration System. I am writing because I want something done about the Banks and MERS, because they continue to perform illegal transactions. I recently had a document that was posted to County Public Records by Citi Mortgage and MERS. It was a Deed of Trust for a transaction that was done back in 2005. Something was not right about them just now posting this document after so many years. I goggled the person that signed the document, Geraldine Ann Belinksi, Vice President. I found another Deed of Trust online that had the same person’s name on it, but this time it stated that she is the Assistant Secretary. I immediately got on the phone and called the office that was listed on the document, Citi Mortgage, 1000 Technology Drive, O’Fallon, Mo. I located the office where this individual worked and discovered that she is a mere processor. This has gotten out of hand and I am very skeptical that any of the transactions and documents that I have through Citi Mortgage are legal and binding. Why are they allowed to continue Robo Signing documents? I can be reached at 443-677-2799. Thanks James A. Smith

    I did not call MERS to verify that she worked there. I call Citi and they stated that she was a processor. This is response that I received from Citi regarding the complaint

    “Our records indicate Geraldine A. Belinski is a Certified Appointed signor for Mortgage Electroic Registration Systems Inc.”

    My question is, does MERS have employees that work in Citi facilities? I do not believe this. I called and verified that she worked there and they stated she was a processor. How can I verify that they are lying, because Im sure that OCC will believe what Citi’s response was.
    James Smith 443-677-2799.

  32. I was forced to open up my mind to the fact that the entire mortgage fraudbsvam is so pervasive that nobody can get equal protection or due process.To judge, the judge should be objective.How can a judge maintain objectivity.When I have found out that most judges have been benefiting from proceeds from mortgage fraud themselves.

  33. Cross-motion:
    A motion in general is a request to the court to issue an order. A cross motion is a request to the court to deny the first motion and instead grant an opposing one, such as a cross motion asking the court to deny the first motion for a summary judgment.

    Because a litigant is supposed to be able to vol dismiss where no
    answer or mtn for sj is pending, this may not be of use to stop a vol dismissal. But if a bankster had committed fraud on me and the court, I’d be trying to find out with research and asking a seasoned litigator (in addition to finding out if the vol dismissal may be “postponed” long enough to adjudicate the fraud claim).

  34. If the bankster files a mtn to dismiss, and the homeowner files an obj and his own mtn (counter-mtn?) – one for SJ, would that change anything? I don’t know. Lawyers should.

  35. All I know of the rule (41) is that a mtn for SJ or an answer preclude vol dismissal. But it just can’t be that there is no jurisdiction to adjudicate the fraud IN THE INSTANT ACTION because of a mtn for vol dismissal. That makes no sense at all, so I can’t believe it.

  36. from e.tolle:
    JUDGE FARMER: And a false assignment would not have been relevant?
    MS. GIDDINGS: It would depend on the individual circumstances.

    What a load! The false assignment may ultimately not be relevant to someone’s claim per se if the claim stands without it. But, that doesn’t change the fact that submitting a known false assignment is fraud on the court. Even were a court to ‘overlook’ the fraud in its determination of the bankster’s rights if the bankster otherwise established them, the bankster still needs to be, may be, and should be held accountable for its fraud. They can’t try strategy A and when it fails because the fraud is exposed, just go to strategy B (without the offending act / fraud) and just skate. Fraud on the court is NOT okay, even if it isn’t ultimately relied on in determining rights between the parties. I know it’s sanctionable conduct (and if the attorney were involved, imo it’s also a bar disciplinary matter and a judge has an obligation herself to report those acts and imo not doing so is a breach of the judge’s duties) , but I don’t know how big a role, if any, the bad act should play in the court’s determination of the parties’ rights. That would take some specific research. Not allowing the claim if proven otherwise would be deemed “harsh”, I’d say. But one way or another, bad actors aren’t supposed to get to skate on their acts. One might ultimately lose his home, but one still has a claim for the fraud $$.

    “Chief Justice Charles Canady who said; “It seems to me you are looking for a ‘gotcha’ to get out of the mortgage.” Huh? By asking that the bank not be allowed to throw fraud upon the court, and then dismiss when caught? This is just a taste of what we’ve been up against nationwide.”

    What the judge said is, to me, is simply prejudicial and debasing to the homeowner, a dead wrong thing to say or believe. A homeowner is one party to a contract. The fact that this party to a contract wants its terms complied with and is raising fraud is not grounds for a comment like that. That party’s right to adjudication pursuant to the contract characterized as such is bs. Wouldn’t be said to any other party to any other contract. Even if the homeowner wanted a “gotcha”,
    it’s the other party IN THE LITIGATION BEFORE THE COURT who created the “gotcha”.
    I don’t know if a court could stop voluntary dismissal when the bankster is caught in the act of fraud, even if it wanted to, if the homeowner has not filed either an answer or a motion for SJ, nor do I know if a court could not grant the vol dismissal pending adj of the
    fraud issue. Seems like it could, because if the bad actor is allowed to vol dismiss, it may mean the other party would have to file a sep
    action on the fraud and that doesn’t strike me as equitable.

  37. I have no idea if wire fraud has gone on. But for people who think it has, be helpful to know some basics.

  38. Agree poppy
    Im intending to do same
    The unlawful detainer – fraud

  39. My mortgage was through HSBC Mortgage, Depew NY.Who paid a mortgage pymt.to until Dec.2009. Not knowing I did not have my deed, payments going to a P.O, box in Buffalo. After investigating.I discovered payment address was also Depew, NY.

    Who was getting my pymts?
    Dec.2009, my ex. Mike Figat also of Suffolk County NY. Accessed, emptied, thennclosed all of my HSBC bank accounts, checking, savings. To force a foreclosure on me because he knew I did not have my deed. County of Suffolk recordings show mortgages taken out on my house # 76, got 67 on deed. Mortgages acquired when I made the purchase..in the name of the SELLER. May 02 thru July 02. When satisfactions were filed in sellers name.
    Federal gov.banks, attorneys, title companies are all part of the team.
    I know this because accidently while attending a closing as a REALTOR on my elderly Mothers home that I sold as the REALTOR. Accidently took a folder that was underneath my folder. It was a yellow folder that tossed in a drawer at home in Aug.03. Did not open it until 2010. After I became aware of my ex.s involvment in massive mortgae fraud.Not limited to Suffolk County NY either. Insife this folder were two sets of checks from two CITIBank locations. Made payable to me. Did not include the check given to ME at the closing. A break down of who got how much listed on a sheet of yellow legal paper. Also pink receipts deposits that were made into..mine & my Moms Cap.1 checking account, Shirley NY branch. Also the receipts for the withdrawal of those funds from our account…not by my Mom or myself. So theres the laundering and illegal bank access.

  40. @ louise

    This is commonplace…Hunoval of Charlotte, doing the same, Brock & Scott of NC…same thing. In the process of asking for insurer to go after their liability. Waiting on handwriting expert. Brock & Scott signing the affidavits “in house” can prove it and Hunoval transferring property into his corporation, can prove that too.

    These guys are the low-hanging fruit and we must go after them…IMHO.

  41. True about debt collection firms.Fein, Such & Crane is the one my ex.husband Mike Figat, L.I N.Y. Signs for. I know because, he is trying to force a foreclosure action on my home.That I never got the deed to. Purchased in May 02. Bought address # 76. Ten days later, I recieved in the mail a deed with the # 67..not..76. Thought it was just a typo. Ignored it.I did not know ex.was a fraudster. Had stolen my deed.

  42. So many involved, allowing illegal access to both state and Fed.gov.entities. Incl the Post Office. Where I know.It happened to my house.Ex.Mike Figat, was employed by auto dealerships for 21 years, as a Finance Manager, Long Island, NY. Arranged loans for purchasers auto finance, also did lien satisfactionsmarranged the insurance.
    What I learned, when began in 2009 to connect the dots myself.
    One fact. The official address of the property is being temporarily altered. Done to create a 2nd or 3rd property, that does not..in fact exist. To obtain 2nd &3rd fundings at or after the closing.
    I was a REALTOR during some of this time. My ex.never let on that he was a mortgage Fraudster.He was making plenty of money doing auto finance. NEVER crossed my mind.
    Not until 2 yrs after my divirce. WHEN I purchased my own home. Judge Wm.Kent lll, Suffolk County, NY Supreme Court.Judge presiding over my Divorce. Was totally against me, openly hostile. Ordered me to sign a Stipulation that I did not agree with. Gave the marital home to my husband. Sole custody, of our youngest son then six to me. Left us homeless.
    2002, I bought myself a house. Still unaware my ex.

    Was a Crook.

  43. Iove this threAd

  44. Regarding securitization. First &foremost, there must be a property to secure. I repear, my former is involved in the MERS filing, satisfactions, signing for..bank VP. Fact! His handwriting is unmistalable to me.He did it to me w.o. my knowing with our marital home.Long Island, NY. I can take this back to 1986. Prior to MERS.
    This is not done alonel.More like acoast to coast criminal org.

  45. JG, the atty who did my closing did 3 years in the federal pen for wire fraud related to “flipping houses with dual transactions”.

  46. MS you are right…it is not up to us to file a criminal complaint using the RICO Statutes…IMHO we need to be fighting on the front line: e.g. who is the party taking my land, right here, right now. The additional information comes at trial, if you can get one. Just my opinion here.

    As for you made the loan, etc…not so fast your honor. I “intended” to make a loan and I do not recognize this paperwork, as it is a copy….and further, had I been disclosed the information necessary in the beginning to rescind the offer from the bank I would have done so. Blah, blah, blah…worked for me.

  47. The wire fraud statute criminalizes conduct by any person who, “having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, . . . transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire .

    Fed Bank to Bank wires and Fed wires rerouted into offshore accounts are exempt. Forget the criminal crap……

    and save your home !

  48. U.s. v. Jinian, 11-10593 (9th Cir. 7-23-2013)

    The wire fraud statute criminalizes conduct by any person who, “having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, . . . transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire . . . communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice. . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2006). Section 1343, however, “does not purport to reach all frauds, but only those limited instances” wherein use of a wire “is a part of the execution of the fraud, leaving all other cases to be dealt with by appropriate state law.” Kann v. United States, 323 U.S. 88, 95 (1944).[fn2]

    The elements of wire fraud are: (1) the existence of a scheme to defraud; (2) the use of wire, radio, or television to further the scheme; and (3) a specific intent to defraud. United States v. Pelisamen, 641 F.3d 399, 409 (9th Cir. 2011). “The specific intent requirement is an aspect of the `scheme to defraud’ requirement; i.e., there is no fraudulent scheme without specific intent.” United States v. Bohonus, 628 F.2d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 1980). “One `causes’ use of . . . wire communications where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not specifically intended.” United States v. Cusino, 694 F.2d 185, 188 (9th Cir. 1982). A wire communication is “in furtherance” of a fraudulent scheme if it is “incident to the execution of the scheme,” United States v. Lo, 231 F.3d 471, 478 (9th Cir. 2000), meaning that it “need not be an essential element of the scheme, just a `step in the plot,'” United States v. Garlick, 240 F.3d 789, 795 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 711 (1989)); accord United States v. Garner, 663 F.2d 834, 838 (9th Cir. 1981) (explaining that the wire transfer “need only be made for the purpose of executing the scheme”). For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, a wire communication cannot be “part of an after-the-fact transaction that, although foreseeable, was not in furtherance of the defendant’s fraudulent scheme.” Lo, 231 F.3d at 478. Ultimately, “the issue is not one purely of time sequence.” Id.
    As the Supreme Court recognized in United States v. Sampson, “subsequent mailings can in some circumstances provide the basis for an indictment under the mail fraud statutes.” 371 U.S. 75, 80 (1962). Thus, the “relevant question at all times” is whether a wire “is part of the execution of the scheme as conceived by the perpetrator at the time,” Schmuck, 489 U.S. at 715, not whether the defendant, prior to the wiring, “had obtained all the money [he] expected to get,” Sampson, 371 U.S. at 79. A.

  49. Leave a Reply

    Here’s your problem Matt Weidner …your guessing !

    He reports that he went to court on a case where IndyMAc was the plaintiff. IndyMac was one of the first banks to collapse.

    It was found that they owned virtually zero mortgages Why Matt ?

    *** Because the mortgages they made were the existing liens of record!

    and [they] had “securitized” the rest which is to say they never loaned the money or got paid off by a successor.

    *** Again… Because the mortgages they made were carried forward as the existing liens of record!

    Now the servicing rights on IndyMac have been sold.

    *** Nope – The servicing rights were de-recognized and could not be sold ….only “pledged as a forward or bond holders annuity under market triggered 1031 tax deferred exchange investment scheme for trading warrants and corporate debentures as appreciating asset over 60 months ”

    So when the time came for trial he finds the lawyer fighting with his own witness.

    *** First , did he motion the court for judicial notice that counsel was on his own ? And representing an IRS “best efforts” claim for alleged abandoned asset?

    It seems that she would not say she worked for IndyMac because she didn’t. That meant there was no corporate representative present to testify for the plaintiff.

    ****Not true FDIC Receiver under the 2009 HOLD CO Agreement with One West “Shell” for the Bank of NY Mellon”

    Not according to what we have seen where IndyMac foreclosures continue to be rubber stamped by Judges who do not understand the gravity of the situation

    ***You Neil! You and your attorneys don’t have a clue …Not a clue and your still giving advice ….


  50. Many questions about the who, how what and where.I can provide the answers.I have knowledge of how this is being done. Been going on long before MERS existed.
    These judges are all part of the original fraud.Profiting from mortgage fraud.
    Often there are 2 or 3 fundings of the loan.A well laid plan by all.
    When this happened to me.It made men..aware of who is doing most of the filing.
    An insiders view.It is I found out my former husband.Who is the crook behind the scenes.
    Too tired to
    .think..right now.Will fill you in on what I know.


  51. You got away with it the 1st time … shame on me.

    If you try it a 2nd time … shame on you.
    You have no immunity from the AG ….

    JG, that’s what you call putting them on notice. 🙂

    I like my chicken fried.

    Enough already with the paper trail … Follow the Money.

    Where did my money go? What was it used for?

    Enforce the Contract!

  52. James, this will not help much, but may be worth a read, if memory serves, somewhere around page no. 234 ; http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201301_cfpb_final-rule_servicing-respa.pdf some info they just will not release.
    I am guessing you got the ” that is proprietary information” runabout. It happens. Almost always. Keep on pushing. It’s a tough fight. Like I said, if you want the best results, make a complaint here: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/ .The CFPB will enforce mortgage servicing rules involving RESPA ,you can directly write in there what you want to know. It’s an extra pain. If you want to get extra nifty you can always call in to where ever…fannie, freddie, gnma, servicer.. under the false impression ( without expression) you are not the homeowner…. as in… you may be calling in regards to such and such loan with issuer id (found at sec or digging about) with an inquiry to _____. Don’t give them much time to talk. You are busy today, lots to do, you just want to do your job and complete the necessary in which case is on your agenda. Reps do not get paid well, and most the time do not know much but what they can read you from their account screen, which may be all you need. – You were invited to their monoply a long time ago, maybe it’s time to play the their way. Nice job btw on the qwr, tip: make it ‘your own’ – they know when you copy & pasted a qwr format from the internet ans respond with much less information thinking you are some twirp digging on mortgage crap that found this golden key QWR. Make it your own.
    Also, … under no circumstances should you take any of the above as legal or any other advice or means to adhere to my words. I am not a lawyer nor do I give lawful advise. Most of the time I am just blabbering.
    Good luck in your journey

  53. I’m sorry to disappoint you Justme,, that’s not my style. I do enjoy a glass of wine occasionally. Doc says its the caffeine, but when one fights crime 24/7 you need that stuff.

    I must be doing something right … I’m not the one being sued.

    Just Saying …..


  54. Here is the QWR Template that I used. I thought it was very good.

    March 8, 2013

    Certified First Class U.S. Mail # 7011 0110 0000 6913 2002

    Correspondence Address:

    In the Matter of:
    John and Jane Doe

    Property Address:
    123 Any Street
    Atlanta, GA 30030

    Account Number # 0000000000000


    Dear Sir or Madam:

    Please treat this letter as a “qualified written request” under the Federal Servicer Act, which is a part of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. 2605(e).

    Specifically, we are disputing a) the identity of a true secured lender/creditor, and b) the existence of debt, and c) your authority and capacity to collect on behalf of the alleged lender/creditor. Because of extensive criminal activity and fraud in this arena, we require proof of the chain of secured ownership from the original alleged lender/creditor to the alleged current lender/creditor. Further, we require proof that you are the entity that has been contracted to work on behalf of the alleged lender/creditor.

    Pursuant to “Subtitle E Mortgage Servicing” of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Section 2605(e)(1)(A) and Reg. X Section 3500.21(e)(1), please provide:

    1. A full, double sided, certified “true and accurate” copy of the original promissory note and security instrument and all assignments of the security instrument.

    2. Full name, address and telephone number of the actual entity that funded the transaction.

    3. Full name of Trust where the Note Number is trading, or has traded, and the identifying Series of Certificates.
    (Note: If the note number is being traded in a Fannie Mae Trust or Freddie Mac Trust, please provide all information to identify the Trust (i.e. Fannie Mae Pool Number, CUSIP Number, REMIC or SMBS Trust Number and Trust Class/Tranche).

    4. Full name, address, and telephone number of the Trustee.

    5. Full name, address, and telephone number of the Custodian of my original Promissory Note, including the name, address and telephone number of any trustee or other fiduciary. This request is being made pursuant to Section 1641(f)(2) of the Truth In Lending Act.

    6. Full name, address, and telephone number of the Custodian of my original Security Instrument, including the name, address and telephone number of any trustee or other fiduciary. This request is being made pursuant to Section 1641(f)(2) of the Truth In Lending Act.

    7. A physical location (address) of the original promissory note, original security instrument, and all assignments of the security instrument, and a contact name and phone number of someone who can arrange for inspection of said documents.

    8. Full name, address and telephone number of any master servicers, servicers, sub-servicers, contingency servicers, back-up servicers or special servicers for this account.

    9. The electronic MERS number assigned to this account if this is a MERS Designated Account.

    10. Proof of true sale of the note from alleged Lender to investors, by showing:
    Wire transfer document(s), and/or
    Signed purchase and sale agreement(s),
    Bank statements or similar documentation.

    11. The MERS Milestone Report, if the note number and security instrument was tracked by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. I want to see the audit trail of the alleged transfer in ownership and alleged transfer in security interest.

    12. A complete audit history from alleged loan origination, showing the dates payments were applied, and to what internal accounts (i.e. principal, interest, suspense, escrow, etc.) payments were applied.

    13. A complete and itemized statement of all advances or charges against this account.

    14. A complete and itemized statement of the escrow for this account, if any, from the date of the note origination to the date of your response to this letter.

    15. Have you purchased and charged to the account any Force-Placed Insurance?

    16. A complete and itemized statement from the date of the note origination to the date of your response to this letter of the amounts charged for any forced-placed insurance, the date of the charge, the name of the insurance company, the relation of the insurance company to you or a related company, the amount of commission you received for each force-placed insurance event, and an itemized statement of any other expenses related thereto.

    17. A complete and itemized statement from the date of the note origination to the date of your response to this letter of any suspense account entries and/or any corporate advance entries related in any way to this account.

    18. A complete and itemized statement from the date of the loan to the date of your response to this letter of any property inspection fees, property preservation fees, broker opinion fees, appraisal fees, bankruptcy monitoring fees, or other similar fees or expenses related in any way to this loan.

    19. A statement/provision under the security instrument and/or note that authorizes charging any such fee against the account.

    20. Copies of all property inspection reports and appraisals, broker price opinions, and associated bills, invoices, and checks or wire transfers in payment thereof.

    21. Complete copy of any transaction report(s) indicating any charges for any “add on products” sold to the debtors in connection with this account from the date of the note origination to the date of your response to this letter.

    22. Complete and itemized statement of any late charges added to this account from the date of the note origination to the date of your response to this letter.

    23. Complete and itemized statement of any fees incurred to modify, extend, or amend the loan or to defer any payment or payments due under the terms of the loan, from the date of the note origination to the date of your response to this letter.

    24. Complete, itemized statement of the current amount needed to pay-off the alleged “loan” in full.

    25. Verification of any notification provided to me of a change in servicer.

    You should be advised that within FIVE (5) DAYS you must send us a letter stating that you received this letter. After that time you have THIRTY (30) DAYS to fully respond as per the time frame mandated by Congress, in “Subtitle ‘E’ Mortgage Servicing” of the ‘‘Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Section 2605(e)(1)(A) and Reg. X Section 3500.21(e)(1).

    TRUTH – IN-LENDING ACT § 131(f)(2)

    Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1641 (f):

    Please provide the name, address and telephone number of the owner(s) of the mortgage and the master servicer of the mortgage.

    You should be advised that Violations of this Section provide for statutory damages of up to $4,000 and reasonable legal fees. The amendments also clearly provide that the new notice rules are enforceable by private right of action. 15 USC 1641


    ____________________________ ________________
    John Doe Date

    ____________________________ ________________
    Jane Doe Date


    U.S. Certified Mail # __________________
    Office of RESPA and Interstate Land Sales
    Office of Housing, Room 9154
    US Department of Housing and Urban Development
    451 Seventh Street SW
    Washington, DC – 20410

    If Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac:

    U.S. Certified Mail # ________________________
    FHFA Office of Inspector General
    Attn: Office of Investigation – Hotline
    400 7th Street, SW
    Washington, DC 20024


    Fannie Mae: OR Freddie Mac

    U.S. Certified Mail # _______________ U.S. Certified Mail # ____________
    Timothy Mayopoulos, CEO Donald H. Layton, CEO
    Federal National Mortgage Association Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
    3900 Wisconsin Avenue NW Attn: Consumer Care
    Washington, DC 20016-2892 8200 Jones Branch Drive
    Mailcode: C1K
    McLean, VA 22102

    Note: Any time the Servicer fails to ACKNOWLEDGE and/or RESPOND or RESPOND COMPLETELY within the required time frame:
    1) Send another letter to the Servicer (at the failure of acknowledgement or response) and
    2) Send a complaint with your QWR and the Answer to the QWR (or report non-response) to:

    U.S. Certified Mail # _________________
    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    P.O. Box 4503
    Iowa City, Iowa 52244
    There is a special unit inside Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
    Please report your results to Operation Rest.

    Not necessary, but will notify the Monitor about violations:
    U.S. Certified Mail # _________________
    Joseph A. Smith, Jr.,
    Monitor of the National Mortgage Settlement
    Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight
    301 Fayetteville St., Suite 1801
    Raleigh, NC 27601

  55. No rum in the coke KC? kermm`on now. It’s only, …monday :}

  56. James, perhaps they just do not want you to know. Submit a complaint to your states division of banking. They require your servicer respond, and appropriately. File a complaint with the CFPB, they insure regulations are being followed. Write another QWR, make sure you identify it as a RESPA qwr…they can be fined if they are not telling you what you request, it it is within “what is defined” as a QWR. Do not expect origination issues or such, only “servicing errors”.

  57. I need some help. I submitted a QWR to Wells Fargo. They responded with less than 5% of the items that I requested. My guess is that they don’t have the documents. I just don’t know where to go from here. I know they are hiding something. I can be reached at 443-677-2799. jsmith5915@msn.com. James Smith

  58. Remember, remember, the fifth of November.

  59. e.tolle – I’ll happily read the stuff at your link – thanks. Of course that’s bull about the assgt. Any document which is recorded or submitted to a court is done so for the purpose of inducing Reliance. Even if a criminal can “prove” its rights otherwise, without the fraudulent doc, it doesn’t change the bad act, which was at least to induce false reliance. It’s sanctionable conduct to try to influence a court improperly / wrongfully. It remains a crime to record a false instrument.

  60. Todays Sarcasm brought to you by Diet Coke.

  61. My own Version of the Song ….

    Its like you to use’em
    Its like you to abuse’em
    Its like you to do that sort of thing
    Over and Over Again ……
    You are a Greedy Hearted Man

    But sonebodys gonna give you back what you been giving
    And I’m gonna be there to help Bring You Down!

    Its like you to use’em
    Its like you to abuse’em
    Its like you to do that sort of thing
    Over and Over Again …..
    You are a Greedy Hearted Man

    But somebodys gonna give back what you been giving
    And I’m gonna be there to help Bring You Down!

    *Shits and Grins*

    Estoppel of the grantor to claim invalidity.

  62. If anyone is interested …. I have some property to sell you.

  63. E-Tolle,

    Final Result … Slandered, Uninsurable, Unmarketable Titles.

    Many Blessing to All

  64. Yes neidermeyer, it’s great to hear what sounds like a great flanking maneuver around these guys. Good job. Can’t wait to hear, if you choose to share, the outcome of the December fallout.

    JG, along the lines that you just wrote about…your comments 1) “that a motion for SJ would stop a bankster from voluntarily dismissing…. and 2) “….the homeowner decided not to roll the dice further and settled….” voluntary dismissal when caught red-handed is one of the biggest issues with this whole fraud on the court thing. How these bank mills can get away the criminality and then settle, right in front of the judge, speaks volumes about the cozy relationship between judges and law firms, IMO.

    Recall Pino v. BONY, where BONY was caught with fraudulent assignments and decided to dismiss the case, only to refile with newer and more convincing fraudulent docs several months later. Ice legal did a great job with that case, and it was against….drum roll….David J. Stern. Fancy that. I ran into the oral arguments on appeal here, they’re a good read:


    Ice legal:

    “But the bank — the benefit the bank got was to avoid any sanction whatsoever for committing fraud on the Court. That was their benefit. And that’s how they tried to use the rule to hide their fraudulent acts. And attempted fraud is still fraud. We just happened to catch them. And not to go too far beyond the scope, but when we were researching this and we found those 21 cases, we just stopped. It was — it wasn’t a matter of it took all year. This was, on its face, this was happening everywhere. And, particularly, in an area of law that is heavy on pro se defendants, this is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed. And it actually — and taking any type of judicial notice of the investigation, we believe it’s systematic. It’s a policy. It wasn’t — I believe, in the argument below, opposing counsel used the term “empty head but not evil heart.” This was their policy and procedure. This is what they did on purpose.”

    Opposing council argued that “the alleged fraud in this case does not impact the outcome of this case” due to her belief that “the assignment of mortgage in this case is not ultimately material and determinative in the outcome of the case, because it is the holder of the note that has — the assignment of mortgage follows the note. And if, on the day that you’re before the Court or with your summary judgment, you submit the note and the note is endorsed in blank or endorsed to your client, then the assignment of mortgage does not control.”

    She basically just told the judge that the fraudulent mortgage assignment doesn’t matter because there’s one note to rule them all. It gets real here, as well:

    JUDGE FARMER: And a false assignment would not have been relevant?

    MS. GIDDINGS: It would depend on the individual circumstances.

    Evidently, at least to this attorney, getting caught with your pants down, or in this case, getting caught waving fraudulent documents in front of the judge isn’t an issue as to fraud’s relevance, it didn’t alter the fundamental case….if you can get it through the system you’re good to go. Another free house for BONY and Stern.

    But in the end, the Supreme Court did the right thing and decided that the court could hold onto the case and not dismiss, as BONY wanted them to do. But I’m taken by the hostile attitude displayed by one of the Supreme Court judges, even after hearing of the rampant fraud against hapless pro se’s fighting against a veritable fraud machine across the state, as seen here:

    Chief Justice Charles Canady who said; “It seems to me you are looking for a ‘gotcha’ to get out of the mortgage.” Huh? By asking that the bank not be allowed to throw fraud upon the court, and then dismiss when caught? This is just a taste of what we’ve been up against nationwide.

  65. Some time ago I said that a motion for SJ would stop a bankster from voluntarily dismissing (like when discovery is ordered):

    ALVARADO v. HOME 123 CORPORATION (E.D.Wash. 10-25-2013)

    BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal (ECF No. 10).
    Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on October 24, 2012. Because Defendant has neither filed an answer nor moved for summary judgment, Plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss this case. Fed.R.Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This is the case despite the pending motion to dismiss by Defendant Bank of America, N.A.
    (ECF No. 4). Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1507 (9th Cir. 1995)
    (“Even if the defendant has filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff may terminate his action voluntarily by filing a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1).”).
    All claims and causes of action in this matter are DISMISSED without
    prejudice and without costs or fees to any party. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.”

    B of A and Nationstar are also named defendants.

  66. @JG

    “you made a loan, and you defaulted”

    Yeah, BUT—defaulted on WHAT—to WHOM…those are the billion dollar questions…that the judges apparently don’t care about.

  67. Bennerson v. Small, 842 F.2d 710 (3rd Cir. 1988)

    “25] We begin our discussion with the age-old maxim that a forged deed cannot pass good title to anyone, not even a bona fide purchaser for value. Hockett v. Larson, 742 F.2d 1123 (8th Cir. 1984). If a purchaser or grantee from a forger can claim legal title, it can only be by reason of estoppel of the grantor to claim invalidity. See generally, III American Law of Property §§ 12.58 (forged deed); 15.17 (estoppel to challenge forged deed) (1952).”

    So I guess if a purported beneficiary is not a beneficiary and had no authority / zero right to order foreclosure by its fictitious newly-appointed substitute trustee, the trustee’s deed is no good to ANYone, nor is any subsequent deed. (We’ve all thought this but here is a case which says so). I take the second sentence to mean a purchaser who would otherwise be a BFPV may only raise estoppel against the forger for his title, but no one else, like the owner. The BVPV may shut down any claim of interest BY the forger against the forger, standing on estoppel against the forger. Maybe this is a path back to some stolen homes where the BVPV defense has been raised?
    lay opinions of course

  68. Holiday Homes of St. John, Inc. v. Lockhart, 678 F.2d 1176 (3rd Cir. 1982)

    “On the contrary, we think that the other two principles of contract interpretation which we noted earlier provide strong support as a matter of policy for our holding. [38]

    One of those principles is that “[a]n ambiguous document must be construed against its author.” Centeno v. King, 14 V.I. 168, 180 (1977).

    The contract which the parties used was a form contract supplied by Holiday Homes. It would have been a simple matter for Holiday Homes to have included in that form a provision explicitly ………..

    That rationale is simply stated: “doubtful and uncertain language in a contract is construed against the party preparing the contract, for he has created the troublesome ambiguity.” Foltz v. Begnoche, supra, 565 P.2d at 597.

    …We see nothing unfair or incompatible with basic principles of contract law in resolving against Holiday Homes any ambiguities in a document that it chose to use as a basis for the … agreement, especially where the particular ambiguity in this case could
    have been so easily avoided. See Stromberg v. Crowl, supra, 132 N.W.2d at 463 (source of problem is contract drafters’ “unwilling[ness] to use clear and understandable language….. 3 A. Corbin, Contracts § 559 at 321 (1980 Supp.) (ambiguities should be resolved against author of a document where author “is in the business of using forms like this, and had the ability to do better — either to write
    a better form, or to appreciate the ambiguity ……….) ”

    jg: A real question is: IS the language in the deed of trust actually ambiguous? Or does it in fact clearly constitute a novation by its language? The party to be charged with whatever is created, if anything, doesn’t sign it one way or another. Does that lack of signature make it any less a novation than the creation of an agency (and one in regard to real property, something regulated by the statute of fraud)?

  69. So Johngault, re your post to christopher king , I’m thinking with regards to Hogan AZ case law if the note is not necessary document then neither is the deed of trust.

  70. The thing which could bind successors and assigns is novation.

  71. @christopher king – don’t know if you drop your video clips and have to run, but maybe you’ll see this:
    WA homeowners might send the WA SC a barrage of letters, telling them the female justice (missed her name) who recognized the illegitimacy of having “legal title” to someone else’s rights in a contract and that it’s legal fiction was spot on (though their ruling may actually have acknowledged this). But neither she nor the court finished the sentence. Isn’t that so? In Bain, the WA SC recognized that MERS isn’t a party capable of being a beneficiary in a dot under WA law. If MERS isn’t a beneficiary, there is no beneficiary named in the dot. If there’s no beneficiary named in the dot, the dot imo is not perfected; the trust created has no beneficiary whose interest is noticed by recordation. Right now it’s a grab by anyone claiming as successor. Successor WHAT if there’s no original beneficiary? Should the lender named in the note be the “default’ beneficiary under some equitable ruling, which absence of such an equitable ruling would create an undesireable economic reality (and who gets to say it would be undesireable?) Is that the appropriate bar? (Are we to care?) What about a compromise – would that be appropriate? Is it impossible? (I’m not sure it is, but that’s said with not much thought) If not, what might that be?
    Must those documents first be reformed (good luck on that one – these aren’t scrivener or other ‘slight’ errors) to show a beneficiary and then recorded and go from there? That, in addition to other biggies, would put second lenders in first. Well, the banksters can work that out with the seconds. They can convince them to subordinate $$ – or not (plus they made them). MA recently passed a law making a second still a second when the first is refinanced mol – think that’s what it said – see Charlene’s sourceoftitle blog – I don’t like it, but they didn’t ask me)
    To me, the issue in WA isn’t robo-signing. It’s about that dot and what’s recorded. MERS was a party determined by the WA SC not to be a beneficiary, so then in WA is not a beneficiary, so then what is it? Are WA’s courts now acting as if it’s magically the agent it generally also and alternatively! pretends to me, which agency is not at all found in the language in the dot, despite what some courts have made of “nominee”? The language in the dot, nominee and beneficiary, is imo the language of novation, which splits the note and dot. Does it not? I’ve posited it does because I don’t see how it can’t (that’s IF novation may be done as to these particular contracts. I’d hazard MERS et al was told by counsel it could, and if not, did it anyway). Novation is the substitution of one party for another. It’s not an agency.
    Imo there is either no beneficiary or MERS was made the beneficiary by novation. WA says, without addressing novation, that MERS can’t be a beneficiary under WA law. So in effect, if what MERS is is a novated party, aren’t they saying there can be no willful bifurcation of a note and a dot? Do you think that’s what they meant to say? If they find or it’s found this is what it said or meant or means, then aren’t we back at there’s no beneficiary named in a WA dot and then looking for the ‘so what all’ that means? Or has WA decided to let people continue duking it out on “agency”, i.e., MERS is not the ben, but we’ll yet entertain argument it IS an agent for the ben (even though no principal were ever itself named as ben)?

    As to agency, I originally thought the language in the dot was ‘merely’ reckless, because if they meant to establish agency, they didn’t. Now I think not. It wasn’t reckless, at least for why I thought. It would have been so easy to say, especially for 500 to 1000. an hour mouthpieces, “One Source Mortgage Corporation, the lender, is the beneficiary of this deed of trust and MERS (blah blah) is its agent of One Source Mtg Corp’s and its successors and or assigns.” Actually, there would have been two problems; One Source doesn’t sign the dot to make the appt as necessary and One Source may not make anyone anyone else’s agent, not even, imo by “reservation” in a dot. But if agency is what they meant, imo that wouldn’t have stopped them from writing it that way, as if they could bind successor and assigns.

  72. We are trying to figure out a way to help homeowners in Seattle — this is last week’s City Council Candidate Forum discussing the right to protest, dual-tracking, eminent domain and Merkley mortgage options.

  73. I’m either crazy myself or this country has left sanity far behind, neither of which is a happy thought. In fact, it’s literally unsettling. How in the world, how in the sam hell, can an LPS or a Stern, who alleged to execute documents as officers of a corporation, be the only one nailed here? Does anyone know a reason MERS isn’t and shouldn’t be on the hook here? Does everyone think MERS shouldn’t be?

  74. neidermeyer – good analogy – “game of chess”. We don’t just have to understand how the pieces move, but exactly when to move them. It’s just all wrong. Someone here said recently mol that the Stern court failed to get at the reasons for all the bogus documents. Too bad no one had or found a way to get in that act and get those reasons. Maybe it’s not too late in another action? Couldn’t a homeowner or two bring a suit on their own deals and get at that? As it is, just like with LPS, the world will still revolve, MERS is still around unscathed, and “Stern” won’t be seen for what it was.

  75. I’ve never agreed fwiw with the disclosure of the YSP since it doesn’t affect the borrower’s a.p.r.
    It’s always seemed to me like forcing a car dealer to tell a car buyer how much he paid for the car, which as we know, most assuredly doesn’t happen. I’ll tell you where I think that rule came from, also fwiw: years ago, when business was sluggish during and following the Carter admininstration (about which itself I’m making no stmt), larger lenders were more than happy to do business with brokers. Many brokers and correspondents popped up. It was by and large a good situation. Rates were competitive (though still high), everyone’s overhead was appropriate, and so on. Once business picked up again, mainly due to the lower cost of money, some of the larger guys wanted “the street” back and resented the little guys. The larger guys, not necessarily the same larger guys, had been paying the smaller guys a servicing release premium mol, which helped the smaller guys be competitive in the rates they offered. When the cost of money lessened so business had picked up, to try to get rid of the smaller guys, no longer needed or wanted in their view, some of the larger guys decided to make the smaller guys disclose the YSP to their borrowers, which in turn irritated, in a word, the borrower, who then felt he might have gotten a better rate. I’ve always been convinced it was the large, institutional guys behind the mandate.

  76. neid – in reading my comment about AIG and B of A’s cross suits, I can see it might appear aimed at you, which it definitely wasn’t. And if anyone can take advantage of those suits, sounds like a good thing.

  77. I said:
    “I’m not sure what’s attempted to be said here, really, but I do know if a debt is paid, its security interest is toast as a matter of law.”

    That’s one of the reasons AZ Hogan is dead wrong – if it actually says a dot may be enforced irrespective of the note.

  78. Yes Louise and alll their liabilities

  79. Please respond to me personally.  We need your help.  Thank you.

  80. How `bout I just sign my name on this blank endorsement here, making it payable to me like they did. Buaha!
    If the Judge permits the plaintiff to use the copy of the Note they put their name on, claiming it’s original and true, gal`dammit he better let me do the same thing too!
    How can you beat that?
    How would a Judge answer that? SERIOUSLY. – how?

  81. Sorry JG.. I meant to say tier two YSP not APR.

    My mistake … Sorry!

    YSP is required disclosure …

  82. N, actually AHMSI renamed itself Homeward Residential and then MERGED with Ocwen. How that merger actually happened, we may never know. However, merged means that all assets, debts, etc. are now part of Ocwen. All contracts created at AHMSI/Homeward are now Ocwen’s to enjoy.

  83. @neidermeyer, you go. I have a motion coming up to for breach of contract where the servicer Ocwen told me that I could only have a government loan mod and not a court-ordered settlement agreement. I am back in the same court that ordered the settlement agreement. Should be interesting.

  84. @ John Gault

    Yeah , I know the AIG stuff is garbage but it’s public record officially recognized garbage that cannot be denied by any party and cements at a minimum two sales/transfers that are fully undocumented in plaintiffs case and takes away any chance of them showing any ownership or financial harm as the 100% payoff was years before any claimed default. I’ve gotta play the cards I have and the courts have recognized these cards and the cards say BAC was the true owner and they’re nowhere in my suit. I’m going to make them live their lie.

    That implies that Option One never surrendered the notes as repayment on their credit line (which we previously documented from the local Option One branch manager who personally shredded the docs.) , kills the trust as far as I see… makes the whole securitization argument plaintiffs lawyer tried to tie this up in at the depo with the insertion of his PSA arguments a moot point. (I personally think he JUST began to take this threat seriously and doesn’t know he’s in the bottom of the 7th inning) .

    My legal team is pretty good at chess , the latest depo was truly unnecessary but gained us having the newest party , OCWEN , on the record with lack of firsthand knowledge of anything and cast the same doubt on (2nd version) AHMSI as the “expert” was carried over from one company to another in the transition/sale.

    I’m here for whatever knowledge I can scrape up … I do see a win in my future , if I can put together in my mind the dual pmt , “created a bond which was used to create a “daughter” series of bonds and pocket the difference” not a remic argument with a way to document it that’s a big bonus ,, but that involves two money paths and arguments the courts don’t currently acknowledge ,, I would have to understand , prove and educate .. a VERY TALL order ,, With the current path I don’t need to actually “know” anything with the single track money flow ,, it’s far simpler ,, all I have to show is that it is a lie and insert enough datapoints where they can never untangle the knot.

  85. neidermeyer – sounds like you’re hard at it. Bravo to you. I’d like to say this privately, but don’t think I have your email. It sounds like you’ve taken a lot of ground – really good to hear. I think when you said you wondered what the judge would think about their non-compliance with discovery, it was tongue-in-cheek. But, still, I would do anything and everything I could to make sure the the judge has no choice about what he does about it, that he must compel discovery because your case law is that good (have you filed a mtn to compel? I presume you have so you may (no doubt soon) ask for an order to show cause. I linked a case last week or so where discovery was in the cards so the bankster settled rather than disclose. Guess the homeowner decided not to roll the dice further and settled (but not so hot imo). Doesn’t sound to me like that’s your goal since you feel you’re on the cusp.
    This failing to comply with discovery and the ridiculous “wiggle-room”
    currently enjoyed by that gang has to stop. Based on whomever your particular devil is, it’s likely you can anticipate their anti-discovery arguments – by reading ‘their usuals’ in other cases at Pacer, say – and then be ready to make them eat ’em. I really hope you do. As I recall only, there are limited reasons for not providing discovery and the bankster are adept at connivances to make their objections appear to fall in line with those exceptions when they don’t, and they don’t even identify material withheld on the basis of X, something else I think (but only think because I forget) they’re supposed to do. You must know how many times banksters wiggle out of discovery and get away with it. Judges who don’t want to be ‘bothered’ need to start knowing the homeowner WILL be bothered with an appeal. That’s been a problem for all of us – not knowing how to appeal and or the money to do so. Judges really don’t like being turned over on appeal. I think just like we need to start going after banksters’ attorneys for their participation in this bull, we need to start making judges who make poor decisions give a lot more thought to being reversed. (But of course that all depends on the merits of our lower court arguments, which is why as to discovery, we can at least try to anticipate the arguments and be ready with our own better ones)

  86. neidermeyer said:
    ” my “trust” was an exhibit for AIG in countersuit against BAC (82% non-compliance in underwriting”

    Oh please! AIG suing BAC for non-compliance in underwriting? That’s gotta be the biggest dog and pony show in town (oh, all right – one of them), no doubt for the benefit of AIG’ shareholders or AIG’s regulatory agency. I’d bet a bunch the ink on the outcome was dry about the same time as the suit(s), all hacked out by hacks for each. Maybe even had a regulator or two help with the ‘details’. AIG, so I read, is the company that put the software in the banksters’ offices so they could write their own AIG insurance. Little late to haul out “compliance” as a shield or sword.

  87. KC’s first para makes no sense grammatically or legally.
    The second:

    “*The CWHLInc wire amount was moved off balance sheet meaning it was lifted off title to the estate*.

    This is one way, not my way but A way, of saying – feel free to correct me – the wire amt, if it ever had a relationship with the real estate, no longer does (“lifted off title” – to the real property). I’m not sure what’s attempted to be said here, really, but I do know if a debt is paid, it’s security interest is toast as a matter of law. Is that true if a “wire amt” (???) is ‘moved off balance sheet’? Seems like it might be, but I don’t KNOW. I don’t know how a “wire amt” is “lifted off balance sheet” unless it means something very akin to my interpretation.
    Anything, even a voluntary lien, which impacts fee title is a cloud on the title. There is fee title and although it remains fee when encumbered, a loan or easement or anything is actually a cloud. Clouds are either removed or they pass with the land (an easement generally does). Think that’s accurate. So if a loan is paid off, when the release or reconveyance is executed and recorded, guess you could say it’s “lifted off title”. ( I said payment of the debt releases the encumberance without recordation because, even tho in the last sentence I recited the ‘norm’, that’s what case law says and it prob finds its roots in some statute.)

  88. The a.p.r. is not calculated on the lender’s profit. It’s calculated on the cost of the funds to the borrower. If a lender receives a million dollars for a 100k loan, as long as that 900,000. is not from the borrower, it has no impact on the borrower’s a.p.r.

  89. E. ToLLe ,


    Enough of the games … I have never been shy about giving up tidbits (what little I know) ,, especially as I truly think that my case could answer a lot of questions as we have the following which may be the levers we need to unlock more clues here and there:

    1.) original “paid off” note was in BK court control and discovery as to who paid what and how shouldn’t be a problem. (there WAS an $8,000 anomaly that was never corrected and nobody could figure out between what court calculated and what came out on HUD-1 and actual payout… I ran out of money to investigate and bk lawyer was not excited to go after it)
    2.) closing firm got in trouble and is currently in receivership , discovery would be through the state and not a party that might want to hide things.
    3.) new “servicer” is a known JDB buying asetts from another known JDB.
    4.) WF has been MasterServicer from the beginning and we know that Bank of America was paid in full on all tranches in AIG debacle … my “trust” was an exhibit for AIG in countersuit against BAC (82% non-compliance in underwriting), we don’t know EXACTLY what Maiden Lane asetts sold for but we can guess pretty good and it was nowhere near 100%.
    5.) Nobody has the balls to claim a loss anywhere in any filing or claim any ownership more substantial than mere “holder”.

    I am literally one step away from unlocking this beast on multiple fronts. We’re back in court in December and the judge wasn’t too happy with the plaintiffs failures last time… wonder what he’ll think of not answering discovery.

  90. Grandma is drinking Green Tea Tonight, as far as the Chicken… It never came to roost. I’ve paid over $10,000 in legal fees and we aren’t even being sued for FC.

    Why do you think I filed a lawsuit this week?

    If you want legal advise you need to hire an attorney and/or expert witness.

    Let me repeat myself……

    I am not an attorney, I do not give legal advise, and I don’t answer legal questions ….

  91. KC was directly asked by JG, “If CW purported to sell the loans but never transferred the notes, there was no transfer and someone likely paid for but never got them. Isn’t that how that would stack up?”

    And just like MS, KC, instead of answering the question, asks other questions, i.e. “ Which one of these posers is trying to collect? Very Good Question!
    MS asked the same question,
    Who is FCing on your estate?
    Better Question …….Where did my money Go and What was it used for?”

    KC, why in the hell don’t you just cut to the chase? Why do you spend countless hours writing about how you like chicken and skirting the real issues, answering questions with questions?

    If you know about AWL’s impotence, spill it, will you? Or explain otherwise. I doubt your presence here. And I very much doubt your knowledge on AWL. Prove me wrong.

    What I don’t doubt is that you will respond with another grandma’s tired quote, or some other caffeine/wine late night escape.

    If in fact you’re an expert witness on title issues, you should be able to answer questions without asking questions. If not, you’d be kicked out into courtroom parking lots everywhere you’ve been sworn in.

  92. Then again, maybe not.
    Floored I am, how this stuff spins around in the mind.

  93. Yeahhhh, but most Judges (from what I hear) are “in the banks pocket” and do not want to go into all this baloney. I’m not sure about the bad Judges..Carrie I live not too far away from you- in this area, I believe the Judges are quite level headed, most do not really hear many foreclosure defense going pro`se, I think if you have a decent case it kind of raises their eyebrow, in a good way, it interests them. But still, if I denied the transaction….I believe I would hurt myself. I am not sure really getting to the nitty gritty of securitization will do much if you are confusing the judge. The investor argument you raise is simple and valid, I like it. I would be worried a bit as far as getting the Judge “lost” and he reverts back to “you made a loan, and you defaulted”. Did you make your payment? – No? well, then boom. Sorry Charlie.

  94. Yup…and charged-off debt is unsecured and they are not allowed to take your house with unsecured debt—we should have been allowed to file BK to keep our homes…but they just keep covering up the truth…and take everything.

  95. Neil says …..

    But where the borrower denies the transaction ever occurred, and files the right discovery to get evidence of the wire transfers and canceled checks, the banks go wild because they know their entire case will not only fall apart but subject them to prosecution.

  96. OH ,, OCWEN makes damn sure everyone knows through their disclosure docs that they are a debt collector operating under the FDCPA and the never make a claim that they have an actual loss ,, all implications ,, exactly the same as you would get from some JDB who bought your name from Discover card for $0.0265/dollar … on charged off debt.

  97. @ Carie ,

    That is the crux of the matter ,, I had a BK in 2003 (medical ch 13) and refi cash out’d in 2007 to pay off the court ,, original note was a National City and was definately defaulted on and in court ordered catch-up mode … why does it matter .. because it was never “satisfied” when the new “loan” came into being and that new “mortgage” was definately subprime (although I somehow got prime rate of 6.5% in early 2007)…

    My original loan was definately sold into some debt collector market where nothing but collection rights remained (although it was never presented to me that way) ,, I know “FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL” ,, other than hounding the closing title company what can I do? where do I go ? What discovery do I ask for? My “new loan” went to AHMSI in 2008 after being sold out of Maiden Lane for probably $0.22/dollar and it now looks like there might be a new owner as Wilbur Ross seems to have sold AHMSI and it’s collectibles to OCWEN … OCWEN added a “helper lawfirm” to the original plaintiffs counsel to keep their stories straight…

  98. Carie, Tell Anon Hi for Me.

    I agree the previous trusts were not paid off and closed out… as the deceased “Sellers Trust” remained open here long after we purchased this property.

  99. Neil said:

    “…If it wasn’t the case there never would have been fraud at the top because the investors would be on the note and mortgage…”

    Not really, Neil—from Anon:

    “…most, if not all of subprime refinances and subprime new purchases, are bogus mortgage loans that were falsely presented as a mortgage to homeowners. These were charged-off loans, with only collection rights surviving. How does this affect homeowners??? One, not a mortgage — unsecured debt. Two, valid records as to payoffs, and payoff to prior trust and/or GSE — is unavailable by public documentation. Three, the purchase price for collection right to unsecured debt is undisclosed to borrower. Thus, borrower is unable to ascertain how much a debt buyer paid for collection rights to charged-off debt — and, how that “purchase” price can be “modified” for principal reduction by the distressed debt buyer.

    Finally, security investors are NOT investors in default debt. Subprime was default debt. Security investors, and I will state this over and over, can only invest in CURRENT cash flow pass-through. Security investors CANNOT invest in collection rights — or, for that matter, any mortgage loan itself. They can only invest in pass-through of cash flows. The loan, NOTE, collection rights, remain with the “INVESTOR” — who is NOT the security investor. Under federal law, the “INVESTOR/Creditor” must be disclosed to the homeowner. This information CANNOT be found in SEC documents, and will NOT be produced in courts of law– unless the judge is astute enough to understand the process.

    It is time for deregulation to be repealed. This, I believe will come. In the meantime, unless attorneys understand that all is being withheld in courts, borrowers will remain in limbo — unable to access the documents they need. And, given this, foreclosures will (fraudulently) continue. Attorneys have been so brainwashed on a no-end track, that they fail to look beyond the apparent.

    Number ONE — First, and foremost, separate security investors from junk debt buyer “investors.” They are not the same. To conclude that they are the same, is a huge detriment. And, to conclude that they are the same, sadly, has been the major downfall of many. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME…”

  100. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p544/ch01.html#en_US_publink100072287
    “If the lender acquires an interest in the secured property or has reason to know that you abandoned, or permanently discarded from use, the secured property, the lender should send you a Form 1099-A (PDF), Acquisition or Abandonment of Secured Property…”

    “On Form 1099-A, the lender reports the amount of the debt owed (principal only) and the fair market value of the secured property.”

    “If you do not make payments you owe on a loan secured by property, the lender may foreclose on the loan or repossess the property.”

    THE LENDER…but, the “servicer” is doing it—and claiming it on the 1099A…and when you ask the foreclosure mill who is the lender/creditor—they say that the “trustee of the trust” is…dots aren’t connecting because they don’t want them connected!!

  101. JG,

    Which one of these posers is trying to collect?

    Very Good Question!

    MS asked the same question,

    Who is FCing on your estate?

    Better Question …….

    Where did my money Go and What was it used for?

  102. kc:
    “Except that the AWL (warehouse line) was to broker/correspondent as a debtor/creditor relationship. AWL funded a lot of loans that were never moved forward before CW became dust in the wind. AWL tried to FC these loans as if the borrower were their debtor. The courts ruled otherwise..”

    Well, the AWL as Broker X could change some things. As I recall – e.tolle and others? – AWL was a dba of CW without the requisite
    dba filing and we discussed those possible ramifications way back when, but you seem to be saying courts are saying tough,and I don’t know on what arguments out of the bankster or the homeowner. So with AWL and CW, there are imo multiple issues. And even I, poor memory and all, remember that it was ascertained that CW retained the notes. If CW purported to sell the loans but never transferred the notes, there was no transfer and someone likely paid for but never got them. Isn’t that how that would stack up? The party who paid for them would have a security interest, though, imo and has a right imo to the specific performance of delivery. Can’t happen if that party is a REMIC with a cut-off date by all accounts. Which one of these posers is trying to collect?

    A warehouse line IS a debtor / creditor relationship and though the notes aren’t transferred, they’re pledged as security.

  103. I cannot afford an attorney. I don’t really care for one either but I may regret that…I do not what I would regret more through…doing what I can in court myself and saving my pennies for groceries and a possible new place, or going into big time debt from retainers & lawyer costs. I am happy, this crap does not get me down. Kids are healthy = I am happy.

  104. You want discovery of the DU (desktop underwriting system).

    Just Me… Get yourself an Attorney!

    Don’t Worry … Be Happy!

  105. I have both HUD’s and all 3 loan applications. The servicer sent me the 3 they had, AND the one my husband actually signed.
    You’d think they would of put that one together themselves…
    the ap’s signed have $$$$$ lower income, are absent “gift funds”…
    The signatures between the two HUD-1’s are ridiculous.
    What I DO NOT get, is how STUPID they must be to NOT notice the sellers mortgage was NOT PAID OFF.
    So we got a loan on the sellers house, and the sellers kept their mortgage on our home too, they were personally sent the proceeds from the sale at closing… didn’t pay off the mortgage…

    umm…closing company issued bad title insurance, loan originator was the one who made the loan go up $10,000 to cover all the closing costs, down payments, “gift funds” – get this though- the loan aps were marked as “joint” – they were my funds- my parents were the sellers- all together the costs were under 3,000 and I don’t know where the rest of the 10grand went..my parents…closing agent…no one talks (not even my parents, they “don’t remember”) ………..how do you get the info where the wire transfers went to! (FOIA?)
    All I know is I have my parents Mortgage on the house from 2003, we got the loan in 05′ …and I found a satisfaction of mortgage made in 2012 from my parents….
    so , I have an invalid note, right? Conveyance must be signed by ALL parties with interest to be valid…well, I didn’t sign it, my parents didn’t sign it, …AND…HUD insured the loan w/ 2 mortgagors, 2 mortgages on the same home, and the servicer issued the MBS – GNMA insured a bad loan.sure Fraud all over…..so I what, just show the judge all this junk, file complaints, …what do I do with all the info!

  106. Except that the AWL (warehouse line) was to broker/correspondent as a debtor/creditor relationship. AWL funded a lot of loans that were never moved forward before CW became dust in the wind. AWL tried to FC these loans as if the borrower were their debtor. The courts ruled otherwise …..

  107. JG…. Hence…Undisclosed Tier Two…. APR

  108. Bingo .. two HUDs.

    My math skills are better utilized when figuring the fraudulent APRs.
    I just Love giving Borrowers the power to negociate better terms after a buttwipe tries to screw them. 🙂

  109. kc:
    “But the wires left account receivable on CW Books and account receivable on BOA books. HUH? Neither of these parties are mentioned in any of the paperwork.”

    I don’t know what you really intend with this. But if Broker X has a broker or correspondent agreement with CW, say, it says that
    CW will provide funds (warehouse line) for Broker X’s loans it’s going to purchase. There would be an account receivable on CW’s book if CW funded a loan for Broker X. But the receivable would be due from Broker X, not the borrower. It’s satisfied by the transfer of the loan to CW. CW may have had a warehouse line itself from B of A and B of A would show an account receivable from CW, also not due from the borrower.
    In order for a broker to originate FHA and VA loans, a CW, as the FHA and VA ‘sponsor’ for the broker / correspondent had to provide to FHA and VA evidence of a WH line of a minimum of 250k for that correspondent / Broker X. That was years ago and the WH minimum $$ was no doubt raised substantially since. (This was because the smaller company didn’t have the juice to get its own wh line on its own, but FHA and VA accepted the warehouse line agreement with a CW) . The general agreement between Broker X and a CW pretty much said the same thing for the origination by Broker X of conventional loans.
    If and since the wires from CW and B of A reflect accounts receivable and those would be from Broker X to CW and from CW to B of A, you might just be proving their case for them – that Broker X was the lender.

    Neil’s theory, far as I can tell, is that the B of A in this scenario was using the funds (and if so imo stolen / embezzled) of the investors meant to purchase MBS”s.

  110. KC, that link was a great read! Thank you! Our closing was done by an An attorney who owns the title closing place and does the title search, issuance policies, makes HUD-1 etc. They were really buddy buddy with the loan originator, go figure.
    That is all they have of any paperwork, the HUD-1…the rest…they do not know why they do not have it. Someone wrote right on the HUD-1 and circled it real big ” seller paid all buyers closing costs”, they must have done that afterward It’s not on my copy.
    One giant Qui-tam, or go around filing complaints with everyone and everybody, whistle blowing and hoping for someone to get around to taking action…ha!..that might make me a bit loony in the brain department….The hell if I have the money to walk up to an attorney and say ‘ hey. …how about you write up a giant law suit, …closing agents, loan originator, servicer…but I need it to be cheap….HAHAAA.
    one step at a time…one step at a time…
    or a big fricken whammy…

  111. You need an Expert Witness to walk you thru the Accounting Trail. They only call me for Expert Witness to Title.

    I’ve been referred as a mathematical genius …. but this stuff had my head spinning for years.

    Many Blessings to All

    I’ve already said to much …….

  112. In our case …..

    We closed with “Mortgage Co” listed as the lender on the Note.

    But the wires left account receivable on CW Books and account receivable on BOA books. HUH? Neither of these parties are mentioned in any of the paperwork.

    Like Neil says … the Money Trail and the Paper Trail never meet!!

  113. Lets just say … I own and operate “XXXXXX” State Title Closings.

    Don’t want sued for giving Legal Advise, but I can share my own experiences.

  114. On the hud1 i am charged a wire fee
    For first and second amounts ( this was a first money loan new build 85/15 1 yr pre payment penalty)
    The money was purportedly wired but im not so sure. No sir. Obviously wires have tracking numbers you can reverse them and send thr money back if theres a problem , i worry because no doubt that the banks and large developers have intimate relations and what they have produced to the court thus far… Well you get my point.

  115. Title was transferred Free and Clear of All liens to the lender. Pretenders scan, convert to bond, then shred.

    You want to see the TITLE!

  116. ABA wire never made it to loans closing. Borrower wire went into US Bank Off shore account.

    Go to the Title Co and request copy of the wire transfers. Or you can request it under discovery.

  117. @ KC ,

    The “dual” wires , would they be from the same “from” or different parties? Would they be sent to the (single) closing agent/title company to ensure that everything was executed in the correct order?

    How would you begin tracking and confirming that this occurred? It would explain the disdain shown for the original note in the usual scan and shred scenario and also the lack of concern regarding proper transfer and the failure 100% of the time to issue a satisfaction for the prior note (if a refi).

  118. Kc
    Listenedti mendelmans podcast on david stern. Yall should. 50k fine its an insult to all whos homes were taken away

  119. Carie, when you say file whistleblower complaint, are you talking about a pleading in a court or some other type of “complaint”?

  120. Just Me, we have never received a 1099a or c, I really don’t know much more because they are issued after a sale.

  121. Deborah- I will contact you in a moment, thank you.

    I just ran across something very odd. Is it just me- or does this thing pretty much say a bidder of an FHA mortgage, or loan in a pool, CANNOT bid if it held or serviced the loan in particular for 2 years prior to the auction? WHAT?! page 5, ref. “iv.”


    so your servicer (or anyone) that had your loan 2 years prior cannot bid on it??

  122. Justme
    Assuming your ” lender” was liquidated
    I have a request letter you can tinker with to suit your needs you send to fdic because they will at least tell you they no longer have them ( so they did have them to know the value to be able to sell these ” assets” i want ti know the disposition what exactly they are talking about when we get the response ” certain assets one of them being collection rights” ( for who how when – only a full accountIng can prove this) anyhoo you get my drif. Ill send you it but you realise im not an attorney i just used common sense snd you must do your own due diligence and research or find good attorney fast.
    I wish you the best.
    Also there id a website re rewuests under foia study that ill try to find link
    Thr good news the sol re fois is 6 years to file for a judicial review

  123. I have what documents I want requested, I should say. I was reading Neils ” Freedom of Information Act Requests Show OneWest Bank Misrepresentation” from March 17, 2010 ……..FOIA does not answer questions….only sends documents requested, I believe, ….
    I need “what to request”
    All documents pertaining to loan #******* ownership?
    is that overly broad etc.
    Help please or links that would be helpful!

  124. Can I get a few pointers on documents to request under Freedom of Information Act, please?
    Is there a certain document you can request that would indicate the loan in specific was issued *at what date* as a security, or GNMA guaranteed *on what date* PSA? will they release that?
    1099-anything helpful to ask in regarding that area?
    I have my main questions,would rather ‘better safe than sorry’ and ask now instead of kick myself after I already submit it.

  125. PS – A & B cannot make B anyone’s agent but A’s.

  126. Commercial Money Ctr., Inc., Equip. Lease Litig. N.D.Ohio 12-19-2007

    “Under California law, “[n]ovation is made . . . by the substitution of a new creditor in place of the old one, with intent to transfer the rights of the latter to the former.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1531(3).”

    When the borrower at a closing signs the note, he establishes (usually – not counting if the whole deal’s bogus) the lender as the creditor. The borrower signs the note before the dot, so “the creditor” is established before he executes the collateral instrument.

    Novation, to my knowledge, has historically been used in a contract which is itself complete – not a mortgage loan contract which is a two instrument agreement. Once the lender has been established as “the creditor” in one part of that agreement, could the lender novate another party to the other part of the deal, the collateral instrument?
    If one may give another party “legal title” to its interests, which imo remains legal fiction, and which is what MERS claims, I don’t know why not. A novated party is a much more accurate description here of a nominee and beneficiary than an “agent”. What is expressed is a novation.
    Even if not, though I’m still on it, whatEVER it is, no agency is created in that dot. I know people think that’s a tired argument and one already decided in general, but imo, obviously, it isn’t, and that determination isn’t universal, anyway. And, yeah, it makes me mad as hell that Hearne and Hager fought that bifurcation fight (God knows at what cost ) for so long in NV (for US) and then the ridiculous MDL, got shot down, only to have the NV SC recently rule, as if it’s just another day at the office, that MERS in the dot bifurcates it from the note.

  127. I have not, maybe she took a breather, due time… and she has two to figure out! ouch! I think it is mandatory to remember to keep those mini breather moments to save your sanity. …
    …..Good timing, Carrie.
    I was just going to ask if any complaints actually were doing any good.
    I have been pondering filing short solid legitimate complaints w/ hard evidence supporting to all that are existent to make complaints to…but really took a toll on if it would do any good. Spose it’s all in the works to find out.

  128. Carie, thank you, and thank Anonymous for me
    im on it, I agree KC its false claims up the yazoo…(wherever the “yazoo: goes, Maher says the caymans, good chance) but isnt this why we blog to help one another, this is our way forward, to help one another no man is an island and none of us can enjoy the fruits of our labor without sharing, its part of the reward. As Neidermeyer pointed out you must attack the enemy from the front door the back door the side door the windows because when you go into battle you do not sit there waiting for them. They did what they did and its out, so time for the criminal prosecutions , well actually, way overdue , more judges are realizing the future of the united States actually rests in the court rooms , It does, think about it.

  129. Has anyone heard from Christine?

  130. Carie,

    I believe Anon is referring to the False Claims Act.

    UKG…. I’m not going to dis the Judges, but I Love to catch a proffering attorney caught with his pants down in open court.

    Its not Halloween without a Full Moon.


  131. Deb—did I show you this from Anon?

    “…One West was obligated to provide the creditor under the TILA 1641 g. Creditors do not include servicers, and trustees. According to the law, any investor with the largest position in your loan, has to identify itself to you — and, I would assume to the IRS. Know you may be over the statute of limitations for the TILA 1641 g law. But, the IRS is not. You have to file a complaint with the IRS — as a whistle blower, and with the SEC, as a whistle blower, that the trust claimed, and by IRS 1099 as to “servicer”, is invalid and fraudulent. You have to file complaint that the stated trust, to which One West claims to be servicer, never received the PAYOFF by the foreclosure. Thus, this is not only tax evasion, but also securities fraud. You need to get whistle blower forms in. And, inform One West that this is what you are doing. Unless it can be shown the specific trust that claims to have your loan, for which One West, servicer, and trustee, acts on behalf, actually received the foreclosure payoff — we have IRS and Securities fraud…”

  132. the judges know that perjury is being committed. But when BK judges sit next to foreclosure mill attorneys at CLE seminars, all buddy-buddy and stuff, can you really expect the Judge to be impartial when you are charging those same people with fraud and racketeering, abuse of process, etc.? I think not.

  133. Are you seeing the potential liabilities to the taxpayers Yet? And they are getting slapped on the hand and a buck or two taken from their wallet without admission of guilt, then they are sent marriarly on their way.

    Crime Pays?

    WHERE ARE THE PROSECUTIONS??????????????????????

  134. At the same time of the charge offs, they implemented a new Fed Rules, but they had to bring the states laws inline with theirs on the “Holder” issues.


  135. After four pots of coffee and talking out loud all day…. have you all come up with a list of your own questions yet?

  136. This Birdie Sings …. You cant hide $37,000 from me.

  137. There you go Poppy, now your getting it, you know…. the NOA and Due On Date.

    OK…. creative 2ndary market swaps and such kick in and bankster makes a fortune.

    So, the Birdie Sings …. Suspense Accounts? Running up your payments in Fees?

    They having a hard time catching up with me!

    One potato, two potato, three potato four….. Who ever ends up with the hot potato …. drops it on the floor. Liability Rings…..

  138. Ocwen same shit. Received a second QWR zero balance, then a letter with notice of default from October 01, 2007…What? I was current on payments. Then what about the trust you are claiming you are foreclosing on behalf of, opened August 01, 2007, closed August 31, 2007.

    So, they have a defaulted loan in October 2007 they are servicing, non-performing loan that was in the trust, and now foreclosing on behalf of that trust….the defaulted loan was in this trust in August (default had to be before August that year) 2007? And you are collecting for whom? WTF

  139. I honestly wish I could say I am past being angry, but I’m not. Flippin Free House or not ……. We wanted to pay what we owed and get title for what we bought !!!!

    Simple… Right?

    We have been put thru 5 yrs of Hocky Sticks for trying to do the right thing and pay what we owe.

    This is not what we wanted …. But I’m tired of their BS!!!

    I left out the majority of my complaint here because I can not fathom the results of giving another group of greedies another free ride on the taxpayers!

    This is NOT what I wanted! But they left me no choice!!

  140. “An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court has “clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.” Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 26 (1992).”

  141. Oct 26 2008 CW default loan after being told to stuff their FB offer where the sun don’t shine. Oct 31st 2008 loan charged off. Nov 2, 2008 KC pay loan current. Nov 4, 2008 CW file LP and JN. KC continue reg payments and cure mysterious escrow default thru March. 2009. BAC take over as of April 2009 and refuse our payment unless its for the $12,000 default. HUH? Suspense Account? Attorney tell us to reinstate … so we did. Case dismissed May 2010. Wanna know how they thanked us for being such good sports ……they sent NOA for tax and ins.. HUH? Escrow?

    Nuff is Nuff! Send KC payoff!! Release that slanderous LP from title!!

    It took them another year to release LP in Nov 2011. But not before the filed the MERS assignment of Note and Mortgage to CW, BAC, BOAna on Sept 28 2011.

    So there I was …. still no payoff and two slanders to title now.

    And here I am today …..

  142. CASE NO: _______

  143. MERS is your household estate.

    My husbands loan was charged off and they claim my husbands estate was lost. Nope! They did not procure a judicial FC.

    I also did not authorize MERS to transfer my interests in my estate either!!! When my husbands debt was satisfied, they should have released the estate back to who??

    As far as MERS authority to assigning the notes… HAHAHA! NOPE!

  144. Every Note and Mortgage are different, State Laws vary, and the Questions are different in each case.

    I am not an attorney, I can not give legal advise, I can not answer legal questions.


  145. Plaintiff KC further alege as facts other creditable discovery to be brought in pretrial motion that can demonstrate sufficiency in claims necessary to show that plaintiff is the person against whom the instrument is void or voidable

    *The CWHLInc wire amount was moved off balance sheet meaning it was lifted off title to the estate*.

  146. @KC –

    What are the right questions and for what parties?
    Request early protective discovery of all computer records that have your loan number as a detail on them. Request to have original note sequestered with sheriff or U.S. Marshals depending on state or fed court. Expect them to object on ‘too broad’, ‘cost is prohibitive’, which is legitimate, and you have to dicker and in doing so they identify what records are available. Turning the note over to be sequestered in 3 days keeps DOCX / LPS from forging a new one. If not delivered in 3 days, you want full accounting of vault records to determine where it is. Vault custodian records are composed of transit and bailee information.

    How do you get the accounting side acknowledged by the judiciary?
    If it’s a MERS loan or public does not have access to every title-affecting change of beneficiary / ‘note holder’ regarding your property (e.g. CA), then explain to court the only records that accurately portray possession of beneficiary interest are the GAAP records of the lenders in your case. Likely you will have 2 lender / beneficiaries; one before default, and one after. Only the beneficiary has power to elect to declare default.

  147. Questions?

    Please explain why you will not send KC a Payoff via USPS.

    Mail Fraud?

  148. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF KC PRAY FOR THE COURT GRANTING JUDGMENT AGAINST defendants as having failed to procure a proper judicial foreclosure

    (For Executory Contracts, Contracts of Adhesion and or all other agreements in perpetuities and where each of them, as follows:
    1. That the subject promissory note is made null and void upon end of trust having been discounted into a notional yield paid to investors. To avoid dual consideration the note must be ruled unenforceable and declared void.
    2.. That the subject mortgage and or mortgage deed of trust is likewise found null and void upon the deed or mortgage deed of trust having been charged off and written down to a zero

    1. This is an action brought seeking a release of liens and reconveyance in addition to any and all damages against Defendants Bank of America Corporation (“BOA-Corp”), Bank of America, National ,Association (“BOA-Bank”), Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc. (“BOA-Mortgage”) and
    Banc of America Securities LLC (“BOA-Securities”) now known as Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), 12 U.S.C. §1833a. 2
    2. This action arises out of Defendants’ loss of its investment by congressional enactment under the Troubled Assets Relief Program “TARP” for charging off and writing down the outstanding balance against purchaser and all other defendants and or indispensible parties to claims that include the purchasers and registrant against the titleholder and consumer household

  150. as one
    Half of the Community
    SMITH, INC. f/k/a BANC OF

    There were two wires at closing …. both equal to the amount due on HUD 1. A purchase loan with one set of repayment terms converted to a installment sale contract with a different set of repayment terms. The estate was stripped of title at closing . The defendants made the transfer with the intent of defrauding the Plaintiff. The defendants gained unjust enrichment from the Plaintiffs Estate.

    More to come later ….

  151. UT, do not forget that you can send a complaint to the CPFB, because there are laws in place now that make them consider you for a loan mod.

  152. And so in ” reviewing the files” for your loan then they have the info to come to a dollar amount conclusion
    My 1099a and the amount on trustees deed upon sale has a 90k difference
    I am pursuing a foia judicial review
    How on earth csn they offer people a settlement check its so not even funny.

  153. Watch within the next 6 weeks…checks mailed out by Rust Consulting on behalf of IndyMac/OneWest as part of the Independent Foreclosure Review Decree.

    Issue: They have been reviewing my File for 10 months now. Reminder the IndyMac Boys elected not to go with the blanket change of program back in January 2013….and elected to review each file one by one.

    It is going to be major Scam- if they bail from the agreement and point to Owcen as the new Successor in interest to process IFF files.

    I have written to Jospeh Smith of the Monitor Settlement Office- all I hear is Crickets. be sure to check out: FreeSteveNow on Facebook

  154. Speaking of criminals, Seattle City Councilor Nick Licata calls a spade a spade, yesterday. He’ll be great to work with, I had him and 5 other candidates at a foreclosure forum last week. It was held in honor of Phyllis Walsh, who committed fraudclosure-assisted suicide this summer.
    Friday, November 1, 2013

    KingCast and Mortgage Movies Watch Seattle City Councilor Identify Bank of America Criminal Conduct at Jane Mair Halloween Fraudclosure Rally.

  155. Neidermeyer
    matt tiabbi wrote its the ” wall strert way” down at the irs
    However the irs had rules too and what is good gor the goose id good for thr gander.

  156. @ Deborah Wynn ,

    I see why you would want to do that and I would also if for no reason other than to get it on the record… but the simple truth is that the IRS is part of the fraud … they know that the “REMIC” trusts are completely invalid and owe hundreds of $Billions in taxes but they do nothing.

    I can see no solution to this other than to attack on all fronts ,,, especially the fraudsters filing as noteholders with willing accomplice lawfirms … they need to be up on criminal charges … one way or another we need to have the judges take notice that they are part of the fraud and are not immune… what state/county is the most ripe for this kind of attack?

    I say go after AHMSI/Homeward/OCWEN in Texas ,, attack the castle head on… in the same court where AHMSI sued LPS/DocX

  157. @KC

    I “get it” to a degree but not 100% , I feel MS had something valid and useful but he would never disclose enough to allow anyone to make that determination for themselves (even with non-disclosure guaranteed by a third party lawyer) ….

    My question(s) for you are very simply…

    What are the right questions and for what parties?

    How do you get the accounting side acknowledged by the judiciary?

  158. Trespass have you spoken to a fraud agent at the IRS. Im at this point because i too will not concede that the issuer if that 1099a is not a party to a securities fraud.

  159. Replace the word “money” in this, and every post and article when the correct word is, or should be “currency” and the entire dynamic of the argument is changed in strong favor of the victims of all these schemes. Everyone should watch episodes 1-4 of the following, but at the very least ingest (watch over and over again) episode 4.


    Don’t like the direct link, try YouTube here:

  160. I have a huge case going on 2007 headed to federal court in Washington call me find out more 864-787-2880 Shirley Beemer it will make a movie,that is in the work’s.

  161. TY, TU. Its difficult for me to explain what they did in legal terms without getting all out of whack, my head starts spinning and my sanity runs away. Just to much Fraud to Process. I have chosen not to make my complaint public at this time. But I will keep you updated,

    . Rescission Kiddo’s …. Rescission …….

  162. Rignt mr Reed
    (And MERS had no interest in the debt hence i am
    Not suing them)

  163. Trespass Unwanted, your post packed a punch. Real feeling and meaning are behind those words of yours. I heard you, I listened. I am rooting for you, too. Legalese is not the language of “we the people”. Our language is “Freedom”.
    …Red and yellow black and white, we are greatest in our might. Our rights are precious,we will fight. Justice loves to jail the criminals of the world…
    I versed that for all of us.
    (Emphasis added) justice loves to jail criminals……

  164. PNC sent 1099A but National City Mortgage was my Lender of record, and then Fannie Mae sent the second 1099A. I didn’t file either. Can’t commit perjury on tax form, but IRS is not happy that I didn’t commit perjury. Have been on me since. It’s crazy how people can steal from you and put the beast on your back.

    Who in their right mind, let alone with good conscience would think this is our ‘will’?

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

  165. Neil I think your stuck on investors, but investors who are not home mortgage lenders cannot originate or purchase a home mortgage. You wanting to connect the dot that the funding is coming from other than the banks, but no one other than the bank can originate the loan and they have to obey the Fair Housing Act. Simply because corporations have money, does not give then lending abilities and they are not regulated to do so.

    However there are 3 way the loan are originated and that is in-house, broker or correspondent. The broker sign the loan up under the parent bank and the correspondent bank if if wants a greater yield you table fund the loan, and the loan is title in the bank name on the Note and as the “lien holder”!

    IndyMac as with Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) are easy to show that there is a broken link in the chain of title because these Notes that are signed with a blank endorsement and relinquished without a sale (no money changes hands) and either the title was still in IndyMac or WaMu names, and the banks were seized and declared “failed banks”, and the situation exist were these loans are forever in a state where the Note is separated from the debt, and neither actual ever will exist again.

    They don’t exist because they are separated and one without the other cannot call the loan due. A Note is not a actual Note if it does not have a debt attached! You get a copy of the Note and there is not a signed endorse to a entity on the Note and no proof of purchase, it a done deal that there no collectable debt as the Note cannot act as a Note in a blank state!

  166. trespass maybe look at fighting the unlawful detainer,foreclosure mill atty yes? then who issued trustee deed, start breaking it down regarding the posture of capacity and how authorized to have it, in which they present themselves to the court, who foreclosed, who declares they are the lender on your 1099, is it A or C,
    not an atty so not giving you legal advice but it is my belief theres weakness here. something you might research and decide if you want to go there after all you have obviously been through.
    SOL is applies to fraud, so you are probably ok there,
    in the end we loose no matter what, im talking years of my life but if I start a thing, I finish it being my reason to start never changed. I believe I have the right to be heard on the merits of my case under state and federal law.

  167. Would be nice if courts realized in these frauds there are two unknown parties in there.
    One is compelled to appear under threat, duress, and coercion, and the other is submitting tons of beautifully written legalese paperwork to appear to have a right to be there with the complaint.

    Judge completes the transaction by leaving the one compelled to appear without any property after all the years of labor.

    If I’d known someone was going to take my shelter in 10 years, I would not have signed to have shelter.

    I would have done my transactions as adverse possession and just have a moving truck and funds ready for the move from place to place, since I’m going to be put out of the property anyway.

    why would anyone in good conscience lock their self into a long term labor contract to end up with “NOTHING” at the end of the labor. I mean these people didn’t put food, clothing, nor shelter, but they parasited all my remuneration for years in a scheme of ‘I’ll give you the title if you give me the money, and then when the truth was going to be exposed, they packed up their table and left like a true swindler.

    Adverse possession, I promise you the next time I seek property no one will get my signature except by adverse possession. Heck the one who owns it can’t have it, the one that has it don’t want it, they want to sell it, and the one who needs it can live in it since the one who owns it would go to jail if they tried to get it back.

    Stupid, stupid system of just-nothing.

    It’s ours to live in and use. NO corporate owner even wants it except to put it on their property list in their monopoly game.

    Anyone playing monopoly knows that the game board can have so many houses you run out of houses and one can own so many that they fall off the board.

    I guess the houses that fell off the board can be put to good use as shelter via adverse possession.

    Maybe that’s the paperwork we need to learn how to fill out. They get paid anyway. They’ve always been paid anyway. Judges want to pretend they know what they are ruling on. If I raised a life with the lack of skills they use to judge a transaction of life labor and property, my life would be altered and the life I’m raising would be removed due to incompetence. The entire system would judge me incompetent for not knowing the basics of life. I guess I can create a bunch of paperwork to pretend I know how to care for a life, like cut out something from a diaper instructions on how to change diapers, and copy something from a childbirth book, and get something from an article in parenting. Put it all together and pretend I’m a good parens (meant to spell it that way, it has it’s own Black’s law legal definition)

    But no, that’s what lawyers are doing and judges look at all the pretty paperwork, the spelling is grammatically correct and the spacing is right and they used the right font and left room for a signature and oh well, you’ve made your claim very nicely, rule for the one with the great paperwork.

    KC I’m rooting for you. Non-judicial states allow them to file a document that is the foundation of their fraud, and they use that ‘temporary’ filing as a base to ‘record’ the other documents that give the illusion of being someone who had a contract with the home’owner’, but if we really owned it and someone takes it without our permission, they stole it. With a ruling they stole it with help.

    The filed document sits on a shelf, cannot even be certified, it’s a hearsay document, only recognized enough because it was received on a certain date, no signatures from anyone at the court will ever be endorsed on it.

    It is so worthless most courts destroy it in a year, the county I was in held it for two but you can’t even compel them to keep the ‘filed’ document for any time because it’s irrelevant and can’t even be referred to after it’s destroyed.

    The judges decision in a non-judicial state is based on something created on an irrelevant document that would be destroyed long before the statute of limitations ran out on the fraud.

    If that don’t beat all.

    I had submitted it as an answer to why they were suing the wrong party in court to make me leave, but it seems the judge didn’t care, their paperwork was pretty and I was using their same paperwork to say they were suing the wrong party, but it at least got submitted as an exhibit.

    When you merge it with all the other papers, you can clearly see the layers of the rotten onion.

    Not to mention the notary fraud in the court documents. How can a law firm not be sanctioned for submitting paperwork stamped by a notary for power of attorney from one business to another business without a single signature of anyone who didn’t want to perjure their self and pretend they worked for either business or pretend they had the authority to give power of attorney from or to either business?

    Got to have the power to do something before you can do it.

    Yet they’d let that stand, regardless of the answer that they were suing the wrong party and all the bad, bad, bad, pretty typed, and correctly spelled paperwork not worth the paper it was printed on.

    I guess their consideration was they paid the filing fee to steal the property from the ‘home’ ‘owner’ who actually was ‘owning’ the home before being robbed by threat, duress, and coercion.

    Going to court and talk legalese is like us pulling in a foreigner who never spoke the English language, how can you have a valid judgment against someone who doesn’t even comprehend the process it takes to defend their self against another who went to war with them and stole their property and let someone else put up a flag of ownership ( the real estate sign that has the separate flap fo show ‘For Sale’) to sell it to anyone who wants it?

    I didn’t abandon, I was forced out. NO 1099A can ever make that claim legally I don’t care who filed it. If I didn’t file it, I didn’t leave of my own free will.

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

  168. 1099 ABANDMONT CLAIM (hahaha)! They use the 1099 to wash the title and reestablish the value of the property.


  169. I’m to passionate about Justice and I talk to much … they never tell me anything. 🙁

  170. No I’m not MS … but I had a good attorney until she went to work for the Feds. When I pay for legal advise… I ask a lot of questions.

    Ironically … MS is the only one who came even close to her answers. The evidence is in front of you … don’t be afraid to study what you don’t understand, and Always Get Your Legal Questions answered by the Attorneys.

    Its all about asking the Right Questions!

  171. @KC ,,, are you MS ?

    @Neil , Why trouble connecting dots? Simple we’re missing the “thread” of discovery … Courts are complicit with knowledge of the crimes being committed… and we just saw the Florida bar GREEN LIGHT fraud in the Stern “punishment” ..

  172. Louise
    You realise we all could be in court for 25 years , but you are right.

  173. I’m sorry but this will continue in the courts until the lawyers start filling complaints against the mills and JUDGES. Which by the way they are REQUIRED to do anyways if they witness MISCONDUCT. Then it will get the attention of the media and higher courts. IMO, the circuit court judges are either lazy or corrupt.

  174. Friends of our in their early sixties who are retired and pay private health ins for 497 a month, just got notice because of Obama Care there new premium would be over 1500.00 a month for the two of them. And their co pay and out of pocket max tripled!! Their policy expires and renew with the new rates Nov 27 and they cant get thru the registration process for Obama care.

    Are they friggin kidding me?? $$1500.00 a month health ins mandated by law!!

    That’s more than the meager 919.00 a month mortgage payment.

    Good Grief!!!!

  175. There is no default on a reverse mortgage unless the taxes and ins go unpaid of course..

  176. From FIO/FDIC, OneWest only acquired servicing rights. Sold servicing rights to Ocwen.
    In my case, Note/Mortgage were sold to a Trust/REMIC and then sold to FannieMae(?). Neither one was the plaintiff(they were behind scene/ curtain). Now, Ocwen claims to be the Servicer on behave of FannieMae. Really???
    Neil has been right all along, NO DEFAULT.

  177. Louise, I tried to save them the trouble of an trial for a unsecured judgment against him by buying the house myself with cash. But there appears to be issues with the title ins … those sect b exclusions the title ins companies are adding to the policies of those wrongful fc and slander to titles …..

  178. I agree Louise .. But I kept mine simple and brought the action in state court.

  179. My Action brought is seeking of all liens be released and reconveyance The Warranty Deed” filed. As my husbands loan against his half of the estate was satisfied in the charge off… They cant come after the estate until ?? When the due on date is is is is in the mortgage.

    in addition to any and all damages…..

  180. Blaze of glory or otherwise, KC, check out unlawful detainer action and wrongful foreclosure. It is possible to keep fighting for many years. There are also actions in federal court such as FDCPA and also check out FIRREA. Federal statute that nailed the crooks in the S&L meltdown. Not to mention, fraud, forgery, notary fraud, unjust enrichment, perjury, fraud on the court, fraud on the county, fraud in the inducement, fraud in the factotum, etc.

  181. The bets started out just a few here and there.. just a greedy or two, ……….but then as word spread in the wind about the loophole … All the Greedies wanted in!

    It wasn’t supposed to get this bad MS?

  182. 1099 ABANDMONT CLAIM (hahaha)! They use the 1099 to wash the title and reestablish the value of the property.

  183. For years now you have all heard me repeat over and over that they were defaulting borrowers NOT in default. WHY? Because they bet the loans would fail and they DIDNT! Leaving those loans performing would have left the taxpayers held for damages in some cases up to 80X the principal loan amount. Their Solution was to charge off all these loans and FC on your Household Estate … Collateral Damage? A Matter of National Security?


    Oh … your spouse has a right to claim your estate if he/she did not sigh the note. Not your fault they charged off the debt voluntarily! You have a right to redeem it at salvage price!

    Don’t fight them, join them and play by the Rules!


  184. Now think about that 1099a issued by one west declaring they are lender and the fact that i cant get zip out if the fdic re ” certain assets sold” ( under FOIA) one being servicing rights however ” one west is not the successor in interest” ( of indymac)i have this admission from senior council FDIC,
    Supreme court decision below


  185. No Escheat to the State!

  186. No beneficiary to our estate was listed in the mortgage/DOT ….. But I made my claim public! Community Property! Gotta Love It!

  187. I have $200,000 to fight a $149,389.00 fraud! If I go down … I’m going down in a Blaze of Glory!

    In May, someone said to me …. your husband already lost his estate. I should have asked …. ya wanna bet?

  188. Pre emption of the “State” holder laws coming to a location near you soon!

    SOL on filing False Claims …..coming to a location near you soon.

    Happy 5th Anniversary to All the Charge Offs!

    Tricks and Treats!!!..

    They played the Tricks and I get All the Treats!

    Happy Halloween Everyone!

  189. Tired of waiting for the payoff figures and good title. We request and they respond with … threats and extortion! Enough is Enough! If they are not going to take it to court ….. I’m taking them there!

    Filed a Lawsuit this morning!


  190. The foreclosure scam is related to the debt collection scam by debt collection firms which may represent themselves as law firms. Actually, their only function is debt collection, almost universally done illegally and in violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. I have read that if the debt collection firms actually adhere to the law (FDCPA and others) they go out of business. Hmmm, sounds familiar.

  191. its like those new mouse traps with the big red V…….they never meet, unless, they trap the mouse (the homeowner)

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: