Show Me the Money!!!

Apparently I have been unsuccessful in getting the main point across about the so-called securitization of loans — show me the money is the demand, not show me the note.

First, in most cases, the securitization process never happened despite the pile of paper generated by the sham securitization scheme. The “mismanaged” money of investors really amounts to intentionally NOT depositing the investor money into the trusts that had issued the bonds. It also represented a whole different world of underwriting that broke every rule in the book for risk management. But that was the point. They wanted the risk to be higher than was advertised so they could bet, on inside information that only the banks had, that the loans and bonds would fail or be substantially diminished roughly in proportion to the drop in real estate prices.

So they needed loans to fail or at least for market conditions to change such that the banks could declare a “credit event” and collect insurance and other money that should have gone to investors.

But the point is that the loan closings, were, for the most part, a complete sham with strawmen at every seat at the closing table except for the borrowers who were completely unaware of who they were taking a loan from and under what conditions.

The problem that I am still encountering with both homeowners and their foreclosure defense attorneys is the disconnect between knowing the money arrived at the closing table and the wrongful conclusion that it must have come from the payee on the note and the mortgagee on the mortgage.

In most cases the payee was a strawman, the mortgagee was a strawman, and the lender was a strawman. The worst part is that they were strawmen in a fictitious transaction — i.e. the loan never occurred which is why in common pleading today the foreclosing party scrupulously avoids alleging that a loan was ever made to the homeowner. They don’t want the burden of proof on them in their complaint that there was a loan because there was no loan.

BASIC PLEADING ERROR: Instead of alleging the loan and financial injury they skip to the signing of the documents. Yes, the homeowner signed many documents, but the bargain was that the homeowner would get a loan from the people with whom he had accepted an offer. The loan was consideration for the contract, and without consideration there is no enforcement of any contract.

This is the sticking point in the minds of many lawyers, including foreclosure defense attorneys. In fact, even the client finds it hard to believe he never had a deal with the people on the signed documents. After all money DID show up at the closing table, so how could deny the loan?

And why should the homeowner win in litigation with the foreclosing party when it is so obvious that the homeowner did receive money, and therefore by operation and presumption of law was obliged to pay it back?

I am trying to make this as simple as possible and directly address the issue that lawyers are having applying the true facts of the transaction to the requirements of contract law and property law evolved over centuries.

Mere knowledge of a loan does not make anyone a lender. If I know you received a loan from anyone that gives me no rights. If anything, my knowledge might be an invasion of privacy if you didn’t tell me.

An enforceable contract requires offer by one party, acceptance by the other party and CONSIDERATION passing between those parties. This is basic contract law. Skirting the requirements of contract law and property law opens Pandora’s box with hope crushed and annihilation a certainty. It is because avoiding basic precepts of law eliminates certainty in the marketplace for any transaction.

The real description of the real transaction is simple: in most cases the investors gave money to investment bankers under false pretenses but the money was given and the investment bankers had it. That was a real transaction, even though the paperwork that supposedly provided the terms of the investment were completely ignored. The investor money was being held by the investment bank. Real money and no doubt that occurred.

Next, for simplicity sake, the investment bank funded the origination or acquisition of loans through a series of conduits, some of which included regional banks who don’t show up as foreclosing parties but who made billions acting as conduits to scrub the money before it was received by the closing agent.

The net effect was a wire transfer from an entity with no relation or connection to the homeowner, the closing agent, the lender, the payee, the mortgagee, the mortgage broker or the originator. The wire transfer is received by the closing agent and applied to a “closing” that was a sham. The paperwork was there and the money was there, but the money never came from the parties to the paperwork.

In some cases (perhaps 20-25%) the loans were acquired in the same way but there was no need to have a closing agent, to make it look like a bona fide transaction was taking place. In most cases, the loan origination was a complete sham.

So who is the lender? It can only be the the investors who were the actual source of funds. But, as we have seen in multiple lawsuits from lenders, insurers, credit default swap counterparties, and the federal government, the banks claimed to be the lender since the money looked like it had come from them, even tough they were violating the terms of their agreement with the investors and were acting as an agent or conduit for the investors.

So then I am asked, what difference does that make? The answer is that the paperwork makes it seem that the loan was an executed contract with offer, acceptance and consideration, but it failed in reality because none of the parties to the written documents were in fact a lender, creditor or took part in any way in any real transaction with the homeowner. The moment after the loan documents were signed, the homeowner could not obtain a satisfaction of mortgage and return of the paid note, because the investors were the only people who could sign such documentation.

But the investors could not return the original note because they never received it. And even if they received it, someone else had their name on the note as the payee. And the investor could not execute a satisfaction of mortgage that would have cleared the title of that encumbrance because they had never received the mortgage document, nor any assignment, nor was their name on the mortgage or deed of trust as beneficiary, mortgagee, lender or anything else.

So the bottom line is that the paper trail is just that — a trail of paper unsupported by any real transaction. If it were otherwise you can bet the Banks would be producing canceled checks and wire transfers and telling me to shut up. But in my cases, they are fighting me tooth and nail so they are not ordered to produce it. But they are telling me to please shut up.

A paper trail can only be one thing under law — evidence of a transaction. The debt is created when the money is received and by law the debtor is the receiver of the funds and the creditor is the source of the funds. First thing we learn in Contracts 101 is that the note is not the debt, it is evidence of the debt. The mortgage is not the debt, and it isn’t even evidence of the debt. it is a separate agreement to provide enforcement mechanisms for the note.

But the note was executed with the expectation that the homeowner would be getting money from the payee on the note. They didn’t get money from the payee on the note (in most cases). In fact, they didn’t get money from any of the parties disclosed to them in the disclosure statements and HUD settlement forms required by law. To make matters worse, the homeowner did not receive money from ANYONE in the paper trail. So this was not a table-funded loan, this was an UNFUNDED loan transaction which makes it unenforceable.

The current practice of not claiming in the allegations of the foreclosing party that a loan ever took place is an effort to force the homeowner to state it as an affirmative defense — thus violating due process. The homeowner should be able to simply deny the allegation which would keep the burden of proof on the foreclosing party. Then the foreclosing party would need to show proof of payment in order to make a prima facie case.

Instead judges are allowing the complaint to supposedly state a cause of action without alleging the loan and without alleging financial injury which opens Pandora’s box in discovery. So let’s look at the complaint and what it means. The foreclosing party need only allege that the homeowner signed the paperwork, and didn’t comply. the rest is history and “inevitable.”

The principles of pleading are that there must be a present controversy that is not hypothetical or to be inferred. The simple rule is that you must make a short plain statement of ultimate facts upon which relief could be granted.

Alleging the execution of a document by one party without alleging that it was part of an enforceable and executed contract is alleging that you have evidence of something but you won’t say whether anything actually happened. Therefore you won’t say if you have financially damaged. This flies in the face of the basic rule of construction in filing a complaint:





In contract law, this means a duty imposed by a contract that is enforceable. I submit that it is basic bold black letter law that if you don’t allege a transaction conducted pursuant to a contract based upon the essential elements of offer, acceptance and consideration you have failed to state a cause of action and you have failed to establish the foundation for alleging that you were damaged.

Further, I submit that the failure to make such allegations fails to invoke the jurisdiction of the court over the parties or the property or the rents. And I further submit that any judgment rendered without a proffer of evidence of the loan of money by the parties in the paper trail is void, based upon fraud and should be vacated.

Simple reasoning: if those complaints are not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and judgements are entered, the homeowner is stuck with possibility that someone will show up with the real promissory note and be able to prove it was their money that the homeowner received. What will be the defense of the homeowner in that position? That is why we have laws, rules of civil procedure, and pleading requirements. 

If those foreclosure sales are not vacated, the fact is that anyone holding property subject to claims of securitization will never be able to get rid of the mortgage encumbrance even if they pay it off in full as demanded by some party in the paper trail. They cannot sell the property and warranty title, they cannot refinance, and they cannot modify or settle the claims without the real source of money being involved in the process.

124 Responses

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

  2. Neil, could I use your post above as an exhibit in my upcoming wrongful-foreclosure trial against Freddie Mac/Bank of America NA/Nationstar LLC?

  3. oops – I see Citi is the assignee in james s’s assgt.

  4. @mark stephens or anyone – what was the case?

  5. hman: “The court acknowledges that they’re maybe a “material mistatement of fact” (ROBOSIGING/FRAUD) but the result would be the same because the homeowner didn’t pay.”

    I already weighed in on the absurdity of that, so won’t again, but if that isn’t in the case you linked, I’d appreciate knowing what case it’s in. I’d sure as sam h like to see the court’s justification for that comment, but won’t be surprised if there’s no back-up, just some bench – law.
    Maybe there’s something in their courthouse coffee down there.

    “AZ has also came to the conclusion that the DOT & note can be “reunited” although I don’t remember the case off hand.”

    If you remember, I’d really like to see that case, esp since the MDL
    (multi-district litigation) which originated in NV (and from where else I don’t remember) was shipped to AZ for adjudication and its court is the one who said MERS doesn’t bifurcate the note and dot.
    (That was a hard, hard fought battle and we the people lost) Anyway, in that mdl, AZ said MERS doesn’t bifurcate the note and dot. The hell it doesn’t (in fact, that was the goal) so someone besides the trust could foreclose with a credit bid (“assignment” – give my eye teeth to see a credit bid assignment in black and white, I would).
    It’s a novation or there’s no stinking ben named in the dot. i’ve already positied why that is, so won’t repeat that, either. But, yeah, sure hope you remember what case that was.
    ps – was nice of you to explain some stuff to james s.

  6. NG: “It also represented a whole different world of underwriting that broke every rule in the book for risk management

    jg: “It also represented a whole different world of underwriting which
    broke every law on the books which criminalize predatory lending.”
    I know you were thinking of another area when you wrote that, NG, but no one has spent much time on predatory lending ‘remedies’, probably because those suits have by and large been unsuccessful (based imo on shortage of fact-based arguments re: predatory lending). I think people think the current bankster will just say “we didn’t do it’, as if that’s a shield, and that the time is up to allege the predatory lending, which may not be the case at all. Or they’re afraid because they signed the loan app which shows 25k a month in income. I guess I’m thinking mol comparative fault since the lender has the duty to know fact from fiction (yes it does). Or maybe the loan applicant was wrongfully induced to sign a blank application. I’m really angry about those loans being made, truth be told, for one because what I said is true: the lender is charged with ascertaining that the borrower’s overall financial picture supports the income claimed (and that’s if the lender didn’t just pick an income for the borrower to qualify. ) The banksters may have unqualified borrowers shakin’ in their boots, believing they’re the ones who’d get nailed. I think if a group of attorneys concentrated on predatory lending and made it their ‘thing’, like say personal injury attorneys do, we might make some headway there and that group might make beaucoup bucks.

  7. I don’t want to re-read it or re-think it (sorry), but I think for one, it was missing an assignee. And it made no sense for recordation in MD if the property is in MO or wherever.

  8. Kc – If a new agreement is made between B and C, I’m not sure of it’s effect on the note maker, A’s, obligation on the note and its 30 year term. You say that agreement converts the note to a 5 year bond. Maybe. Maybe not. A determining factor is that as the assignee of the loans, the trust needs beneficiaries, as does any trust. If the investors are merely on one end of another deal (and I personally don’t know with whom), it may be they’re not beneficiaries of the loans. There’s no five year call good against the borrower. Just to try to put my own head to it any more, I’d need to know more about the “5 year bond”. Or maybe not. Not if all that really matters is if the investors are trust bens or not. I’ve always been able to buy into the investors being bens of the trust by way of their certificates, but I can’t reconcile the fact that one obligation is for 30 years and another has a 5 year payout (if so).
    At any rate, don’t know how this makes anything hidden in the collateral instrument (and you even said the new deal was created later), nor why we care since if it’s hidden, it’s not binding on the trustor, the borrower.

  9. Are you implying there’s a 5 year call of something. .YES!

    (what would that be) ….. A FIVE YEAR BOND

    created in the dot? NO! NOTE CONVERTED TO BOND

    Does it appear at the time the dot is created …. NO!

    does it appear fives years later? YES!

    ! I don’t believe it. NOT MY PROBLEM

    Might be one created elsewhere in a separate contract..YES!

    something might be stashed in a dot as a notation relevant to a separate contract …. NO! (NON DISCLOSURE)


  10. KC: “JG, there is a call provision that appears as a ” due on date” 5yrs into the life of the mortgage .”

    Are you implying there’s a 5 year call of something (what would that be) created in the dot? Does it appear at the time the dot is created or does it appear fives years later?! I don’t believe it. Might be one created elsewhere in a separate contract and something might be stashed in a dot as a notation relevant to a separate contract.

  11. NG:
    “BASIC PLEADING ERROR: Instead of alleging the loan and financial injury they skip to the signing of the documents.

    jg: Basic Pleading Error: Instead of alleging the loan and injury caused by the borrower, they skip to possession of a bearer note (allegedly one in default) and the assignment of the collateral instrument by its novated party whereby the matter of re-unification of a bifurcated note and deed of trust is either ripe for adjudication (or alternatively, is an affirmative defense – ask a lawyer), as is the validity of an assignment of the note by that novated party. As to the note, a more definitive statement from the claimant is necessary to determine if the claimant is relying solely on possession of the note or if the claimant’s reliance is also based on the assignment of the note.
    (It’s likely the submission of an assgt to the court which includes an assignment of the note makes it a reasonable presumption that reliance is also on the assignment of the note and is also prima facie evidence of current assignment) Alternatively or if the court rejects the prima facie presumption (the one found in Glaski imo and one doesn’t want to appeal), the borrower is unable to answer the complaint in the absence of clarification on the reliance issue.
    If there were no novation because the lender shown on the note was never a named beneficiary to the dot to make a novation to another party, it’s possible there was no novation and the note and dot have simply and fatally been bifurcated unless the claimant can demonstrate that unification (and not re-unification) is possible.

    Imo a claimant needs to demonstrate that the separate contract between MERSCorp and its members is binding on MERS (not a party to that contract) for any reason whatsoever But it isn’t relevant to agency appt in the deed of trust itself since there wasn’t any (despite what MERS members babble or any court has decided). If the MERSCorp agreement may be found (got me how and this may be very important) to be binding on MERS, it’s possible (only possible) that contract made MERS the common agent of MERSCorp members. Depends on what it says (was agency expressed?) IF it’s first found to bind MERS, because even if agency is found between MERSCorp and its members, without also binding MERS, it’s of no value to MERS. But the agency still isn’t found in the dot. If an agency between MERSCorp members and MERS can be found in that contract, I don’t know (yet – hope it’s yet) the ramifications of a novated party being a common agent for banksters nor is there any evidence submitted that anyone is a MERSCorp’ member in the first place. The only difference, which may be slight or not, I don’t know, is that the novated party happens to be the agent of the lender, it’s successors and assigns (novation applies to anyone because that’s what novation does – the novated party is now the bomb as one party to a contract and the successor and assign was misdirection). The novated party may be the agent of the lender AS LONG AS the successor or assign is a MERSCorp member and MERS is bound by the contract between those other parties. But the novated party is still a novated party and its agency, if any, with anyone for whatever that might be determined it’s worth, is not created in the dot. If the agency is found in that (separate,) contract (which it must be – there or somewhere else if it exists because it’s not found in the dot – what’s found there may be novation if not naming the lender, the other party to the contract, first as the beneficiary, didn’t queer even novation ) it could, but only could, impact whether we’re talking unification or re-unification of the note and dot. If the note and dot aren’t just plain fatally bifurcated, MERS is the proper party to assign the dot. When and why it should have depends on a lot of stuff, but most particularly depends on whether or not the MERSCorp agreement is first of all binding on MERS and then if so, is an agency created therein. I think.

  12. James,
    I am not an attorney, I do not give legal advise, I do not answer legal questions.
    State Laws vary and each Mortgage/DOT contain different terms.

    Last I heard, title abstracts and prelim sellers policy cost less than a hundred bucks.

    If you cant afford that …. you are up shit creek without a paddle.

  13. KC, Im not in foreclosure yet, but soon will be. Im just trying to go on the offensive and not wait until the last minute.

  14. What is a call Provision?

  15. Ok, Im not rich here, so I need your help. Does anyone know of someone that can do a very through securitization audit for both my 1st and 2nd mortgage. I am located in Maryland but I don’t think that will be a factor. Also I have not heard of any great attorney’s in Maryland that get it. They most likely would have to work on a contingency basis. Just cant afford to pay for attorney right now.

  16. Might I suggest you hire an accountant, expert witness and/or Attorney?

    Might I suggest you have a mortgage audit, title abstract and prelim title ins policy done?

    I know nothing .. I just talk out loud to much.

  17. What would happen if trillions in call provisions came in and the “Ponzi Fraudsters” had not the funds to cover them because they had not any new investors to keep the scheme going?

    A Financial Crisis? TARP?

  18. @ james Smith
    If Geraldine Ann Belinski works for CitiMortgage Inc. and she is Assigning the Mortgage to CitiMortgage Inc. I think there is one huge problem with the assignment, Fraud, TORT, Conflict of interest. home theft. It would be like me assigning your car pink slip to my self. Under who’s authority. I would definitely be asking no DEMANDING a copy of Power of Attorney with her name on it as having this authority and the name and signature of the person granting the Power of Attorney to her and this Power of Attorney shall have to notarized. The name of the Notary Public and license number. This is my opinion. But it is starting to look bad on them. Remember, I sent you a copy of the other documents with her signature on them them the the other title she holds aside from also been a Notary Public<– interesting she should know better…Like JohgG said.. I would consult a lawyer on this and what ever he may have noticed that I missed and still do not get…

  19. John, what did you see on James document? and what is this Due in 5 years call out? Thanks

  20. JG, there is a call provision that appears as a ” due on date” 5yrs into the life of the mortgage …

  21. James. what part of ” go see a lawyer” do you need explained to you?

    From what you are posting, you have a good cause of action and affirmative defenses if in f/c. What you need is legal advise and you will not find that here.

  22. John not sure what you mean. Please explain a little bit more. Thanks

  23. James Smith – did you make that up or leave stuff out? If not, go see a lawyer.

  24. @James Smith
    I think she may work for CT LIEN Solutions. Look at the upper left corner of the document. That is the company that prepared the assignment.

  25. If I look a bit harder, I may find other documents with her signature and possible different titles. The signatures may also be a bit different.

  26. I just e-mailed you a copy of another document with her name, signature and notary public stamp. I also sent you another documents where she signs as assistant secretary for MERS

  27. Agente777. how do you know that she works as a notary. If you could get that documentation to me. I think it would help out a lot. Thanks

  28. She does work at Citi, I called and verified that she worked there as a processor, but she is listed as Vice President. Is it legal for them to Notarize documents for a company that pays you? Also I think this is a Robo signing situation Also look at the date this was filed 2013, but we actually did this transaction back in 2005

  29. Geraldine Ann Belinski is also a Notary public. I bet she works for the same company assigning the mortgage

  30. If you get a chance, send me a copy of the scan, I liked to see it

  31. Does anyone know about Jessie and Ben Lowrey?

  32. 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

  33. Other than having an audit done, how do I find out if the trust where my loan was supposed to be transferred is really dissolved? RAMP 2005 RS9

  34. mark s – thanks (and more, more!)

  35. justme – that credit river case was interesting. first thought it was a phoney. maybe not. If not, worth a read. I liked this, among other things (and would’ve been nice if you’d cited so I didn’t ‘have’ to:

    “It has never been doubted that a note given on consideration which is prohibitted by law is void”.

    Well, now. Just what does that mean, fans of investor funds being used? If investor funds were given for the purpose of X, which included being deposited in a trust to purchase loans, but the recipient instead used those funds to fund loans at the closing table, was there a note “given on consideration which is prohibitted by law”? Is it illegal to make loans with embezzled / stolen funds? I would think so, and if so, there were no innocent parties (the possible ones I mentioned the other day) or their innocence is of no value.

    Or could we say that by accepting the late transfer as a remedy for a an earlier transfer that didn’t occur, the trust is not making, but IS taking, a loan on consideration (consideration = accepting remedy for earlier non-delivery) which late delivery (taking) is prohibitted by law because by law, the loan had to have been transferred by a time certain? When a trust takes a late delivery, imo it’s accepting a remedy (late delivery) for breach of contract and as to these trusts, even as a remedy, doing so is prohibitted by law.

    If the investors’ funds were not used to fund the loans, but the funds deposited into the trusts had paid for but not gotten transfer /delivery of the loans, they would’ve had security interests in those loans. Normally, the remedy for this is delivery. But here, if so, they are trying to convert the security interest to ownership post cutoff.

    Also liked this: “The law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them”
    and “No action will lie to recover on a claim……….” where the plaintiff is a party to fraud, illegality, or an immoral transaction, mol. But that’s of no value without demonstrating that happened or at least presenting indicia that it’s more likely it did than not. That’s our challenge and we, including me, haven’t met it yet, I’m thinking. (and yeah, I believe some courts have bents and without threat of appeal, wouldn’t matter if we brought in the smoking gun with fingerprints – and then you’ve got AZ re-writing real property and contract law, apparently).

  36. There is things I do understand but others, I just do not get…

  37. I have an Audit that indicates that the trust has been dissolved. Not only dissolved, but my loan was never transferred into the trust. yet it was assigned 8 years after the cut-off date….

  38. I am not an attorney, maybe Mr.Garfield would like to weigh in on this, but my understanding is; if a trust is dissolved, all beneficiaries’ claims must be satisfied, meaning if there is a debt instrument held by the trust, the debt must be satisfied. The debt can’t just float out of the trust into another trust, or into the hands of another debtor. I think that the courts in this case ruled that the fact that the trust was dissolved, meant that the debt was resolved, therefore the homeowner could no longer be held liable for a debt that didn’t exist. That is my limited understanding of this particular case.

  39. mark stephens – maybe you’d like to sum it up for us? Most of us don’t have the hours and hours it takes to pursue the material which is routinely a “drop and run”, with no contributing commentor’ analysis of his or her own.

  40. What does it mean to be disolved? My Audit shows that my trust was desolved too. and MERS has assigned the Deed of Trust to it 8 years after the cut-off date…

  41. justme on Nov 11 – you hit a nail on the head. It’s a very good idea to read sites like you ref’d – ones that tout the banksters arguments and cases (instead of ours). It’s one way to anticipate their bs and be ready.

  42. I am learning that a securitization audit is vital. I only watched the first few minutes of this video, but one homeowner’s securitization audit showed that the trust set up by the lender was dissolved, almost 2 years before the bank tried to foreclose! So, the homeowner was able to get the bank to pay back all of the payments from that date! Here is the video:

  43. I said:
    “If the repayment of both contractual obligations is met, I don’t see how there is a true relationship between the note and the bond.”

    I should’ve said if their different and they’re both met.

  44. KC said:
    “What happens when 360 is converted via 2nd contract to 60 (or 5yr bond), …. Are we all going to get FC on every 5yrs?”

    I don’t know exactly what happens. But it seems the trust has no beneficiaries because the investors are not paid pursuant to the contract between the trust and the borrowers. Their payment is dependent on another contract or deal. The trust converts its right to payment on the loans into another deal: a separate and distinct obligation of the trust and a separate and distinct right to payment on a bond. And then other parties are swap or counter parties to that agreement. And there are yet other parties who guarantee payments on the loans if not the bonds. The 5 year payout on the bond, which I don’t understand, has always been troublesome and all I can get to is it creates the separate and distinct obligation and right. WHO sells the securities to the investors? The five year payout and the fact that the borrowers’ payments aren’t paid to the cert holders dollar for dollar as paid in as p & i undermines the investors’ status as beneficiaries of the trusts’ assets, the loans. The rights created in a separate deal for the investors is derivative of the income to the trust, but that’s it. As it’s structured, without the second contract, the investors would have no link at all to the loans (because their rights are created in an agreement which does not mirror the payment on the loans), so the assgt of the loans to the trust doesn’t itself make the investors anything imo and the only reason I think we care is because other contracts are in fact in play. The investors’ rights are created in the PSA, a contract which is not the one between the borrower and the lender and not even wholley dependent on the borrower’s loan. I guess a question is does the trust, which assets are the loans, actually have any beneficiaries? (it certainly doesn’t if no money were deposited in the trust as NG says), And the investors are being kept whole by GSE guarantees, so if the investors ARE the beneficiaries of the trust, the loans aren’t in default. If the investors aren’t the beneficiaries, then the trust has none. if the investors are being kept whole by guarantees and the only way to end that guarantee is for a third party to “repurchase” the loans, then the trust shouldn’t be the foreclosing party. Looks like calling the trust the foreclosing party is to hide who knows what, but certainly the guarantees and the contractual repurchase obligation. I doubt a homeowner could compel compliance with that separate contract, but a homeowner could demand that a court take judicial notice of the guarantee (fnma, fhlmc, fha, va) and assert that the loan isn’t in default. That seems a slam-dunker on a GNMA loan, but one may have to ascertain and be able to demonstrate that one’s loan went thru fnma and fhlmc.
    If one got a loan which was within fnma and fhlmc’s loan limits and was not a total subprime piece of junk (?), was not fha or va, seems to me one has a rightful “need to know clearance” about his loan going thru fnma or fhlmc.
    But after writing my first comment last night, I realized what I think is a biggie: we didn’t agree anyone but the lender could do this or that, but I need to re-read the note. I recall the dot makes reference only to the LENDER, who is not necessarily a party in possession of a bearer note (and I’m still on jurisdiction-invoking injury). if it turns out the note says something inconsistant with the dot agreements (“lender”), I see a problem with the loan contract.

    What is your own take on the 30 year loan contract v a five year payout to MBS investors?

  45. I have seen umpteen notes stating they made be sold, mine says nothing of the like.

    @Stupendous Man – Defender of Liberty, Foe of Tyranny ……

    that “vapor money” theory is what this article was about….an unfunded loan…loaning the theory of money….There is a specific statute in my state that makes all transactions/contracts null and void if they are made or taken by using “what is not money”. If you ask me – yes indeed you are going to be taken a fool using this as a backdrop. The point was the relevance to Neil’s article, I thought it was rather fitting. I also enjoyed how long ago that took place and there was “pulling money out of thin air”…Justice Mahoney seen it clear cut, and, apparently got the short end of the stick because of it.

  46. JG, I am lucky to be sitting in the back row of this class, but think about this …

    What happens when 360 is converted via 2nd contract to 60 (or 5yr bond), …. Are we all going to get FC on every 5yrs?

    Have you figured out yet whose ( hidden security interests) that MERS hides yet? You and the Lender both chose a common …….. ?

  47. The UCC is DEFAULT LAW (looked at in the absence of a contract generally). Our contracts say THE LENDER may do this or that.

  48. I know the note gives notice the original note may be sold, but no where does it say, no where did we agree, that a party in possession who is not our lender may enforce the note and dot against us. We simply did not agree to that, and the UCC takes second chair (if that) to our contract.

  49. hman, citing Moody’s:

    “However, the pooling and servicing agreements for these transactions
    provide that all collected principal and interest is commingled into one payment waterfall to first pay all promised interest due on bonds , and then pay scheduled principle.

    Every time principle is not reduced penny for penny, even on an instrument that should “mirror” the note, all future payments are applied errantly to the note and that is not cool – OR -. if the payments cited by Moody’s is applied differently to a bond than to the note from which it’s supposedly derived, i.e., if the bond is paid differently than the note, there’s no true relationship between the two imo, not if interest payment could cause a short on appropriate principle reduction being paid pursuant to the payment on the note
    There’s promised (contractual) interest on the bond to party X, which Moody’s is saying is going to be paid first, and there’s contractual (promised) principle reduction to party Y, the borrower. If the repayment of both contractual obligations is met, I don’t see how there is a true relationship between the note and the bond. I’m not sure what it then means, if anything. But I think what it means is payment on the note was used as the basis to create someone else’s obligation on a bond. One asset,here a note, can’t create separate obligations to two parties, the trust and the bond holders, for the same debt, which to me can only mean there’s no relationship between the note and the bond. I think there are two separate obligations, but the bond holders aren’t getting paid
    (except by way of third party guarantees) if the party, the trust, to the first contract with the borrower doesn’t get paid (IF the trust got the loan). So that says to me there are two agreements in play and the borrower is not obligated to the certificate holders. The PSA is the second contract and according to Moody’s, by way of that contract, the trust pays OUT differently than is paid INTO the trust.

    Actually it looks like at least three contracts are in play:

    1) borrower and lender (supposedly trust)
    2) trust, MS, servicer, and certificate holders and Lord knows who else (counter-party). The psa is relevant because it creates rights and obligations which may be relevant to the loans which are not found in the note or dot (# 1).
    3) any other contract by and between the borrower’s creditor / the trust and any third party which creates rights and obligations which are germane to the borrower’s note / obligation* – these third party contracts are relevant for the same reason as # 2. imo, or more so because some of these are guarantee contracts. At a minimum I’d say they’re affirmative defenses.

    The banksters want to pretend there is only one contract, the note, in play here. Courts have been willing to agree. But I don’t think argument has made that there are literally multiple contracts which must be considered, and this is, I think, first of all contract law. What that AZ court was quoted as saying is ludicrous, a slap in the face to the law in general, that it doesn’t matter who is on the other end of the borrower’s contract. Of course it matters. It’s a contract and is only enforceable against the borrower by the other party to the contract, thee lender, not the man in the moon, even if enforcement by the man in the moon were to find the proper party paid.

    *the agreements between the GSE’s and the issuers and servicers come to mind as third party contacts which impact the rights and obligations of the parties to the original contract, the mortgage loan. The courts have to get it that “this is not your father’s car”, and that reliance on Article III of the UCC (and without evidence of jurisidiction-invoking injury to boot!) is just plain errant (and that’s if Art III applies at all to these particular notes secured by real property. This is contract law and those other contracts do create rights and obligations found outside the contract between the lender and the borrower.
    Fwiw, often when I look at this stuff and comment, I do so with the fervent hope someone closer to the front of the class will take it up / further.

  50. First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly put forward what is now referred to as the “vapor money” theory.

    Google scholar has this case from 2010:

    If you really want to undermine your credibility in the eyes of the court then putting this argument forward is probably the best way to do it.

  51. I am raising funds for homeowners in NC to help them defend their homes from foreclosure. I want to subsidize the cost of GOOD, knowledgeable lawyers in their areas. If you are able to help, go to:

  52. I will check and will let you know what I find…

  53. I do, John E. Logan, Julie Ann Prieto, Jill Tyner, and Geraldine Belinski.

  54. Do you have any signatures on the documents you would like to share ? We may be able to find others on line and see if they are robo signers.

  55. @agente777 – if loan is unacceptable to terms of PSA, the terms of the PSA determine who the next ‘note holder’ is. Most likely there is a buy-back clause where the lender providing the loan must purchase the loan back if defective (i.e., transferred past the closing date). There may be further provisions that if not discovered within a redemption period, the MBS Trustee has to ‘eat’ the loan. It is for these reasons a comprehensive MBS audit may prove valuable. Finding a competent attorney who knows how to deal with this, especially in CA, is another matter.

    In my case I have a special endorsement to Fed Home Loan Bank on a note where recorded assignment showed ‘execution’ date prior to security closing date, but controlling effective date (date recorded) 2 years past the closing date. So the endorsement had ‘cancelled’ stamped across it, a second ‘blank’ endorsement added, and FNMA allegedly became the transferee of the loan. Fortunately / unfortunately the trial court rebuffed my discovery request of vault custodian records of FNMA, then ruled for FNMA in a MSJ. Yes, that is a violation of U.S. Constitution 4th Amdmt regarding deprivation of property without due process that the CA Appellate should be considering soon.

  56. johngault on the assignment document it says the Assignor is MER’s as nominee for Mortgage Lenders Network.

  57. james smith – that’s an interesting catch:

    “Also it is the depositor, not MERS, that is to assign the loan to the pool

  58. Again from what I understand, If the loan is not transferred to the trust on or before the cut-off date. It is VOID (NO LONGER GOOD)

  59. This is only an example and my take on what it means.
    When I get a check from the IRS, I notice that it says something like: Cash no later than this day. Void if it is cashed after this day. (what ever day is on it). If you forget to cash it on or before that day (cut off day) the check is NO GOOD.

  60. Wrongful foreclosures can kill…
    If you like to read a bit more wrongful foreclosures, here you go:

  61. 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.

  62. I cannot remember where but did read that other homeowners have filed suit and have cited the Glaski case. The judges have refused it. At lease they will not accepted until the Glaski is final. My take is that the Glaski case may note even make it all the way to court. He may end up getting his house free and clear, BofA may end up paying him for damages and may pay extra money for him to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Do you think the Banks want this to go all the way to court and then loosing? (I think they know they will loose. That is why they want the Glaski case to be depublished). If they loose, imagine how many law suits will be filed against all the banks. Those who have been foreclosed on and evicted, how about homeowners who have sold their homes on a short sale? who was supposed to get the funds from the sale? the Banks or the homeowner? what if every member of the family files lawsuit as well for emotional stress and that else? The banks might as well close their doors and have the FDIC and/ or dept. of thrift seize the banks… If the banks have stolen 3 trillion dollars (just an example) can the afford to pay back 3 trillion because of their fraudulent actions? how about paying for damages to each individual resident of the houses been wrongfully foreclosed? The house will always win. they will sustain some losses but hey will not compare to their gains…. WE MUST ALL FIGHT BACK!

  63. Thanks
    I am waiting for to approve my subscription.

  64. @agente777 re: Glaski
    This is how CA judges are responding with Glaski causes of action. You need FCHamlet id to see it –

    It’s no wonder 33% of voters distrust the courts who have a propensity of legislating from the bench (recent Rasmussen poll; Gallup shows

  65. That is exactly what I mean you are not getting a free house. You and all of us are paying for it one way or another. before I lost my job, we had plenty of money in the bank start the process to build our dream home. We were short for the building permits and all other fees that come with it. We were going to save a few thousand on the design since I am a building designer. But later got laid off. we ended up using our saving to save and keep the house (which we still have and still holding on too). My kids went from been very joyful to silent. And stress as well. My 11 year old (then only 9) wanted to pitch in her birthday money to help. Is that fair? No it is not. No one should go through this. I hear judges (not all) decided that home owners want a free house before even hearing the case. That is a violation of our Due Process. Yet, they have been allowing Banks to foreclose on homes that are already paid of and the mortgage was not even with them… How can this be. If someone is getting free homes, it is the banks. And they now it. The people who is getting screwed by this system is the homeowner and the investors. The banks got bailed out. Not only did they get bailed, they had insurance on each home in their books. They did not only have one insurance, they had multiple and to top if off, with the same insurance company… THAT IS A SCAM on the American people.

    So to answer your question from my understand. My loan was pooled in with other loans. These loans had already been funded before you even signed the NOTE and the Mortgage. Who funded it? Investors. The banks never lent money. This loans were to be transferred to a trust as the banks had promised the investors. The transferred had to be within 90 of the loan been funded. In our case, we applied for the loan in June 2005. the loan was fully funded (if it really was) in August 2005. The loan had to be transferred to the Trust in November 2005 (the Cut-Off date). If the loan or loans are not transferred to the transferred on or before the cut-off date, according to New York Law the NOTE is Void. It is not clear if the Mortgage is also void. But if it is not, I believe that the loan we got is now unsecured. If it is Unsecured, no one can foreclose on the propriety. I do not know if you rad other posts where I am stressing the Glaski case. Glaski has challenged the late transfer or assignment of his note to the trust. The lower court had rendered judgement and told Glaski that since he was not third party to the trust, he could NOT challenge its validity. He took it to the appeals court -5th district (higher court). The 5th district court said the YES he could challenge the late transfer/ assignment to the trust. Now he has to go to the lower court with this new ruling. If he wins, his note will be rendered VOID per New York Law. Banks attorneys have been trying to prevent the decision from been publish. They failed. The Glaski case can now be cited on other law suit similar. If the NOTE is VOID, how can the foreclosing party be Owner inf due Cours?

    I do hope that all goes well for you and your family. I can only wish you what I would want others to hope for me. Keep up the faith and lets keep fighting for what is rightfully ours.

  66. 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. James Smith


    I HIRED MR. McCaffrey and prepaid him $875 to perform an audit on my property. Mr. McCaffrey stated he would have the audit completed in a week. It is now 2 1/2 weeks past due and he has failed to respond to my calls and or emails.

    He replied briefly one time,

    Oct 29

    Sean,Just got back in town from a case in Las Vegas We are good to go I know I was waiting for a financial from Wells Fargo that shows WSB LOANS OFF BALANCE SHEET. I will call you tommorow for a follow up and get it shipped out.

    William McCaffrey

    Managing Partner

    HMC (480) 292-7361


  68. And as their world collapses; it wasn’t real, none of it is real.
    The home was ours, they were purchasing it.
    They flipped the switch on us and came back and took it from us.

    Each recorded grant deed identifies the grantor (seller) and grantee (buyer). grantee n. the party who receives title to real property (buyer, recipient, donee) from the seller (grantor) by a document called a grant deed or quit claim deed.

    As the Money as Debt video mentions. The money was created when we signed the documents.

    They were very interested in securitizing the signatures. They could create securities to sell back and forth on the same signature.
    Who paid for the signatures. The government, so the national debt rose, and rose, and rose, while they claimed bubble, bubble, bubble.

    When we said we wanted the home, we sat at the table and it was ours. Then they pushed papers, and papers to us and after enough signatures they held the title and we granted it to them stating there were no encumbrances on it.

    if the Real Estate records in your county shows them as the Grantee (buyer) don’t you wonder how the buyer can foreclose on (rob/steal from) the seller?

    All this poking around for remedy is dog and pony stuff. Sorry someone missed the time watching their children grow up. When they came for my home, I thought there was remedy in the courts. I looked at my co-creation (my offspring) and said, “If this is a bad contract, they’ll take the house”. Then I asked “Are we defined by where we live, or do we define ourselves and live our life?” It was decided to go file the answer stating they were suing the wrong party and identify all the laws/codes/provisions/acts/ordinances they were violating and also appear as the living female facing someone representing a corporation tell them they were suing the wrong party.

    The judge had an interest in me NOT having the home. I barely got the things I showed (their own paperwork) entered into the case. But when I got certified copies of the court papers, there were papers they filed that were even more damning to their case to rob, cheat, and steal.

    I moved, got a closer location to my job, got a better school for my co-creation, and got a $300 settlement check from some people who know the banks made off with much more than that, and they want to charge taxes on the $300 that was given.

    They have paved their way by their deeds. They are caught up in the physical human life form until it’s time to lay on the death bed , give up the vessel they used to live, eat, and play here, and face their Creator, Me, you, all of us One. Then they will remember their deeds and if they forget, there is papers with their signature on it that is tied to their life energy that will remind them of what was done.

    The Creator in me is the ‘same’ Creator in you. We seem to be separate, but we are all equal and One with each other, appearing divided and in different bodies and on different paths. There is only One.

    Rules were contracts and consideration. If the agreement was missing the contract or the consideration it is void. They ignored or forgot. That’s why this was allowed to go on as long as it has. When they forgot, they came up with modifications to get back to contracts and consideration, but their uneducated employees botched that so they are back at the void.

    I would not give them anything. Whatever they have from me was stolen. I have my life. My co-creation’s life and we are living it. They have a piece of paper that doesn’t identify the real property at all. It says lot number, block number, subdivision number, some page in some book and they signed a document to take ownership of that description and went further and sent a man with a gun out to make us leave the land we inherited.

    They created none of this. They did not create the earth, the foilage upon it, the animals that live, eat, and prey upon it, and they didn’t build a single home, nor decorate nor upkeep it, yet they claim it to be theirs.

    If anyone got something for free it’s the thief.

    Anyone with gold that is no in your possession, their master is coming to them and making claims on them now. They will rob you to pay their master, but they don’t realize, or maybe they do, that they have been put on a path that when they reach the end they will be wailing for forgiveness and mercy and there is none.

    A man had gold held by a high profile company and went to access his account to find it empty. He paid for the gold and it’s not there. It was sold. Just like they sell our signatures over and over, they sell the same gold over and over and most don’t have possession of the gold they are selling.

    Fair use – here is an excerpt of the comment
    I felt compelled to let you and your readers know of a situation that happened to me. I lost $15,000 or so because of a precious medals’ fund with call sign of D(X)W(X)G(X)O(X)X.
    I have an account with C(x)h(x)a(x)r(x)l(x)e(x)s S(x)c(x)h(x)w(x)a(x)b who managed the fund for me. I found
    out that the fund went belly-up just today after checking my account at their website. The gold fund apparently went bust somewhere near 9.28.13 and they sold my holdings without my knowledge and without my consent.

    More by searching for the context of the above information and the word quayle and the word alert may point you to the actual link.

    Again I’m sorry someone has missed time with their family. When I saw this happening to others, I thought I could learn what I could to save them and me when my time came. When they came for my house, and was not going to promise the same things as the original named ‘Lender’, I said no. When the Trustee and State Attorney General, and Judge and more did everything to deny me my rights, I walked away because they sent a man with a gun to make me leave. I know they are my brothers and sisters and are lost. I’m not their God nor Creator so it’s not my job to lead them on the path of righteousness. I let them do what they do, and I wait for my reward that is greater than what was taken. (See Job in the bible they know so well).

    After all this time, and all these settlements, and all these investigations, the reason there is no prosecution is because they can’t do it without an agreement. These CEO’s have a hold harmless agreement with their organizations, these judges cannot have their rulings overturned by any judicial committee (what they put their name to, they have to live with and die with in their book of life), and all men created equal, where an equal has no power over an equal, is recognized at the corporate level more so than being recognized that unequal things cannot be joined together where no contract cannot be forced with someone claiming a contract, and the living people (where the definition of state is people, there can be no state without the people), are being joined with corporate persons that are not people but statutory persons for the purpose of enforcing codes, public policy, ordinances, acts, provisions, etc.

    It’s all a lie and to fight a lie is to fight a negative.
    Maxim of Law:
    Witnesses cannot testify to a negative; they must testify to an affirmative.

    I owe them no thing.
    They had no Notice of Default (because I was not in default), they had no assignment (because nothing was transferred) they had no power of attorney (because no one would sign it even though a notary notarized an unsigned document), they had no standing (their substitute trustee filed the theft before filing to be the substitute trustee), the lender of record was long dissolved (the deed of trust had no named beneficiary, by trust law the trustee on the deed was to give me the title back since I put the title into the transaction in the first place); they had no thing, no contract, no consideration, and they stole my home, and there was a lot of people that helped them do it.

    Then they put bad documents in the IRS for them to look at me instead of them for the fraud.

    As the Creator, I am not going to put forth a bad document to get a creation (IRS) off my back. The created is not greater than the Creator.

    I am not a Christian. I AM that I AM.
    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, People, State, Independent, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino.

  69. npv, calm down….I’m sure you’re quite used to slapping your hands together, resulting in people tripping over themselves to do your bidding. I don’t have servants, so the day is long. Two ducks were taken down last night by a roving marauder, two laying females in their prime, with two others badly injured. Care must be given, repairs must be done. I haven’t time to sip your Chateau Lafite at present.

    I will, however, contact you shortly to take you up on your analysis. Thanks for the offer. In the interim, have Alfred draw your bath and lay out your clothes. I’ll be in touch after my bloody-feathered MASH triage.

    BTW, did you sign as Toodles Ballsac, your real name, or was that an underhanded lob in my direction? I think the former, as Toodles Ballsac III sounds like one who spent his childhood in gated New England prep schools prior to Hahvad. Did you make the polo team? Rowing?

    Back to you momentarily.

  70. @ Etolle – I offered to help you for free. Would you like for me to have Jeeves drive out to your residence and pick the documents up for free? Do you even need help?

    I’m having him bring the car around right now, please reply, or a shall simply send him for another taste of fine caviar ad a crate of Mondavi upon which to wash it back.

    Toodles Ballsac,


  71. this is the best site ever. Just found you recently. Like so many others, fighting for my life and my home against these criminals. Is anyone out there fighting Green Tree? My loan was bought,assigned or transferred from GMAC/Residential Capital when they filed bankruptcy. I was given a HAMP mod in 2010 due to the death of my husband right before Christmas of 2009. No reduction of principal, interest rate was starting to climb this year after 5 years at 2% with a 65k balloon at the end. My love had just died and I was desperate. I just took it. Now that the fog of grief has listed and I started to become aware of the fraud in mortgages since the beginning, I decided I should fight since I wont be able to make the higher payments anyway. Is anyone in a battle with Green Tree now who can give me some pointers? Widow in Vegas .

  72. to 777…….. No we are not getting a free house. guess who has paid for my home…….my childrens childhoods. My husband has been unemployed almost 3 years now because of the economy, my children were constantly living under extreme stress over being evicted, so they have lost years of us having money to spend to go on vacatons, and they lost their moms TIME!! they can not get my time back. they can grow up and have their own families and visit niagra falls, and the grand canyon, but MY TIME AWAY from them can NEVER be replaced. I have spent the last 4 years researching this fraud. starting with wells fargo losing my faxes. I was in the twilight zone feeling very much alone. Missing weekend after weekend with my kids. With one son leaving for college next year and 2 more right behind him, how i long for the days of their young years when we went on vacation every year either to the keys or disney. So no none of us are getting a free house. The homes have been paid off with our Blood, sweat, and tears. The stress almost killed me. I was a walking time bomb. My kids almost lost me as well due to this. I have reversed time (my health) but i can never ever get the time back. so lets all continue to fight for what is ours.

    The information is very intresting. Let me re cap. so….basically the notes and mortgages do not have the right lender on them so they are all null and void? so if our notes and mortgage had wells fargo bank for XYZ Investments or Bank of America for ABC Retirement then the true lend would have been noted and correct ? but what i was told by wells fargo bank was that when the loans were sold to FNM they are combined with other loans put into a blender and then sold. so how can the true lender ever be identified even if it is listed on the original note/mortgage
    thanks for answering

  73. Complaint says borrower executed AND delivered a promissory note to xyz blah blah blah.

    Affidavit merely recites that the borrower executed a note. Affiant is conspicuously silent on the issue of delivery and acceptance.

    If the named lender wasn’t the real source of funds, the borrower never delivered the note for acceptance of its terms by the person who supplied the money.

    just because the note was executed doesn’t mean it’s terms have been accepted via delivery. Both execution and delivery must be effectuated in order to have a valid memorialized agreement.

    If the note fails to describe the real source of funding, delivery can never be effectuated. In other words, the borrower was a beneficiary of an undocumented loan – the mortgage lien stands alone and is a nullity.

  74. Great work Neil So I as the property signatory am the only one entitled to the homestead.

    Sent from my iPhone


  75. Its the Trustee on your Homeowners Ins Policy. Boot Them Off!
    Only a Mortgagee of Record can be listed the loss payee. 🙂

  76. MERS is the Mortgagee of Record. Right?

  77. KC
    I had a report on my property pulled by a title company last year. On that report, it said that the beneficiary of the loan was Me and my wife as well as the originator. The funny thing is the originator has been out of business since early 2006. What is your thought?

  78. Trespass, thank you. Never had to wait for posts, they still have not been approved.

    :X ~~ did any of you read Jerome Daly? Common guys.
    “Credit River Decision” Sensational, I’d say.
    Here is a better read on the 1968 verdict. READ IT. 1968!

    Curiosity is good.
    HONESTY KILLS THE CAT. This is an excellent case par to Neils blog:

  79. If the Borrower (in my opinion) has interest in the MBS transaction, then it should without a doubt be able to challenge the transfer of the loan into the trust after the cut-off date. It does not mean I am right. But the 5th circuit cour in Glaski vs BofA has ruled so… If the loan was transferred into the trust after the cut-off date, than the NOTE should be VOID… Correct me if I have miss understood something…

  80. Could it be True? I mean … the mortgagor is the mortgagee.

  81. The servicer, who is selected by the Sponsor of the trust, may have to foreclose on a property if a
    borrower (mortgagee) does not make payments as required by the mortgage documents. Any action
    taken by the servicer must maximize the return on the investment made by the “beneficial owners of
    the trust” — the investors


    This is a excerpt from US Bank Link… I posted earlier.

    Anything Come to mind here???

  82. justme,
    One reason you can get moderated is:

    if you post two http links in the same response, it goes to moderation.

    The post can also have two links/lines that start with three w’s without the h tee tee p’s and the blog tool will still make them links and it gets put in moderation.

    Has been my experience.
    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, People, State, Independent, Free, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  83. I would have to agree with you…

  84. One thing I can add: as a contractor by trade, not licensed in this state yet, if they held my insurance and dictated whom and when anyone other than me would administer the work…all hell would break loose. I can personally “guarantee” the work would not be completed as long as I have breath in me. I mean I pay for the policy and I am more capable than any banker to made the repairs and supervise workers. This shite is so out of control. My piece.

  85. Here is another one:

  86. Countless Foreclosure Rulings are NULLITIES!
    Courts accepted the contrived confusion told by the criminals stealing homes and equity. Duh!
    Jeff Barnes, Esq. wrote: “We have been provided with a copy of U.S. Bank Global Corporate Trust Services’ “Role of the Corporate Trustee” brochure which makes certain incredible admissions, several of which squarely disprove and nullify the holdings of various courts around the country which have taken the position that the borrower “is not a party to” the securitization and is thus not entitled to discovery or challenges to the mortgage loan transfer process.” The second page sets forth that U.S. Bank, as Trustee, “does not have any discretion or authority in the foreclosure process.” If this is true, how can U.S. Bank as Trustee be the Plaintiff in judicial foreclosures or the foreclosing party in non-judicial foreclosures if it has “no authority in the foreclosure process”?

    US Bank Brochure

  87. ReVenu and Insurance/Bank of America…I had a fire at my home in 2011 and fought tooth and nail to get state farm to take BoA’s name off the checks…they were made out to me and BoA. After months of trying everything I could think of, I finally went into a local BoA branch and they got me in contact with the appropriate party. As long as you have a contractor do the work, they did finally sign off on the checks and he was paid. I have a Countrywide loan ca 2007, stopped paying 10/2008….haven’t paid since. When Bank of America took over, they started paying my homeowners insurance, so when I had the property loss, I thought I’d never be able to get the house fixed. But, I was wrong. It was a bureaucratic nightmare, but it was eventually successful, I had the fire damage repaired and the contractor was paid. Good Luck!

  88. Let us all take a few moments to remember and honor those veterans who gave life and limb to defend our rights under the Constitution. We must now fight for their sacrifices to have not been in vain. Fight ON!

  89. What gives NG! Why am I being moderated! AH well, time to close the old brain rot box any who.

  90. If the loan was never transferred into the trust and if falls under New York it should be void. it is Use less…. the only thing left is the mortgage. I think (i am not an attorney and am not advising anyone) the the loan is now unsecured….

  91. hman, I *THINK* the whole pool is govt insured, and the loans themselves are indiv. with FHA ins.
    I have actually placed that into my case, but THRICE get that, yow.. ;P.. Not with TARP though.
    1.- pooling purchase
    2-claim insurance proceeds from HUD
    3- resale of the house proceeds..

    BUT- tricker here…….Your loan was mostly likely pooled- but DID it und up in the trust or where ever? Great if it did, but I *think*, usually if it is in default the servicer has to purchase it back out of the pool…leaving them with the “creditor” status…you’d think..kind of… I lost my train of thought…

  92. Venus, you may like to buzz through here,
    This may be helpful. If you have an FHA loan I would contact a HUD counselor as well, they may help. The national servicing center (google them for a #) takes servicer complaints and works with you.
    This may help:
    ?? Goood luck
    If you google HUD guidelines on advancing taxes you may find a few good reads as well. When you get what you need, if you wish call The NSC (nat serv.cntr) and ask for help.

  93. Check this statement out from Moody’s regarding how payments are applied pursuant to a PSA of certain trusts.

    However, the pooling and servicing agreements for these transactions provide that all collected principal and interest is commingled into one payment waterfall to first pay all promised interest due on bonds , and then pay scheduled principal.–PR_282123

    Not sure what it means yet other than the payments pay the bonds first. Also, anyone who has a GMAC loan might want to google Syncora rescap. There’s a lot of info showing that Syncora insured the RMBS and wants some restitution from the BK of GMAC.

    Does anybody know how the CDS work? I understand they are unregulated and there can be numerous but is each loan in a pool insured or is it the whole pool of loans that is insured? If I took at a mortgage for say $250 and defaulted would the CDS pay out upon my foreclosure or is the “trigger” event a certain % of the loans. I’m a little unclear. I’m trying to make the case if my loan “defaults” as the servicer claims than they will be paid 2 times. (Not counting the TARP etc…)

  94. Venu, I am sorry to hear that. Typically, the servicer as “owner” like they claim to be, are required to advance funds to maintain the property, I THINK. I have to dig about and will post what I find,if I can find it…I would call the insurance company directly.
    Not knowing a lot I’d say if they are not affiliated with the bank, ad *hopefully* local they may root for you. I personally, would call Human Resources dept of the insurance and tell them what you told us. If the $$ is coming from an ins company vs the bank perhaps you could be released the funds, or they could be released directly to whom will make the repairs?? I am not familiar in this area, but I would try to find where the $$ is coming from…are you sure the funds have been approved as of yet?
    When you say 6 months as ransom… is that in regard to PAST DUE 6 months…or an advance of _____? Are you in Foreclosure ?

  95. My comment has been ‘awaiting moderation’ since 11:33.

    Looks like any moderator has the day off.

  96. That or I had a comp goof.
    I was referencing USFN articles. If the law office as acting plaintiff in your case is a member read their articles. They contain referenced case law they frequently use in F/C cases and this makes for a better than nothing idea of how they will attack cases, how they will respond to briefs, etc.

  97. Holding the insurance funds to repair your house is just despicable an din moral. Many years back, my house was broken into and thinks stolen. The insurance sent US the check, not to the bank. Kind of thinking about it, we were paying for the insurance ourselves. Not part of escrow. Could this be the reason for the insurance sending the bank the funds? Yikes. that is just wrong…..

  98. Winter is approaching and our house is still unrepaired because BofA wants six months of mortgage as ransom to endorse an insurance proceeds check. If the bank really cares for the property, do they give hurdles to cash an INSURANCE PROCEEDS CHECK to restore the damages occurred by a fire last year. Strangely, the bank sent an inspection company to do a “NO CONTACT” inspection when the fire damage happened. We don’t know how the bank came to know of the fire. This inspection company came to our house and took pictures and reported that the house is in the neglected condition when we were living outside the house because of the fire.

    Taking money from our pocket somehow we moved backed to the house in the cold winter days. The work is not completed as we could not get all the money needed to restore the house from the damages.

    Why is it that bank is refusing to endorse an insurance proceeds check? Could someone kindly advice me on this mater? Thank you.

  99. @ justme
    you are having your posts blocked?

  100. I am having posts blocked.

  101. @boots
    I had a forensic audit on my loan. My loan was never even transferred into the trust. I search it my self. still did not find it the trust in the sec. the trust is RAMP 2005-SR9 and its governing law is Law of New York.
    Under this law, my NOTE is VOID. Glaski vs B0fA has been given the green light in right to challenge the late transfer of his loan to the trust by the 5th circuit court in California. Do you think banks are happy with this ruling? NOT AT ALL. they are basically begging the supreme court of California to PLEASE DEPUBLISH this ruling. They do not want anyone else to use it and Cited. So, Glaski can go back to the lower court and challenge the late transfer of the loan to the trust requesting the lower court to render the note VOID ab-initio. If this happens, his loan (if there was any) will no longer be secured. Now that I think about it, I do not think we will see this going back to the lower court. I think that BofA will settle our of court will pay for damages and perhaps may pay the Glaskis more money if they sign a non-disclosure agreement. No one will hear the final outcome….

  102. @lies is all they tell
    It is true there is no such think as a free house. Look how much we have so far payed for it . We are paying even with emotional stress.
    I would not argue that we are looking for a free house but to whom are we paying our house. Who is getting our mortgage payments. If the serviser informed the investors whom ever they are (in my opinion) that we defaulted and if the investors filed with the IRS that the investment is a loss, who is the serviser serving for? are they keeping the money we are still sending them? So, they get free money and we don get anything? I thing what we should do is challenge that the note is VOID under New York Law for transferring the Loan to the trust after the cut-off date or not transferring it at all. If we succeed (again my opinion) the loan will no longer be a secured loan. After that, we may be able to challenge the owner of the monies. Neil, I think, is right. WE have to follow the money trail. And we have to be firm when we argue that we did not get the money from the loan we applied for. I had read this argument on a website but never really got into it.

  103. 777 that is no new news. I walked into the large Tampa group called KEL after doing reseaerch and applying for modifications for years and learning all about the fraud and that the banks want the houses right…… go into this lawyers office line in marble, one of the largest buildings in downtown tampa. me and my husband go in and ask questions. he had the gall after all that i know to say “there is no such thing as a free house” i said what? the banks get free houses everyday and that is fair when they do not loan their own money? homelessness is oK? i said I feel i know more than you on this subject and i am leaving now and will find someone who will help me

  104. agente 777,

    you are right, that the original loan number we signed was altered and change to different loan number. my guess is that Fannie/Freddie bought our loan by MIN Number and securitized and sold it to different investors, while the other loan numbers that we are paying for was assigned to us by the loan servicer. on the other hand, there is also another loan number for our notes under the trust on which the master servicer usually wells fargo bank reportedly remit the payment to different loan number to the private investors. in other words, in my case i reconciled 3 different loan numbers associated to my loan. if the loan defaulted, then the loan servicer will foreclosed on the loan account number we are paying. look at closely on the notice of default you received, there is the account loan number and then the investor number written, that investor number that is the loan number for the notes that were under the so called trust. find out which Trust your loan belongs to, then go to ctslinks and called wells fargo customer service if the account number belongs to your property address. when you look for it, just look for the amount of the loan, the defaulted date its about 35 pgs. all loans listed on those remittance report are REO, bankruptcy or defaulted loans and you will be amazed, how clever these thieves are. thanks to daniel edstrom for giving me this link.

  105. Let me tell you what I found on my documents. On the DOT that we signed, it states a loan number. Our payments, however, are to pay a different account number. should they not be the same as on the DOT? if they are supposed to be the same, that means there was another contract that we did not sign and it is what we are paying on…
    Or am I wrong?

  106. hman…yes, you did, however, the contract you signed is not the one that they altered…possibly defaulted AND never lent money on…they can all eff-off, as far as I’m concerned. Thieves, liars and cheats have no credibility…prison stripes work for me!

  107. But would the result be the same if the homeowner did pay hman?

  108. I pretty certain this is what happened to me. HUD 1 showed a funding date a week after my note was signed? Also, the underwriting documentation I’ve obtained shows the requirements being signed off the same date as the “funding” date on the HUD 1.

    Also, it states to close the loan as GMAC, which is not the broker/lender listed on my loan. I’ve obtained the wire and it show the money came in from my title company, so I’m not really where to go from here? I did a cash out refi and my wire was received on the funding date. I believe this is pretty accurate info. (maybe even the 2 wire 1 sent offshore,etc…idk)

    Anyway, read this ridiculous case in AZ appeals court.

    The court acknowledges that they’re maybe a “material mistatement of fact” (ROBOSIGING/FRAUD) but the result would be the same because the homeowner didn’t pay.

    AZ has also came to the conclusion that the DOT & note can be “reunited” although I don’t remeber the case off hand.

    My questions is if you deny that the transaction ever took place because the offer and acceptance never took place (lender/payee on DOT & Note are different than the actual source of funds) can’t the court come around and find it irrelevant because the result would be the same because you stopped paying someone? AZ courts have also stated that Anti-deficiency statute prevents another party coming after the homeowner once the loan is foreclosed.

    I’m hitting my head against a brick wall.

  109. It is true, two years ago I called a real estate attorney and asked regarding the loan and how could we fight possible foreclosure to prevent fraud. He as me ‘ Did you sign a promissory NOTE?’ I answered YES. He said there is nothing you can do… that was the end of the conversation. It is incredible that homeowners have less rights than a criminal cough red handed committing a crime, pleading not guilty and be released for lack of evidence….

  110. US Bank GMAC and Steven J. Baum P.C. are responsible for the diseased beloved mother and wife Helen Quiroz severe stress pain and suffering caused her Death, wrongful foreclosure false notice of default fabricated documents violating several Courts under due process rights, Fraud in the Court , We the Quiroz,s family are demanding Indemnification for a wrongful foreclosure, they have also fail in the Bankruptcy court for the southern district of New York, this court are trying to compensate Quiroz Et Al with $522.000, the case went back to the Court of Appeals Second Circuit.. the Quirozes are awaiting for the decision of the Court of Appeals Second Circuit State of New York…We the Quiroz’s family appreciate Mr. Neil Garfield his knowledge and believed and we want to thanks him for the rest of our life’s MAY GOD BLESS YOU AND KEEP YOU HEALTHY.
    and we need to be in touch THANK YOU

  111. Anyone who has a loan that lists their ‘LENDER” as “AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER CORPORATION, a SUPPOSEDLY-EXISTING entity under the laws of the state of NEW YORK, should CLOSELY read the results of any search for that name with the NY SOS website. If you really look, the entity that does exist is not a ‘CORP’ but an ‘INC’. That is not the same thing. Then, take note of WHEN the ‘INC’ was registered: 12-16-2008. By that date, no further loans were being generated by the fake, non-existent ‘CORP’.

    In many states, including CA, all LENDERS must be REGISTERED with the STATE. The non-entity CORP had no way to be registered since the CORP did NOT actually exist.

    If you have one of these loans, your funds that made it to the closing came from some investors but the funds never made it into the trusts. Likely the wire came from a mingled pooling of funds held for Countrywide. But your loan was not with Countrywide.

    Countrywide is likely to TRY to claim the loan via their scheme of “Countrywide Corp DBA America’s Wholesale Lender”. I hope you can read and COMPREHEND. Did your loan show the lender as that CW D/B/A? None of the loans that call out “America’s Wholesale Lender CORPORATION” as the LENDER mention that it is a D/B/A. It is called a CORPORATION.

    There are court decisions that struck at his deception.

    In addition to the funding documentation problems, these loans also have problems that I have not seen addressed with the fact that as a void document, not only are these loans not enforceable, but any credit reporting on them would have been fraudulent. Countrywide had no valid servicing arrangement with a lender entity that did not exist. The servicing was supposedly ‘sold’ to Countrywide. It could not have been. Therefore, any credit reporting by Countrywide had to be FRAUD (in my humble opinion). BOA is still handling hundreds of thousands of these mortgages. Servicing of some have been sold off by BOA. But there is still the problem that there can not be any valid contract between Countrywide and “America’s Wholesale Lending CORPORATION” that allows the servicing. BOA (having acquired Countrywide) is assigning servicing of a void servicing contract if it were challenged in my humble opinion.

  112. RE: Contract Law and Property Law opens Pandora’s Box.


  113. i think what neil means is that we have to pledge with particularly the loan origination of the loan transaction that were defective at the very start. usually, cases i have read like some of my pending cases, i emphasize more of wrongful foreclosure and perjured documents, violation of FDCPA, UCL and fraud, promissory estoppel against entities that conducted and initiated the wrongful foreclosure through perjured documents. maybe, we could file lawsuit against loan originators whose name appears in the deed of trust and note as defective loan transaction. can we toiled the statue of limitation?

  114. Yeah, that’s the $64,000 question, Java. I have been asking the same thing. And where are my payments…..

  115. thank you neil but you alone can only do do much

  116. so can anyone answer this…….all this information is “known” knowledge why has not “ONE” bank been put in jail yet. i was a teenager back in the ’80’s. how was that scandle uncovered? why is this taking sooooooo long when we have facebook? we all know the fraud now they need to go to jail. mortgages need to be forgiven (like island) and then the industry needs to be reset. as a country i can nit understand how they can be aloud to continue to make people home less? I have been in this for 4 years after finding your article once i read this the view of wells fargo broke. i trusted them to a point. even after reading this and obtaining a modification i still did not demand a statement as i paid my modification???? so they stole money form me. never applying this money to my loan balance. when will this end. this will take a grass roots effort and starts with us. bringing this info to the masses. With help of a facebook friend we are starting a support group in our area’a called “Warriors of the american dream” every library in your area’s have rooms you can reserve and most news papers let you post self help groups. we need to explain/educate the folks that attend what we have learned over the years. let them make the decision to understand more like we all did. I do not think this time anyone is going to come and save us. i beleive we need to do this our selves. please join our facebook page and plan your own meetings in your are’a. lets get the word out. if we do not more families will break up, more kids will lose thier homes OK troops get to it. think of us as being washingotn’s minute men. with education as our tools. please help get the owrd out to our communities

  117. Excellent point Javagold about the deposit obligation. From the article I found the following passage interesting…”in most cases the investors gave money to investment bankers under false pretenses but the money was given and the investment bankers had it.”

    On a digital level the re-occurring investment ponzie scheme known as securitization was overinflating the value of homes and creating the false illusion of unflappable economic growth.

  118. Plus where did my $100,000 hard cash down deposit go ????

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: