I’ve talked about this before. It is why we offer a Risk Analysis Report to Community Banks and Credit Unions. The report analyzes the potential risk of holding MBS instruments in lieu of Treasury Bonds. And it provides guidance to the bank on making new loans on property where there is a history of assignments, transfers and other indicia of claims of securitization.

The risks include but are not limited to

  1. MBS Instrument issued by New York common law trust that was never funded, and has no assets or expectation of same.
  2. MBS Instrument was issued by NY common law trust on a tranche that appeared safe but was tied by CDS to the most toxic tranche.
  3. Insurance paid to investment bank instead of investors
  4. Credit default swap proceeds paid to investment banks instead of investors
  5. Guarantees paid to investment banks after they have drained all value through excessive fees charged against the investor and the borrowers on loans.
  6. Tier 2 Yield Spread Premiums of as much as 50% of the investment amount.
  7. Intentional low underwriting standards to produce high nominal interest to justify the Tier 2 yield spread premium.
  8. Funding direct from investor funds while creating notes and mortgages that named other parties than the investors or the “trust.”
  9. Forcing foreclosure as the only option on people who could pay far more than the proceeds of foreclosure.
  10. Turning down modifications or settlements on the basis that the investor rejected it when in fact the investor knew nothing about it. This could result in actions against an investor that is charged with violations of federal law.
  11. Making loans on property with a history of “securitization” and realizing later that the intended mortgage lien was junior to other off record transactions in which previous satisfactions of mortgage or even foreclosure sales could be invalidated.

The problem, as these small financial institutions are just beginning to realize, is that the MBS instruments that were supposedly so safe, are not safe and may not be worth anything at all — especially if the trust that issued them was never funded by the investment bank who did the underwriting and sales of the MBS to relatively unsophisticated community banks and credit unions. In a word, these small institutions were sitting ducks and probably, knowing Wall Street the way I do, were lured into the most toxic of the “bonds.”

Unless these small banks get ahead of the curve they face intervention by the FDIC or other regulatory agencies because some part of their assets and required reserves might vanish. These small institutions, unlike the big ones that caused the problem, don’t have agreements with the Federal government to prop them up regardless of whether the bonds were real or worthless.

Most of the small banks and credit unions are carrying these assets at cost, which is to say 100 cents on the dollar when in fact it is doubtful they are worth even half that amount. The question is whether the bank or credit union is at risk and what they can do about it. There are several claims mechanisms that can employed for the bank that finds itself facing a write-off of catastrophic or damaging proportions.

The plain fact is that nearly everyone in government and law enforcement considers what happens to small banks to be “collateral damage,” unworthy of any effort to assist these institutions even though the government was complicit in the fraud that has resulted in jury verdicts, settlements, fines and sanctions totaling into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

This is a ticking time bomb for many institutions that put their money into higher yielding MBS instruments believing they were about as safe as US Treasury bonds. They were wrong but not because of any fault of anyone at the bank. They were lied to by experts who covered their lies with false promises of ratings, insurance, hedges and guarantees.

Those small institutions who have opted to take the bank public, may face even worse problems with the SEC and shareholders if they don’t report properly on the balance sheet as it is effected by the downgrade of MBS securities. The problem is that most auditing firms are not familiar with the actual facts behind these securities and are likely a this point to disclaim any responsibility for the accounting that produces the financial statements of the bank.

I have seen this play out before. The big investment banks are going to throw the small institutions under the bus and call it unavoidable damage that isn’t their problem. despite the hard-headed insistence on autonomy and devotion to customer service at each bank, considerable thought should be given to banding together into associations that are not controlled by regional banks are are part of the problem and will most likely block any solution. Traditional community bank associations and traditional credit unions might not be the best place to go if you are looking to a real solution.

Community Banks and Credit Unions MUST protect themselves and make claims as fast as possible to stay ahead of the curve. They must be proactive in getting a credible report that will stand up in court, if necessary, and make claims for the balance. Current suits by investors are producing large returns for the lawyers and poor returns to the investors. Our entire team stands ready to assist small institutions achieve parity and restitution.


BLK | Thu, Nov 14

BlackRock with ETF push to smaller banks • The roughly 7K regional and community banks in the U.S. have securities portfolios totaling $1.5T, the majority of which is in MBS, putting them at a particularly high interest rate risk, and on the screens of regulators who would like to see banks diversify their holdings. • “This is going to be a multiple-year trend and dialogue,” says BlackRock’s (BLK) Jared Murphy who is overseeing the iSharesBonds ETFs campaign. • The funds come with an expense ratio of 0.1% and the holdings are designed to limit interest rate risk. BlackRock scored its first big sale in Q3 when a west coast regional invested $100M in one of the funds. • At issue are years of bank habits – when they want to reduce mortgage exposure, they typically turn to Treasurys. For more credit exposure, they habitually turn to municipal bonds. “Community bankers feel like they’re going to be the last in the food chain to know if there are any problems with a corporate issuer,” says a community bank consultant.

Full Story:

112 Responses


  2. johngault, on November 16, 2013 at 7:24 pm said:
    carie – sitll like to talk with you about that 1099.

    Ok, JG—I’ve been busy with other things—I have to go find your email address again—unless you want to re-post it… 🙂

  3. @jg – I wish you would take the time to read a sample PSA from FNMA’s website before you spread further confusion on this site. For starters, when you use the ambiguous term ‘servicer’ you immediately invite the misunderstanding of the reader. Had you used the term ‘master servicer’ in your musings on how FNMA guarantees a loan you may have found your way instead of wasting the time of the readers here.

    FNMA pays for a loan, determines if it is tied to an existing pool or not. If so, it uses the terms of the PSA to determine the percentage it receives from the master servicer of that pool to account for a reserve fund it keeps to repay master servicers for defaulted loans. It then passes the retention of the remainder of loan payment rights to the pool trustee / master servicer, and keeps the powers of the individual loan trustee under its own name. No substitution of trustee is recorded, though. If a loan defaults, the master servicer is paid by FNMA from the reserve fund. Depending on terms of PSA, the defaulted loan is pulled and sold by the master servicer to FNMA to cover the defunct payment(s). FNMA is now the ‘investor’ / beneficiary and also the unsubstituted trustee. FNMA then makes a ‘vesting’ assignment to an NA ‘lender’ who is also an agent of FNMA (like JPMorgan). Once the assignment is complete the vesting beneficiary substitutes a trustee with business ties to the vesting beneficiary. That brings us to the trustee sale, where the property is either sold or taken by ‘credit bid’, assumed to be the amount the borrower owes.

    That is the basic picture. Many variations are possible to make it much, much uglier. For example, why the term ‘vesting beneficiary’? Because likely no cash was part of the ‘consideration’ mentioned in the assignment from FNMA, because the property is intended to be returned to FNMA unless some fool member of the public actually places a higher bid. But usually there are enough additional charges heaped on the amount due that there is scant margin for a private investor to make flipping worthwhile.

    Where do credit default swaps fit in? Perhaps between the master servicers and vesting beneficiaries. Can they be one and the same? Of course. Can they all be agents of each other? Guaranteed genuine agents, all.f

  4. UKG.. I sent you an E-Mail …

  5. John Gault ,

    YES , the IRS (FedGov) , banks (FedRes) , wall street and all their minions are all one big monster ,, I don’t see a difference.

    Maybe this will jog your memory ,, it’s from “your” book .. Mr Hank Reardon is schooled by a gov’t academic and learns that there is only one team and he isn’t on it…


    “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

  6. @johngault did you get my email? Just checking – will resend if needed.

  7. I don’t really want to get technical here, because it may not be worth anything, buuuut, technically, recorders can’t make decisions which require a legal analysis about documents presented for recording. Docs fall in the 4 squares for recordation or they don’t. Having said that, when and if a recorder chooses a party as one of the two parties – by which to index a two-party document – from an ambiguous document, such as these modifications seem to be, it may well be a legal determination. I believe a homeowner has the right to record a
    “modification” if she wants to. And having said THAT, who would the recorder show as the other party to the contract when it’s ambiguous (at best) without making a legal determination? If determining that party requires a legal determination, it’s a messed up document.
    Here I note fwiw (okay, in support of novation and or bifurcation) that county recorders have historically shown, indexed, MERS as a party to a deed of trust. Not MERS as agent for Friendly Mtg, just MERS – because that’s what the doc says – MERS is thee ben. A few years ago, I thought that was itself a legal determination by the recorders’ office, but now I see not, since that’s what the doc says in black and white.

  8. neid – I’m confused. It’s not the IRS, it’s the banksters who compelled the IRS to do something? The IRS still did it then, regardless of why, didn’t they?. I don’t know that anyone had authority to
    86 debt forgiveness taxes even as a tit for tat in not taxing that other class who should be taxed and which tax liability imo lays squarely at the feet of the banksters: that’s who I’ll agree is being protected. (Bring out Mr Porter again: “Dat da da da dat dat dat da dah….anything goes!”) What I do think is possible is that the IRS, knowing of the likelihood that the party issuing a 1099 is not the party to issue a 1099, if anyone is, would be complicit in forcing homeowners to pay taxes either not due or not due as alleged. But maybe that’s a legal decision they can’t make ‘blanketly’ – that the 1099 shouldn’t issue – without hiring thousands of forensic-type auditors. And then what they might find is something they or the banksters don’t want found. Voila: debt forgiveness forgiveness!

  9. louise – re: recordation. Interesting question. One could, I suppose, but does one want to? You might be providing notice of who the heck knows what. Be interesting to see how the recorder would index it – under WHAT two parties? Sam Smith and “original lender, its successors and or assigns”?!

    Yesterday I mentioned servicers and potential subrogations rights for payments advanced by servicers. Then I remembered (duh) that FNMA is the one making the guarantee on its securities, so a servicer, if it had any subrogation rights, either equitably or contractually, it would be against FNMA and not the borrower. What it likely has is just a claim against FNMA if FNMA doesn’t honor the reimbursement bill. (The servicer has to advance them and then turn it a reimbursement claim to FNMA, way I get it.) But it’s just all too weird. FNMA may not guarantee the loans per se. What it might guarantee is payment on the MBS’s. So wth does that mean re: the connection between the assets of the trust and the MBS’s? We already know there’s a swap or counter party injected into the PSA, don’t we? I sure wish anyone who gets that jazz would instruct the rest of us (someone who not only gets it, but is able to convey it).
    A long time ago, I had what I thought was a solid idea of why
    the AIG’s waived subrogation. Now I forget, unless it were that FNMA has those rights pursuant to its guarantee. Another possibility is that if the loans were paid for but not delivered, the seller still owns them and they’re already subject to the security interests of the trusts (the ones I’m thinking Buffet’s company avoided in ResCap’s bk). Anyone know if claims were submitted in that bk for security interests in loans?
    Either way wouldn’t surprise me. In order for the trust to turn in a claim on its security interest, they’d have to acknowledge non-delivery and everything that means. There could have been other creditors with claims for ResCap’s assets in general, but then why would the bk court let Buffet’s Co, have those loans “free of other interests” and for pennies on the dollar to boot? I just can’t help wondering under what circumstances Ally, ResCap, any, all of that gang would otherwise have billions of loans on its books. You can “fool some of the people all the time and you can fool all the people some of the time”, but you best not be trying to fool a bk court about billions in assets, meaning if the loans hadn’t been transferred, that gang had to disclose them to the bk court as assets yet on their books.

    Other than stating that notes should be endorsed properly, in a word, to the trusts (okay, some say or in blank – remember who crafted these docs) and assignments should be done on the dot’s, has anyone who has poured over a psa or two ever seen any words of conveyance of loans to a trust? I’m wondering for a number of reasons, one of which is to ascertain if they tried to treat these mortgage notes as negotiable instruments. Not saying they are or they aren’t here, just want to know if that’s all PSA’s say. Anyone?

  10. My days have been running into nights the last three days after the outbreak of tornados here. Right now I don’t know if I should laugh or cry ….

    I received a letter today addressed to me as the registered owner of this property. *Smiles*

    Received my Ins statement today to (with my name listed first) … Yep! BOA payment sent Back! *Grins*

    Many Blessings to All

  11. Something to research would be: should you file the loan mod final document with the reg. of deeds or title/real property records at the county level.

  12. Louise ,

    Who in government gets paid off ,,, the IRS loses.. it’s not them.. The “not a REMIC” can be proven over and over ,, but they don’t … I’d say it’s basically all the banks that make up the FED ,, they can pull those strings.. and if it helps other TBTF’s that aren’t in the club they can work a deal…

  13. N, it is even worse than that with the IRS being in on the scam through the fact that they do not enforce the REMIC status of these mortgage/loan pools. The IRS lets the banksters get away with violating the rules on REMICS to the tune of hundreds of billions, maybe even, trillions of dollars.

  14. My advice: take all that is here and see how it applies to you specifically. Even though many of the same problems exists for all of us, the logistics may well be different.

    I too, am dealing with Ocwen from New Century…not one piece of paper matches. In Delaware with New Century bankruptcy and in NC with Ocwen claimed servicer. I have 5 entities claiming to be the servicer at some point, in these transactions. To date I have not found one party with a “loss” that is entitled to compensation by the courts.

    MERS…is a nominee on the DOT. Has anyone defined what they are a nominee (they tell you whom, not what) of and in what capacity? It darn well does matter. A nominee cannot pass along their designation of nominee to anyone, anytime, anywhere. The status has a very specific function and MERSCorp is not MERS. Two separate corporations, per transcript in litigation.

    Follow the money, the truth is there. Lot of research, but worthwhile. IMHO, prior to a trial, the battle is who is the party after your land (house) in the immediate…the rest is down the road. In a fifteen minute evidentiary hearing this cannot all be heard, Impossible!

    And one thing you “may” want to ponder. Fraud in the inducement with the MOD…if this gets nasty. Ocwen generally is a “debt collector”….and they can easily present a “blue-ink note, counterfeit, with no trouble at all. Then you are right back to square one…how did they get and from whom?

    No legal guidance, laymen opinion

  15. does *NOT* create a new note

  16. A modification does create a new note. It “amends and supplements the original note & mortgage” …….
    My servicer titled themselves “lender” (the original lender went bk so they were not around to say otherwise) and MERS was named mortgagee/nominee..The VP for the servicer signed as VP of the company AND as VP for MERS.
    MERS verified it was NOT a MERS loan.
    Robo-signing in normal order of business, there. Not even in anticipation of F/C.
    I want to see the assignment to MERS! (lol) After pushing and pushing I was sent a letter stating unfortunately, they used the wrong form.
    P.S- In a motion to compel disco. – Can you rewrite a new (short & similar) discovery, or do you need to stick with the previous one?

  17. RE: “No modification was ever entered into for the purpose of a court proceeding.”

    KC says, maybe not by the borrower… but that was exactly the purpose of the pretender. They needed your admissions of “this and that,” and they needed waivers of liability with your signature to confirm it. They never had any intention to Honor the Mods, as a matter of fact they clearly stated that the Mod App (full of admissions and waivers) was not a guarantee of anything.

  18. @Johngault ,

    The accounting with these large banks is so difficult to untangle that the IRS doesn’t even attempt to do so.. Remember the IRS is staffed with government employees , that means lazy bottom of the barrel types who couldn’t get a job in the real world. The banks keep separate accounting for each division and many “products” sold would already have their income and loss streams divided up into multiple channels making tracking near impossible before it’s all simply “bottom lined” into the banks consolidated tax statement. What you propose is solid legally but it’s not going to happen in this political climate where the banks and regulators are one and the same.

  19. I said: “Some people may not know this, but if you take a write-off for bad debt, you darn sure better be ready to show you tried to collect.”

    Here’s the reason for that: Let’s say you need a tax deduction. So you pretend you made a loan to Al, or you even did, but hey, you and Al are buddies, so what the heck. Mostly the rule is to stop you from pretending you made AL a loan and then also pretending he didn’t pay you, so you can take a bad-debt write off. In order for us plebes to take a write off, we have to demonstrate (or could) that we made a loan to Al and that we tried unsuccessfully (how) to get paid. If we can’t, the IRS will 86 the deduction. That rule has probably lead to tax evasion charges by money – launderer types, say. A crook could cook his books with “bogus” loans and try to take phoney deductions (and he also laundered money by showing its disappearance – out the door – as a loan). That law needs to be applied equally. If a lender opts for the ease of non-j, he has not attempted to collect any deficiency, so why does he get to write it off? If he can’t write it off, I doubt he can issue a 1099 even if there’s debt forgiveness. Don’t know, but it seems to me they go together, and don’t exist legally without the other. And there is no way, since they do, must, go together, if ANYone is entitled to a write-off, that party A had the right to the write off, but party B issues the 1099 in its name for someone else’s loss (A’s). No stinking way. If that were possible, I would just give you 50 bucks for your 5000 tax deduction which for who knows why won’t do you any good this year. Yeah, run that by Uncle Sam.
    Once YOU have incurred the loss, I don’t get the tax write-off benefit. It’s possible we could have done something so that I actually incurred the loss which resulted in a write-off, but that’s it. And why would I want a 5k real hit? Only reason which comes to mind is because you cannot take the write off and this somehow causes me very real monster grief or I’m really going to benefit next year somehow or I’m going to benefit but I keep it a secret from everyone. I’m not doing it with no benefit unless I MUST. I’m going by what carie said – that some servicer issued her a 1099 but told her her creditor was someone else. I believe it, and one of them is a lie. Or, heck, they both are!
    I just thought of another one. If the party issuing the 1099, B, contractually, by separate and distinct contract, had to make good to party A, it’s possible party B has some fantasy that it’s voluntary guarantee or otherwise tendering of payments to A lead to its right to a debt-loss write-off for those voluntary payments and then to give you a 1099. Not, say I; I maintain it’s a fantasy.
    Say Debbie has a loan with FSM. For its own reasons and without Debbie’s approval or input, “B” enters another contract with A or even FSM, guaranteeing debbie’s payments. “B” has no right to a write-off for those payments. B isn’t debbie’s creditor and doesn’t become one by a voluntary payment. “B” may – key word – have a business expense, but not a tax write-off for forgiving debbie’s debt because it wasn’t and isn’t owed debbie’s debt. She has no
    obligation to B. If anything, if A is a trust, and it has taken those payments, it has participated in a taxable event by taking them, because B’s payments aren’t pass-thru payments from the other party to A’s (the trust’s) contract, debbie. That or these trusts aren’t really pass-thru anythings. Jerkies. But, if B had rights of subrogation for monies advanced, and if debbie’s home didn’t cover the funds, AND she is otherwise uncollectible (as evidenced by judicial foreclosure with uncollectible deficiency judgment where def judgment is allowed), that might be another thing. Could B take a tax write-off for funds via subrogation rights which are uncollectible? Maybe, but of course only if the subrogation rights
    1) exist and 2) B attempted to collect. Dang. If that’s true, if it’s possible, and they threw in subrogation in the psa, (which would be another reason why insurers like AIG waived it), that may have been a dandy way to move the tax write-off. The right of subrogation could have made B a creditor of debbie’s, but since I don’t like that one bit, we might try to see if it can be nipped as violative of debbie’s contract somehow. I don’t know…can subrogation rights, if they exist, make someone a creditor such that they can issue a debt forgiving 1099? Makes me sick if so. But if that’s the case, carie still got lied to because B was her creditor, not some phantom group of investors. A possible silver lining: If a third party may be subrogated to a note by separate agreement, I think if the note were ever negotiable, it isn’t then, so presentation of a note and reliance on article III is toast.

    If you get a loan from Harry and your buddy Carl or your dad makes your payments for any reason, he isn’t entitled to a tax deduction for those payments, let alone a write-off for bad debt. Doubting Thomases can call the IRS or their or a CPA and ask (if you were Carl or your dad), could you? If anyone does, and gets a diff answer, I’d like to hear it.

  20. “Contract Management Coordinator:
    Review and/or execution of various documents for court proceedings pertaining……..”

    fwiw, a modification is not part of a court proceeding. It may become one, just like any other doc, but of itself, it isn’t. No modification was ever entered into for the purpose of a court proceeding.

  21. I’d bet a lot that if these notes are negotiable in the first place, they’re not after there has been a modification. If the old note were surrendered and a new one created reflecting the new terms, it would probably be negotiable, but then they’d have to put a stinking payee on there (and do something about the existing dot).

    jenninGA: johngault764 @ yahoo . dot com

  22. Thank you Poppy johngault and usedkarguy! Your posts made me think!

    @ Johng – send how? Fax or email – I need to scan – will do! It is a HAMP modification.
    just fyi
    I looked on Linkedin – Ocwen did not find the person who signed my mod – I did not see the job listed that appeared on the stamp “Contract Management Modifications Coordinator” but they had aprox 28 people with the job title below – one person inculded a job description:

    Contract Management Coordinator:
    Review and/or execution of various documents for court proceedings pertaining to servicing mortgage loans, such as affidavits, modifications, and chain of title (i.e., documents involved in Foreclosure proceedings, Bankruptcy proceedings, Affidavits, Home Affordable Modification Program agreements, Assignments of Mortgage, Satisfactions of Mortgage, Power of Attorney, Certification of Proceeds, Court Pleadings, such as Complaint and Discovery Pleadings, etc.)

  23. mod: let’s say it’s 1990. You want a loan modification of the loan you took out with Friendly State Mtg. You know by way of whatever that your loan has been transferred a time or 5, and the dot is now showing the ben as New Co. 4. If New Co 4 intends to enter a mod agreement with you, it may well reference the original note and payee to acknowledge what’s being modified. But it’s not going to show “Friendly State Mtg, its successors or assigns” as the lender in any contract, nor the servicer. No, it isn’t. It would say something like

    “sam smith, an undersigned herein, acknowledges that he executed a note to FSM in the amt of 500k on March 3, 2004, which note is secured by a dot of even date,, and which note has a current principle balance of $$ as of November 18, 2013 including interest (or excluding interest) of $$ from some date to some other date. New Co 4 is the current holder of that note and ben of the dot, having lawfully been assigned each and both, and by his signature below, Sam Smith so acknowledges.
    The terms of the original note are being modified in and by the execution of a new note payable to New Co 4, attached hereto (or as recited below). Accordingly, the old note is being returned to Sam Smith, the acknowledgement of which is hereby made. The parties signing below agree the new note is a modification to that note and its dot, and agree the terms of the original note are of no force or effect, and the dot (if not reconveyed and a new one recorded with New Co 4) secures the obligation recited in the new note being executed concurrently herewith. blah blah.”

    Well, of course i made that up, and it may even be possible not to execute a new note. I don’t know. But there is NO way a mod
    should or may say “the original lender, its successor or assigns” or
    “the original lender” without explicitly naming the current note holder, the other party to the new deal. No stinking way. I might even say there’s no new contract made (which might be what usedkarguy is saying) But what IS being made is an attempt to make Sam think he’s entering a note obligation-altering agreement by someone who may be simply getting Sam to create a new obligation with no real impact on his existing one. Under the current m.o., the real note owner (or anyone in poss, actually) can show up even in a court and claim under that note. If one is a holder in due course, the alleged mod may not even be a defense. If nothing else, except for the old note’s ref to a dot, that holder might still be able to sue on the note.
    Or the servicer may be the loan owner (if there is one these days) and is trying to keep a lid on it. Either way, the other party to a mod has to be declared in the agreement. imo.

  24. I said: “…then MERS is the agent of anyone who is a MERSCorp’ member, making the novated party still the novated party, but an agent serving in that capacity as agent for the note holder.”

    I said that wrong. MERS is still a novated party. The only difference would be that the novated party “happens” to be an agent of the lender. One might look at it as if the agency agreement is created first in some lawful contract. Then so and so makes MERS, its agent, thee ben in a dot. It’s not splitting hairs, as it might appear. I can’t explain why right now this minute, working on it, but we don’t even know that any agency was created anywhere between MERS (not MERSCorp) and anybody. NV finds bifurcation, someone said AZ has, so it probably won’t be long…..and as I asked, if not for novation, how would bifurcation be found? Okay, if no novation, the alternative is just plain bifurcation of a contract that can’t be bifurcated. I say making party A the lender and party B the ben undermines the mortgage loan contract as an enforceable contract. And without some other binding contract between A and B, A and its successor or assigns have no right to B’s worthless-on-its-own piece of paper.
    Does anyone here know or care about “security first” as it pertains to mtg loans? Whatever, it’s not supposed to be an unsecured note, such that the lender could sue for judgment on the note. They have to seek remedy from the collateral first and then in some states may seek deficiency. And that’s supposed to be done in one-action, judicial foreclosure. No jud f/c, no deficiency (going from memory). And I’m of a mind they gave up a write-off by not pursuing jud f/c. No one else gets to write-off a debt without trying to collect. Why should they? Non j is a choice, and imo it should include giving up the write-off they couldn’t be bothered to earn like the rest of us have to.
    It might be sanctioned by the IRS, but doesn’t seem right. Some people may not know this, but if you take a write-off for bad debt, you darn sure better be ready to show you tried to collect. Didn’t mean to get into this, but it torks me.

  25. Jenn in GA, you got HAMPED, BABY! No loan, no trustee, no real party in interest. Just you and the servicer. Congrats! now send me your e-mail and I will send you the fraud suit I filed after they HAMPED me without returning the contract.

  26. iwantmynpv – right, it wouldn’t be the gse because they don’t modify loans in the first place, and they weren’t recipients of HAMP, etc.
    Someone, generally, must purchase the loan to modify it. Whether that’s being done, who knows, but I’d bet a lot the trust is outee. What I mean if nothing else, is who would ‘repurchase’, pay money for, a loan to X when X never got the loan in the first place, even if X paid for it? It’s one thing to pretend this and that, but now we’re talking parting with cold, hard cash, even if it’s gimme funds they’re probably earning a fortune in interest on. HAMP probably didn’t forbid ‘investment”, either, of idle funds. And I still want to know if banksters have to show a liability on their books for the HAMP gimme funds or do they just show as assets or what the heck. The real problem imo with modifications is who the heck owns the loans. Right after that, I think any kind of triggering event would be considered, good or bad. does modifying a loan 86 any GSE insurance or guarantee, for instance? Owe anyone any money back? What about private mortgage insurance, the kind the borrower had to pay for? How is that affected by modification? Is any claim lost by modification? All those damn contracts are connected and we don’t get to know about any of them. We need 50 scholars on this, 50 on that, and yet another 50 on something else. Seems to me we could alternatively demand evidence of injury and where none is alleged, move for dismissal if not sj.

  27. discovery – I (me, not anyone else) would ask for cert’d copies of any and all contracts and agreements in any way related to my loan contract and the contact name, address, and phone no. for anyone who has ever claimed an interest or right in – or flowing from – my loan contract or a related contract or agreement, as well as a chain of custody for the note and dot. I would also ask for evidence of MERS’
    membership by anyone who did or might have claimed an interest in my loan contract since its inception. That one’s if I believed MERS is an agent, which I don’t. There’s no such legal circumstance as owning or having “legal title” to someone else’s rights in a contract at the same time that someone else itself retains those rights. There’s no such thing as “legal title” to rights in a contract. It’s like saying I have “legal title” to my due process rights. One may be an agent, if agency is expressly granted and accepted and there must be a document which does both – grants and accepts. Maybe granting and accepting could be done in two separate docs. Dunno, but there’s no evidence of those two docs. What I say there’s evidence of is a novation, the substituting of MERS as the ben in the dot in place of the lender, a party to the note. MERS (and not MERSCorp, btw for one thing) has been made thee beneficiary in the dot. period. Whether or not one is a MERSCorp member matters IF membership in MERSCorp means MERS is anyone’s agent (but that agency is not found in the dot). If MERS is not anyone’s agent, the note and dot are bifucated. If MERS agency can be found outside the dot like in hte MERSCorp’ membership agreement, then MERS is the agent of anyone who is a MERSCorp’ member, making the novated party still the novated party, but an agent serving in that capacity as agent for the note holder.

    If the original payee and subsequent noteholders, like “B”, aren’t MERSCorp members such that they had entered an agency agreement (to be found in the membership agreement or elsewhere but not in the dot – bah humbug) , the note and dot are bifurcated. But I don’t believe agency will be found, because that is decidedly not what they wanted, not until the consent order, anyway, when they had to come up with some new tricks to foreclose since doing so under MERS cover (since trusts cant’ own different assets – these arent REIT’s, they’re REMIC’) is no longer available. And they’re always one step ahead of us. By the time we’ve figured out their latest trick, they’ve snarfed another 2 million homes (and rely on our freshman status with bona fide purchaser rules, for instance) and then move on to the next gimmick. We need to get ahead of them. Soon it may be decided by and large that MERS bifurcates the note and dot, but they’ll have their arguments way the h ahead of us if we don’t get on it. imo. Or at least it could shape up that way. Foreclosures:

    1) MERS
    2) servicers
    3) trusts and credit bid assignments
    4) yes, MERS was novated, but……..
    They’ll find a way to acknowledge the novation, but likely deny
    the bifurcation by trying to show that even though there was novation (and not merely holding “legal title” to someone’s else’s goodies which they swore a zillion times), and the dot doesn’t itself create an agency, one was yet created by ……..
    But I’m not convinced novation was even possible because the original beneficiary was not named in the dot to novate. What that would mean is there was no novation; what there was was original bifurcation which calls for unity, if that’s even possible, not RE-unification. Nor am I certain a complete mortgage loan was made (it’s a two-instrument deal) , and bottom line if no complete mtg loan was made, I think, is the note’s are unsecured. And that’s really problematic, more than appears on the surface, because mortgage loans are supposed to be “security first”, meaning the first default remedy is to go after the collateral, not the borrower’s other assets by way of a judgment on the note. I think whether or not one can get his head into considering novation might be determined by one’s belief that trust’s may not own real estate. I can’t quote chapter and verse, but logic dictates they can’t; they’re entities of limited acts, limited to contractual interests, receiving and passing thru payment streams from contracts.* One would also have to believe that the act of an agent is the act of its principal (and that isn’t what they wanted at all). I believe If MERS is a novated party and also an agent of X (such agency created outside the dot) it’s acts are yet its own, even if it allegedly takes its orders from its principal, which incidentally is not a fact in evidence. That might be illigitimate itself; I don’t know. But I do know that MERS, which is a separate and distinct corporation from MERSCorp, doesn’t sign the MERSCorp’ agreement to accept the agency appt to MERS, if any.
    What I think I’m saying is MERS is a novated party if not naming the original party as the ben in the dot makes novation, a POST-contract-formation substitution, possible. If not, is there first of all a complete loan contract (two instrument agreement) at all if the note party is one party and the ben is another? If it IS possible, the note and dot are bifurcated. If it can be found that the novated party is the agent (independent of the dot) of the original lender and note assignees, what difference, if any, does that make to bifurcation? I think they blew it for sure when they decided to skip naming the note payee in the dot as the orig beneficiary with a subsequent assgt to MERS. (Took too long, too much like work, and so on).
    * Seems to me I recall that notes are not deemed contracts per se.
    Anyone? And that in turn makes me wonder if banksters are even alleging “breach of contract”.

  28. oh for pete’s sake. the fact that jane used that particular title is to me an indication she is not taking a position about whom she purports to sign the mod. With whom does she claim she holds that position? Is she the mod coordinator for the servicer? does it say mod coord for someone in particular above her stamped name?

  29. JenninGA: “The part that is signed by them – it has a stamped name, and under that on the same stamp it states Contract Management Modifications Coordinator – instead of a siginature – she was written her initials and circled them!”

    Okay, i found this comment of yours, where it also says servicer is other party to the mod. I don’t know if “Jane’s” stamped name and initials is kosher. I doubt it, but don’t know. What I an see is that she does not hold the title of an officer for the servicer, leaving the matter of her authority to bind anyone in question even if she had signed it. If you’d like to send me a copy of the mod, I’d like to see it and I won’t say anything about your name. or put something over it or whatever. (For one thing, I still don’t know where your original lender is shown, which you mentioned, but you say the servicer is shown as the other party to the mod.

  30. Hey, that reminds me. F & F buy loans from lenders. F & F bought the loans from whomever (the larger guy in the broker/correspondent & larger guy deal). So that’s one endorsement that should be on the note. If not, maybe someone can explain why not? Does everyone think F & F operated on blank endorsements? I wonder if that’s the agreement to be found in manuals, like the FNMA Seller-Servicer Agreement. But don’t I recall that F & F never wanted physical possession of the notes? Why not, I do so wonder. And if so, I’d bet a dollar to a donut, the servicer got and retained the note – as alleged custodian? All loans were sold to F & F “servicing-released” since F & F don’t service the loans they acquire. So I think we know how servicers had custody of notes, at least for loans sold to F or F. What the heck kind of operation is that, anyway? Buy loans, never get anything x maybe a certified copy of a note probably endorsed in blank? Weren’t they just asking for it? But the real querry is why aren’t there endorsements to F or F since another contract they knew was coming up called for the notes to have all endorsements on them and not a one-size fits all blank endorsement?
    We don’t know what servicers did with those notes. Digitalize them? Trade electronically? Pretend to trade electronically? Shred the hard copies? What we think DIDN’T happen was physical movement and endorsement to all (alleged) subsequent transferees. But, still like to know why there’s no endorsement to F & F, esp since they all knew the PSA required all endorsements on the notes and not merely one blank endorsement.

  31. JenninGA: “RE: LOAN MOD – I have a loan mod in which the “originator” is listeed as “LENDER” in 2007 – the loan originated in 2005 and per the PSA the trust that my loan was assigned into closed in early 2006.”

    Sorry, can’t make sense of exactly what you’re saying. Was your mod in 2007? Does you mod say “Original lender, it’s successors or assigns” or ? And what are you implying about the trust closing date?

  32. Once a borrower defaults, “stuff’ starts happening with a loan, whether it’s part of a triggering event for a loan pool (if that hasn’t already happened in a particular pool) or it becomes subject to a FNMA guarantee or repurchase or the use of HAMP funds to buy the loan or who knows. But I think the bottom line is the trust is no longer in the act. I don’t know what all is being hidden, but pretty sure something is and something material or they wouldn’t try to hide it, right? I don’t think “securitization” has worked out well for anyone, except maybe a handful. I don’t personally object to any insurance or guarantee paid for by a borrower. But creating a contract which is
    otherwise guaranteed by tax payers is bunk to me, and when intervening agreements impact the contract such that, long and short, one party’s (if not both and it’s probably both) rights and obligations are impacted but unknown to at least one party and he needs five degrees to ascertain them, it’s just wrong. Courts and the banksters want all that to take a back seat to article III of the UCC, which if it’s in play at all doesn’t allow for consideration of the intervening contracts. When a borrower is charged $$ for guarantee or insurance, he knows what’s what. He used to know there were no other considerations impacting his contract with the other party. There were no puppet masters whose interests were patently conflicted with his contract. No side bets, no side agreements.
    FNMA and FHLMC were created to allow lenders to restock their wares, which is money to make loans. We didn’t need another
    source to restock FNMA or FHLMC. If prudent underwriting guidelines were followed, some people just couldn’t get loans, so there wouldn’t be so many. It’s been shown that securitization isn’t in fact beneficial. So, imo, along with MERS, it has to go. I don’t know how we effect that, other than to refuse to sign MERS documents or to sign a note which language might find our loan securitized or any document which doesn’t say right in it that we will always be timely apprised of transfers of our notes and that any assignment of the dot will be evidenced in public record. If people or entities don’t want their identities known, then they can choose other investments. Even if laws have been or will be created which compel disclosure, the best evidence, the best reliance, is in the contract itself.

  33. Interesting my post about lying with dogs with no fleas got removed.
    Mo-der-ay-shun at it’s best.

    Trespass Unwanted.

  34. poppy:
    “Cash administrator/paying agent – We collect servicer payments for distribution to investors and provide attractive investment options for
    funds held short term…”

    I took that to mean that that co. invests the funds short term which are received by the servicers because there is a lag between the receipt of borrower payments and its distribution, and to that I say how nice for them, that they may accrue interest or any gain on those funds during that lag time. I guess it must be legal, but I don’t know.

    The conclusion I’ve reached about the servicer being named only
    on the modification is that the servicer is the lender and the loan no longer has anything to do with a trust, if it ever did. I need to find one and read it. Seems like someone linked one not long ago, but if so,
    I don’t know what I did with it. If there’s no lender named, I’d hazard there’s no contract, which seems nuts.

  35. This is correct from your link:
    Trustee – As trustee, we protect the interests of the “bondholders and investors” by monitoring compliance with governing deal documentation…
    “it says nothing here about collecting for a TRUST”…

    Cash administrator/paying agent – We collect servicer payments for distribution to investors and provide attractive investment options for
    funds held short term…
    “again, short term 60 months, renewable?”

    Document custodian – We safely store loan and collateral files in our secure document custody vault for safekeeping; and as necessary review files to verify eligibility criteria is met…
    REALLY? It doesn’t say “notes” and “DOT” …Collateral is not the same….

    The way I read this: nothing herein is for a “bonafide trust” these are “so-called” collection rights…if the loan is non-performing, where would they get those rights? Did the lender default the loan? If it has been charged-off, what’s the balance owed? Just because they “claim” to have the loan paperwork does not mean it is securitized properly…Again, my read on this wonderfully written attempt on getting people to believe they have authority to make claims, service or otherwise “hold legal” power over your land!

    Laymen opinion, nothing more…

  36. Jennin

    You have just started the clock running again for the collection of the debt…and it has been my experience, a modification does not mean they will not foreclose anyway! Most of these mods are with “debt collectors”, not lenders or trusts (servicers are a catch-all phrase), most are not working for a trust guided by the PSA…most of the trusts are closed and bond holders are getting a payment stream. The mod you signed is their version of an IOU! IMHO

    No legal advice…laymen comments

  37. This was the link – the other was an email – sorry!

    where I found the information for the trust

  39. RE: My HAMP loan mod document from 2013- that my new servicer signed and returned to me – nowhere on the document does it identify the “Lender” at all!!! The new loan number (assigned when transfered to the new servicer is on it – but the TRUST itself is not anywhere on the document. At the top where it identifies the parties in this contract it has Borrower – me – and then Servicer – the name of the current servicer!!!
    The part that is signed by them – it has a stamped name, and under that on the same stamp it states Contract Management Modifications Coordinator – instead of a siginature – she was written her initials and circled them!

    Now I feel a bit ill! With whom have I made an agreement with?

    In my earlier post the QWR I mention was to the Trustee for the trust – but I also sent them to the Mater Servicer and the new servicer too. Master servicer would not reply to any questions – said to contact my current servicer – current servicer – said just what the trustee said.

  40. @johngault, on November 17, 2013 at 8:23 pm said:
    RE: LOAN MOD – I have a loan mod in which the “originator” is listeed as “LENDER” in 2007 – the loan originated in 2005 and per the PSA the trust that my loan was assigned into closed in early 2006.

    RE: I did contact the trust – I called the numbers listed on the SEC site when they filed to no longer submit information ( I forget a K-8?) anyways I called the number listed for the MASTER SERVICER the woman seemed stunned and asked how I got the number. I also called the number for the Trustee for the trust my loan is claimed to be included in. I sent a certified QWR in 2012 asking if my loans were still included in the trust – had they ever been marked “paid in full” or removed? The reply was brief it said ” we have verified as requested your loans are collateral for the trust”. In regards to my claim of a robosigned fradulent recorded document – they said they are not responsible for keeping records of how the loans are assigned and they rely on the servicer and master servicer to maintain that information – and they can’t independantly verify their records”!!!!!

    Mind you I had gone online and saw/printed the Master Servicers Distribution reports and saw that in 2010 – my loan when it was charged off – is noted in the distrubution report under “LOAN STATUS” ” No Action Loan Paid in Full”??? On the same report the loan also appears on the Realized Loss Loan Detail Report – Loans with Losses during Current Period –

    So – how could a loan listed as PAID in FULL on a report in 2010 be verified as collateral for that trust in 2012??? The only think I think it could be is perhaps the collection rights for the loan??? PS this loan was strippped in BK early 2013 – I still have not recieved a recorded release of any time for it!!!!

  41. Or of the gazillion options, it could mean the servicer used TARP
    funds to buy the loan, payoff the loan, …..? I think we can agree whatever is the deal, it’s not a modification of any loan which is part of a trust’s assets, right? I bet if I had to, I could prove that loan needed a new APR disclosure and that the failure to give one is problematic for the party named in the mod docs. I’ve already posited modifcation requires a lending license. Think one needs a license if one makes more than like 4 loans per years.

  42. iwantmynpv – so I understand, you’re saying the servicer is named as the lender on a “modification’? Okay, that could mean the servicer
    has purchased the loan from FNMA or FHLMC, who repurchased it
    at some time after the borrower’s default pursuant to its guarantee, and that’s if the fnma payment on its guarantee equates to a repurchase and not a payoff-by-guarantee – prob depends on guarantee contract, which may or may not be anything other than what is found in the FNMA prospectus – 4 payments and then may / must repurchase to end guarantee – but imo is critical (paid off by guarantee or purchased pursuant to the guarantee). It could mean a lot of things, I guess. What a mess. There’s no trust imo if it has no bens. What, also imo, makes one a ben is if his benefits result directly from the assets of the trust (and nothing else) and it’s showing up that’s not the case. The investors may get some of their money by pass-thru alright, but there’s really no direct correlation between the p & i borrower payments and what the certificate holders receive. It appears. If the loans never made it to the trust, seems there’s a diff formula for how the servicer ended up on the modification, including the possibility the depositor or someone the heck received some moolah pursuant to a triggering event which impacted the loan’s balance.
    All we can do is speculate, and that’s just crapola.
    We need a way to demonstrate that how the servicer came to be named on a “modification” is critical. As it is, courts may say it doesn’t matter. I’m pretty sure it does. This is just bunk. There are so many contracts in play here, those guys are all in bed together – if fact, so much so, they could be called alter-ego’s or whatever that legal term is, and the court wants to rely on alleged poss of an original note and a “MERS” assignment as if those two things are singularly dispositive. Well, a place to start may in fact be moving for dismissal when the bankster has not even alleged injury. But even if the court dismissed, it’d likely be without prejudice, so once again the banksters would buff up their acts and show up again (at least be somewhat painful if we were awarded fees). Maybe someone will lead the charge and move for SJ (which is generally res judicata) against the banksters, its successors and assigns instead of moving for dismissal.
    Has anyone ever contacted the trustee directly or thru its registered agent to ascertain anything*? Hey, since ‘B of A as trustee for xyz 1409’, is not a legal entity, how does one serve them?!
    * an assignment not only requires execution by the assignor, it requires acceptance by the assignee (yes it does), here the trust. Like to see a confirmation of that, I would, since you know it’s the
    servicer actually bringing suit. See – the servicer is the trustee who is the agent of joe who is the v.p. of the issuer who is the parent of the
    servicer. like that. $#$!)($%!

  43. iwantmympv – I am still curious as to why you stated IndyMac Venture, or One West Venture, LLC have my note??
    At present, only the below are accordingly eligible to be trustees :
    -Bank of New York
    -U.S. Bank National Trust Association
    -Wells Fargo Bank
    ” at present” would be my only punch as to why I may be wrong.

  44. @ JG the lender on the modified HAMP Loans name the Lender/Servicer – never the GSE.

  45. Illinois has been devastated by Tornado’s this afternoon. We are fine but many of our family members and friends have sustained property damage and injuries along with widespread power outages. We are headed out with fuel,, generators, food and first aid supplies. Please Keep Illinois in your Prayers and Pray for all those still in the path of this Dangerous Storm.

  46. In the early years .. one of the loan requirements of a RM was that a portion of the proceeds be used to purchase annuities.

    Eventually that changed …


  47. I was a Certified Reverse Mortgage Specialist, knowing about the adverse effects of a non-borrowing spouse. I considered myself a warrior in RM by actually informing the household the effects of a non signing party …. Demand Both as Borrowers or Don’t Sign the Dag Gone Thing. So Jail Me for telling the Whole Truth!! Oh cant jail us but you can refuse to pay us for violating your “Shut The Hell Up” Rule! I took the hit for all the expenses, … but our Seniors were not Defrauded!

    Never in my Wildest Dreams did I ever think that a Conventional Mortgage could be converted ( behind MERS curtain) to a Reverse Mortgage (Life Estate) scheme.

    To much extra paperwork to add me? Talk to the Hand! ha ha

    Its in the MATH!

  48. RE: “that the product was defective”

    KC.. Yeah that’s it … not only was it defective and unenforceable, but its Fraudulent. The intention of fraud is easily identifiable and proven.

    Not all Mortgage/DOTs contain the same terms, State Laws Vary.

  49. promissory note “instrument” void or voidable against Plaintiff KC


    KC Hubby Grumpy. LOL!

  50. Tisk is the reason the defendants in my case are unable to perform under the recorded contract. Rescission?

    Perhaps the reason for massive refi’s and mods? You know … New Terms, New Lender and Homestead Exemption Waivers.

    No Thank You! I have no use for Liars .. NONE AT ALL!

  51. JG, this would be the reason for “slipping out pages of the mortgage and replacing them with another set of terms when the event occurs…. but KC has that covered. KC have BOTH ….( nuts in a stranglehold).

  52. RE: ” there is no evidence that a valid contract was formed”

    KC,,, now your talking my language. The contract/financial product/mortgage was a farce, the seller knew at the time the contract was unenforceable.

  53. “Lack-of-proof arguments are along the lines of proving a negative—the defendant has to show that the plaintiff doesn’t have enough evidence to prove the claims alleged in the complaint. The plaintiff has alleged that the product was defective, for example, but there’s no evidence that it didn’t work; or perhaps in a breach-of-contract case there is no evidence that a valid contract was formed (and therefore it was never breached);

    ** or in just about any type of case there’s no evidence that the plaintiff suffered any damages,* thus there’s no basis for recovery.” **

    This is from the website “”, featuring articles concentrating on procedure, written by an attorney.

  54. btw – that “affirmative defenses in the first response to a complaint” is a two-way street. If you’re the plaintiff and the defendant didn’t raise them in its first responsive pleading, whatever that was, they lost them.
    lay opinions.

  55. Can’t help sharing this outside the box insightful comment I stumbled on:
    “Our trillion dollar defense bill makes it safe for (U.S.) corporations to outsource American jobs else where. And we are paying for this. Is it right to not only take jobs away from citizens, but to add insult to injury by making them pay for the security also?”

  56. “Put simply, if a plaintiff has not suffered “injury in fact” as a result of the alleged (here – sic) FDCPA violation, then he lacks standing to sue you. The “injury in fact” test for standing “requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest….. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 563 (emphasis supplied); see also Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 819 (1997) (“We have consistently stressed that a plaintiff’s complaint must establish that he has a personal stake in the alleged dispute, and that the alleged injury suffered is particularized as to him.”) (emphasis supplied); Warth, 422 U.S. at 498 (“The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party, even though the court’s judgment may benefit others collaterally.

    **A federal court’s jurisdiction therefore can be invoked ONLY when the plaintiff himself has suffered some threatened or actual INJURY resulting from the putatively illegal action . . ..”) (emphasis supplied); Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 473 (Article III’s standing requirements prevent “the conversion of courts of the United States into judicial versions of college debating forums.”).**

    Yes, I’m trying to prove that injury is jurisdictional. Without it, there isn’t any. Courts must generally have a real controversy before them and without injury, there is none. The exception is a statutory violation (broke a law), not a contractual violation. In order to really prove this, it may have to be proved that a breach of contract, even if it exists, which didn’t cause injury is not justicable. I hope not because that may be a tall order. Maybe not. Breach of contract sounds good for a cause of action, right? Honest to Mergatroid, I just don’t think it’s good enough, or is lack of injury ‘just’ an affirmative defense? Is breach of contract ever even alleged? If there were a breach, but a third party compensated for the breach, then there’s no injury. If that happened, yes, there was a breach, but there’s still no injury and as some point out these days, there’s never even an allegation of injury made in the complaints (Weidner for one, I think and think only). Ask the bankster if it means to allege its 1) own 2) injury 3) by way of ?? or just ask for judgment on the pleadings or to dismiss for failure to state a cause for which relief can be granted (that would be funny!) because no injury is alleged?? But one must preserve affirmative defenses – ask a lawyer because generally aff defenses must be raised in the first response to a complaint or they’re lost). Ask a lawyer anyway because I’m just kicking stuff around.
    For what it’s worth, if I move out of an apt and then the landlord
    re-rents it, he can’t sue on my lease because he’s suffered no injury (or his relief is limited to what he did lose – like the two weeks rent while he found a new tenant). So breach of contract (say I had 6 mos left) does him no good. in my lay opinion.

  57. kc – my email is johngault764@yahoo. What offer? I have everything to gain (tho I’d rather be reading a good, entertaining book). I’m a U.S. citizen. I believe in the proper application of the law. I believe in the law. I believe our laws (well, most of them) and abiding by the law form the basis of who we are as a nation, as a people, and that without it, we’re lost and will disappear. I believe criminals should be prosecuted. I believe criminals shouldn’t benefit from their crimes. I believe only the parties to an agreement may invoke a court’s jurisdiction. I believe others spurned the law and caused and continue to cause individual and mass headaches and heartaches. I believe the tolerance of bad acts is heinous and is undermining patriotism like never before (not even Viet Nam), something we want and need and can’t afford to lose. I don’t like it that a guy who got a liar loan is sitting in jail (charlene’s blog at sourceoftitle), but not the people who knowingly made the loan and millions like it. There are laws on the books to protect us from our own folly and they were not obeyed by the people charged with obedience. GRRRR. Those laws exist to see that we don’t lose hearth and home. Someone made a sh$t-pie loan
    and someone else, the puppeteer and architect of our doom, shows up and says give me your home – after using our pledges to bilk anyone else they could, as well.
    I’m a peon. Never before has that fact bothered me. It shouldn’t be bothering me now. It’s bothering me now because a class distinction has been cruelly accentuated with the apparent participation of our government. I don’t look at much about our country the same these days and I’m quite sure I’m not alone. I don’t like the bone tossed to homeowners – no taxation on debt forgiveness when there is or may be none to forgive so that others may avoid taxes due on investments that weren’t what they thought. I don’t like what looks like a scheme to keep a lid on the taxes owed by one class – for any reason. I don’t like reputational damage control, publicity stunts like HAMP, which has probably caused much more grief than it’s alleviated. I don’t like it that people like carie get a 1099 from party A but are told the party entitled to its accompanying debt write-off is another party. One of them is a LIE. Never before has it been so true that the best way to rob a bank (or anything and everything ) is to own one.
    I may be a peon, but I’m not NObody. I don’t have the energy to lead a crusade, but I have the energy and the ability to throw my two cents in for whatever it’s ever worth and I hope that’s something at least sometimes. And, oh, yeah.
    MERS, the supreme enabler, HAS TO GO.

  58. “That a litigant must establish standing is a fundamental element in determining federal jurisdiction over a ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ as set forth in Article III of the Constitution.”
    Morrison v. Board of Ed. of Boyd County, 521 F.3d 602, 608 (6th
    Cir. 2008). “By now, it is axiomatic that a litigant demonstrates Article III standing by tracing a concrete and particularized injury to the defendant – whether actual or imminent – and establishing that a
    favorable judgment would provide redress.” Id. (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.555, 560-61 (1992)).
    Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible
    constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements.

    First the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” – an invasion of
    a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized,
    and (b) “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”

    Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and
    the conduct complained of – the injury has to be “fairly . . .
    traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . the
    result of the independent action of some third party not before the

    Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.”

  59. JG, in the 6yrs on this site, I have only extended the offer 3x as I prefer to keep my identity private and my family safe from those who have lost touch with reality …. like Ivent.

    You seek the truth with nothing to gain …. I Like You.

  60. In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the defendant’s action to support that party’s participation in the case.

    The plaintiff is directly subject to an adverse effect by the conduct of the defendant, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief. This is called the “something to lose” doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.

  61. “As a threshold matter…………Standing—the requirement that plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury caused by the defendant and capable of judicial redress…… Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. United States, 570 F.3d 316, 324 (D.C. Cir. 2009)

  62. JG, Email Address?

  63. carie – sitll like to talk with you about that 1099.

  64. I look at a loan as what it is – a contract between a lender and a borrower. The complainant is that party, the lender, the guy on the other end of the contract or it isn’t. The lender and only the lender must have 1) suffered injury 2) by the borrower’s breach of that contract.
    Other issues relevant to injury (or not) may have been created by third parties, but injury is still the bar. If there’s no injury, then so what if the borrower breached the contract? That’s what courts like AZ say:
    ‘you may not have injured the claimant, but you injured someone, so so what (when anyone’s injury isn’t even a fact in evidence) if it’s not these guys?’ The claimant doesn’t have to demonstrate injury, but courts like AZ assume we have injured SOMEone, because that’s the stinking BAR, and AZ apparently doesn’t care much about who we injured as long as there’s another pulse in the room. The truth is,
    a claimant may be able to show that a contract was breached, but they get to skip who are the parties to that contract and the so what.

    Third party guarantees, for instance, may impact whether or not the lender has suffered an injury. Other things espoused here and at other sites by others may determine whether or not a lender has suffered injury. If there’s more than one, then there’s room for more than one factor in determining injury. And I haven’t been corrected. I’ve been argued with (guess that’s what it could be called), in a one-sided argument which didn’t speak coherently to my own propositions, but I haven’t been corrected by anything empirical or otherwise cognizable. I once said unjust enrichment was a contractual matter. Christine, think it was, said not so. Despite what I had read in a case or two, I looked it up (okay, cursory) and she appeared to be right. So there I was corrected (if that turns out to be true – that one may allege unjust enrichment in the absence of a contract, which for now, I’m believing, and thus stand corrected. If that guy can argue or correct me with intelligible comments, won’t bother me since theoretically, we’re on the same team. Btw, teenagers are a hoot. They are forever optimistic and I could use some of that. I’d say we all could.

  65. Poppy, our dog sleeps with us to. And I Thank God for Flea Treatments used as a Preventive Measure. Our Pom weighs in at 6lbs full grown. … but still a bed hog. lol

  66. Talk to the Hand? JG, you are spending to much time with the teenagers. You did however bring up good points that needed addressed.

    MS, JG has 30yrs seniority on you and thinks old fashion like me of what a conventional DOT/Mortgage is. Picking on seniors makes you look like a Bully. I know they trained you that way, I know old habits are hard to break and I know everyone deserves a 2nd chance … I’ve had to remind you to behave many times, its about time you learn to recognize your own behavior and put a stop to it. And that goes for picking on Neil to. You can correct someone without degrading or demoralizing them,… Right?

    Carry on … and Play Nice!

  67. Talk to the hand. What I mean is do be a good chap and leave me out of it. Laissez-moi tranquille. Comprendre?

  68. I think we are all trying desparately to hold on to the belief that its all going to be ok and justice will prevail. This is crucial to ” winning” “what ye think so shall ye be” if you are defeated in your mind then its over before you filed your first complaint.

  69. Got it…but what is the harm in checking out what anyone says? MS isn’t twisting my arm, nor is he asking me for money. I have gotten advice many times and it was wrong. Also, have hired 2 lawyers who stole my money and were completely incompetent, lied, imagine that? Who do you trust? I know no one who has gotten a “real” win, the house free and clear…except the debt collectors and banks…if you find the information is flawed, don’t use it, is all I’m saying.

    LOL, I love sleeping with my 100 lb, white Labrador dog…that God flea season is over, joking. Thanks

  70. Poppy, people who lie down with dogs get fleas. Beware, danger!!!

  71. MS why do you let anyone here, who is losing, not listening and spinning their wheels in the mud, offend you?

    What has anyone got to lose, if for free, someone is giving them information to verify an see if it checks out?

    There are only a couple here who question your comments and I can tell you 100% one of them is not fighting foreclosure, she has lost long ago…

  72. I like it elex…I walked out on my mediation. They told me: you cannot do that, really? says who? It’s a beautiful Friday, haven’t had lunch yet and I ‘m leaving, as you folks are wasting my time.

    The mediator leaned over, looked straight into my eyes and said: I hope everything works out the way you want it to, young lady (I’m 58, LOL)…I said: it will, Thanks.

    With that, the lawyer started getting loud and actually yelling at me…I said; you folks have a nice day, I’m out of here…now, I am no smarty pants here, but I am sick of their shit and wasting my time, trying to intimidate me…at that point, I had nothing to lose.

    These folks really think they are something special…I have a news flash for them. You’re just a “puppet” and loser in a suit!

  73. If we fight this accounting irregularity individually we are committing a crime against the US Treasury

    If we fight this thing together we can claim a victims rights as the people vs the managing directors and officers of the major US Banks

    Do the math for Gods sake

    ABA wire – depositors account = Paid in capital
    Paid in capital = Common stock
    Common stock diluted to a 10:1 ratio = preferred shares

    If the TPC were charged off against the value of the TCC and the latter traded at 5 cents on the dollar -then of course the transactions had to be collectively charged off under the 2008 Congressional initiatives.

    This historic calamity rendered each home as unsecured for the matching term of the life of the loan to date as of the October 2008 TARP charges taken under the short title initiative

    Your modification offers is the concealed right to subrogate and salvage that YOU squandered . Sorry NG but you wasted this wonderful opportunity you were given to make history

    Go to the Treasury’s web site and see for yourself the history of the 30 day commercial paper rates from 2001 through 2004


    Attack ME and I AM OUT OF HERE!

    Please, Just read and listen to me and I am here to assist wherever I can. Attack my arguments if you will …but know this :

    I never came to take advantage of anyone’s predicament .
    So help me God


  74. JG – The loans were transferred to the trusts and for a season,
    MS -Bonds …Bonds are always issued in an indenture (Do you read or listen for Gods sake month after month – do you listen )

    JG – The MBS investors got their payments,
    MS – For Gods sake the investors are the issuers and the issuers are the sellers and the sellers are the bond holders

    If the bond holder is the issuer and registrant its reps and warranties are to itself and cannot extended to the pledged deposits purchased by foreign bank national interests.

    If the bond holder is the issuer and registrant its capital investment remains amongst itself and its own subsidiaries.

    If the bond holder’s capital investment remains amongst itself and its own subsidiaries then

    [1] the dynamics of a credit bid and
    [2] opportunity to credit back lost value to linked transactions
    [3] Linked transactions are charged off and written down
    [4] The salvage balance is undisclosed and unethical method and means for recovery.

    The Mers Argument is the most sophisticated and difficult argument of all – leave it alone – trust me



  75. elex, that is about the sum of it. I am oober paranoid of trolls, so am limited in my blabbering, – Hello MSJ.

  76. Kc im laughing

  77. No… we are not divorcing. I’m just claiming what is owed to the household estate. Once recorded ….. I plan to add every name in the family and unborns 1-100 to the deed. That ought to keep the red tape tied up for generations to come.

    I’m not vengeful … I’m just over protective.

  78. DW… My husband (as borrower) is laughing, he says to tell you (exact words)….

    If she wins, she not only keeps her half but gets my half to.

    ” She gets the Gold Mine and I get the Shaft”


  79. @justme – mediation serves two purposes. One is to allow parties to assess strength of opposition case, the other is to make a house payment to attorney serving as mediator. The mediator will favor the party who has the most money.

    And elements of the mediation are susceptible to court review, depending on state law (especially case law), so you have to be aware of what those exceptions are. Your basic strategy is to deny, deny, and deny, and request what proof they have of any record of purchase or sale of your account, or any record of receiving possession of the note. Focus on that, and if they won’t provide that information, state the meeting is over and leave. Mediators are paid by the hour. If they agree to provide the information, make sure the agreement states exactly what they will provide by a specific date. You are looking for affidavits signed by officers of beneficiary, and not an agent, and copies of business records supporting the affidavits. If they really have them, your case is undone, and you should be willing to concede your case upon physical display of the affidavits and documents. You should not agree to sign anything at mediation, except agreement to file dismissal of case after documents produced. It’s better (less expensive) to lose gracefully before trial than to be surprised by the ‘new found’ discovery of the note and vault records at trial.

  80. Kc
    Your rocking
    Citizen tax payer – all of us. On the hook. Should we be. Check think not

  81. Neil… RE:

    The plain fact is that nearly everyone in government and law enforcement considers what happens to small banks to be “collateral damage,” unworthy of any effort to assist these institutions even though the government was complicit in the fraud that has resulted in jury verdicts, settlements, fines and sanctions totaling into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

    KC: Collateral Damage just like the “Used to be Homeowners”. ?

    KC: The Government was Complicit in the Fraud…?

    KC: Let me see if I have this right ….

    1. They mismanaged our retirement funds …. Check

    2. They stripped the household estate of title ….. Check

    3. They dumped this on our laps as taxpayers …. Check

    4. They got the Gold Mine and the Citizens got the shaft….Check.

  82. the links to the docs I gave a few posts back, now give 404 errors now, so I guess that’s called ‘disappeared’.

    Trespass Unwanted

  83. Remember the link I posted some a few blogs back. I gave some links with some paperwork. I also mentioned the paperwork may disappear, but I should have known the post I put the info in would be moved first.

    Well you may want to listen-in again on the call because the paperwork was filed and the one who filed it is discussing it on Friday the 15th. It’s live now but will have a recording when it’s over.

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

  84. NG said: “Turning down modifications or settlements on the basis that the investor rejected it when in fact the investor knew nothing about it. This could result in actions against an investor that is charged with violations of federal law.”

    Deadlyclear or someone over there suggested that when it comes to modification (when servicers allege authority to decide or speak for the lender, and won’t modify) the servicer’s actions are tortious interference with one party’s rights, the borrower’s, to a contract. And here’s what I think people should consider for their failure to modify suits if they haven’t already:

    “Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor convinces a party to breach the contract against the other party, or where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the other party from receiving the performance promised. The classic example of this tort occurs when one party induces another party to breach a contract with the other party, in circumstances where the actor has no privilege to act as it does and acts with knowledge of the existence of the contract. Such conduct is termed tortious inducement of breach of contract.”

    How does a servicer have privilege to tell a borrower to default? Even if it were true that a only a loan in borrower-default may be modified pursuant to the psa, that’s no reason to interfere with the contract by inducing the borrower to default. Plus, how is a loan ever in default if the servicer has to advance payments? is that gang messing around with borrowers long enough for a triggering event to occur, in which case they can 86 the trust?
    Who is the lender named on “modified” loans? I’d be very surprised if there is one.

  85. from Levitin via another website:
    “Consider a case in which Bank A securitized a bunch of loans, but did not do the transfers properly. Bank A ends up in FDIC receivership. FDIC could claim those loans as property of Bank A, leaving the securitization trust with an unsecured claim for a refund of the money it paid Bank A. Indeed, I’d urge Harvey Miller to be looking at this as a way to claw back a lot of money into the Lehman estate.”

    That’s just what I think happened with Buffet and RESCap’s bk. His company was allowed to take the BILLIONS of loans “free of other claims”. But, befuddled since it’s still my impression one who pays for a note but doesn’t receive delivery has a security interest in both the note and its collateral. Maybe the secn trustees for the trusts which didn’t get delivery didn’t ‘get around’ to making a claim in ResCap’s bk – if for no other reason than it would expose the non-delivery by the cut-off date, and holy smokes if that’s the case. Or they were in cahoots with the bankster who didn’t want to be exposed.

    So what’d Buffet do? Did he make another ‘deal”? Or did he just say thanks a lot for these loans pennies on the dollar and go on his way with no regard for anyone else’s loss (but was there a loss – if not, why did he get them “free of other interests”? I don’t believe it’s “if any”. And there’s no way he doesn’t know what’s what.
    Let’s say all the players pretended (on one hand) that the loans were transferred to the trusts and for a season, the MBS investors got their payments, but then some triggering event occurred (got me) and the pool was 86’d (and I’m no auth on that and those who may – key word – know here won’t spill it – yawn). Doesn’t that mean the MBS investors, one way or another, are out of the picture? If so, if the bond holders are satisfied (?) or at least gone, the bankster who really didn’t deliver the loans now owns them free of the trust or anyone’s interests although he’s already been paid, right? If that’s how it went down in ResCap’s bk, then the bk estate sold loans( that were already paid for) to Buffet’s co. and those loans were “booty”. Not supposed to be able to collect on debt where fraud, illegality, or immorality was involved, once again making the UCC not the bomb or at least certainly not the only consideration for enforcement of notes.
    I don’t know what the UCC, if applicable, would say if a secured party (secured because it paid) abandoned its security interest. Does that retire a note because the trust’s payment is now just that – the kind of payment that retires a note? If not, the UCC supports double recovery.

  86. Now that is what I call cooperation MS! Good Man! Use MSs example below and you have the answer as to why they wont provide me with a Payoff and why they can not accept payoff for Title.

    They say .. Hell has no Fury like a woman scorn.

    KC says … especially when she holds the fire to your Grr.ass,

  87. Discovery

    Analysis includes request for production and preservation that includes dual tracking, following the cash flows into settlement accounts and identifying capital wires rerouted off shore.

    Testimony includes forensic examinations offering essential case related knowledge regarding the area of , GAAP / IFRS reporting and auditors’ malpractice.

    I have published on such topics as financial reporting and new GAAP developments, forensic examinations and auditing, and accountant and auditor liability. Our experience includes having testified 25 times on topics such as auditor malpractice, GAAP financial reporting and bond holder financial analysis.

    The mortgage lender is the co-registrant and FDIC member bank as bond issuer who is the seller and is one in the same with the bond holders.

    The breech of trust is by the bond holder who pledged its equitable interest in title transferred to itself .

    The registrant and issuer is therefor the member bank as transferee who is obligated for the borrowers wire rerouted from settlement used for securing a return of the investment capital. used in the formation of the bonds in question.

    A bond issuer is accountable for borrowing funds from the household promulgating a real and serious threat to major U.S. banks financial landscape in the event of an economic collapse.

    That collapse occurred in the fall of 2008 culminating with the October 2008 congressional enactment of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act that was passed under TARP.

    The capital investment used to fund the depositors accounts, sold earlier to foreign national banks, includes pledged deposits held in offshore accounts.

    Claims and allegations assert the bond holder investments purportedly held in collateralize offshore accounts were used to create the private placement registration.

    The purpose was to issue member bank common stock at mark to market values.

    The bank wire is the lenders obligation used to settle the borrower escrow owed by the bond issuer, transferred into instant net-worth equal to the appraised value of the consumers home.

    The value of the wire is transferred into the depositors accounts that is held the member banks obligations owed for the federal ABA wire.

    It is the wire used to capitalize bond holder investments in CDO’s that leveraged the households demand for payoff at some future date

  88. Master Servicer ,

    Do you have a checklist of what should be demanded in discovery?

  89. Quickie Q!! – Peoples that have done this before I – I am open to LAY OPINIONS.
    Mediation – no discussions etc. had in mediation can be used in court proceedings. PERIOD.

    – I am weary of speaking at all about the case in the soon to be had tele conference in which they stated we will discuss.
    ….maybe they are realizing I am slowly breaking ground and gaining traction. Lots of activity lately surrounding the case.
    My tin foil hat says this:
    – tricks of trade might arise out of mediation chit chat – I will not be a part of a conversation that would potentially disallow me from bring the matter into court. …
    – I have a gut feeling they will ask for the THIRD adjourned hearing on msj
    -is it for time to build their case,
    …or to actually make a mod – ….I’m not dumb.
    ….I do not want to take up the view of ” trying to milk out another free month”
    – I want to DENY adjournment and demand the msj be heard
    – Same time, I don’t care to close the coffin more quickly than I have to.

    What are the pros on their part to prolong mediation- I am pretty sure NO mod is doable,very quite certain.
    Is it the simplicity of building their defense, gathering more info to be granted their MSJ?
    That’s all I can think of.
    Why do mediation when your at trial?
    Are they just trying to keep me from defeating MSJ? Sounds likely.

  90. Oh My! When are you two going to Behave? You are Both Right!

    Welcome Back Christine!


    This website is the biggest waste of time. While people whine and repeat over and over and over the same, idiotic theories that do NOT allow them to win their cases (provided, of course, that they filed anything… and that they didn’t screw up their own cases so badly that they could not, under circumstance, win anything just as a matter of fact and common sense), the rest of the world is taking serious action and getting things moving.

    And, as usual, MS is practicing his feel-good-just-by-myself intellectual and emotional masturbation… Sorry sight indeed.

  92. Just stop all foreclosures. So very simple !

  93. Our entire team stands ready to assist small institutions achieve parity and restitution.


  94. Leave a Reply

    – CORRECTION – Federal Judge on BEHALF of a trustee and the court as well as three other US BANKRUPTCY Trustees.

  95. Dear Clients

    The mortgage is amortized while the bond accreted from a zero balance.

    For example :

    $160,000 X 5% =8,000
    $8,000 X 20 years = 160,000
    Liens of record + Discounted Bond = $320,000
    Liens of record + Discounted Bond + Common Stock = $ 480,000.
    Liens of record + Discounted Bond + Common Stock + Preferred Shares = $ 1.6 Million

    The consideration secured by the
    title to the real property = $2,080,000

    Mers Corp allows for the subject title to exchange out for another $160,000 mortgage for collateralizing the + $2.0 million balance outstanding. This all came to a end in 2008 with the TARP Charge Off. The analysis available shows the bond traders tracking a bond whereby the figures equal amount in excess of the note totaling $160,300. My per diem calculations discounted the loan downward to $160,000 by adjusting down the per deim 5 days.

    [Recall Mortgages 365 / Bonds 360]

    I don’t know what your background is but you need to get a CPA involved here – not an attorney . Your making a mistake with a mortgage lender or Mers Corp argument as the successor and assignee is a damn simple collections law firm for order for entry of judgement and writ of attachment under the FDCPA.


    Your a good guy headed toward the U Haul and storage like so many others . I have had a Federal Judge and three US Trustees hire counsel to defend themselves under the statue of limitations for fraud .So my Doubting Thomas ….do you want to see the US Prosecutors email to me making a ridiculous counter claim challenging my own trading my background ?

    The NY State and other Superior Court Judges do not need to be educated as they know what I am talking about … and they too may be a little nervous of this whole thing potentially coming unraveled ..with this type of demurrer to a conventional foreclosure

    I can gave you my excel analysis for production and preservation regarding discovery. This I would do ASAP

  96. Ok, Its been fun kiddos, but today is my 32nd Wedding Anniversary… and last week I set my clock back to when I was 28. I’ve still Got It! Lets just Pray I don’t Break It. 🙂

    Many Blessings to All!

  97. RE: ” MERS has no effect if the collateral holder enforced his rights ”

    KC: his rights????

    A. His
    B. Hers
    C. Theirs
    D. It
    E All of the above
    F. U.


  98. “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
    Nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

    – Dr. Suess

  99. ……….they meant no harm, they truly did not….but they had to grow bigger, and bigger they got…………


    That is all we are missing. Changing our ways. And doing it together. Everyone has excuses, some are warranted, some are plain lazy.
    ~united we need to stand, that is ALL we need.

  100. I cant top the previous comment by MS .. but this brings a Smile to My Face.

  101. MERS is basically illegal
    MS – No its not -for over 30 years

    and throws property law out the window of every county in the U.S. where title records are recorded.
    MS- Not under the Treas Reg 1.1031 exchanges

    It was a necessary evil to facilitate the even greater evil of securitization.
    MS- not securitization ; its called bond holders capitalization

    Securitization destroys our property rights.
    MS – no its for enforcing your rights if your making the right counter claims for salvage and demand for subrogation rights

    Property rights being one of the main reasons this country was founded and the Constitution was mandated.
    MS – correct , they took the land and sold it back to you under an installment sale contract

    MERS needs to go, and we, the people, need to get our titles back clean and clear.
    MS – True , MERS has no effect if the collateral holder enforced his rights with proper claims supported by the correct discovery

    Wow, would that make the economy boom. While we are at it, get rid of the Federal Reserve as well.

  102. MERS is basically illegal and throws property law out the window of every county in the U.S. where title records are recorded. It was a necessary evil to facilitate the even greater evil of securitization. Securitization destroys our property rights. Property rights being one of the main reasons this country was founded and the Constitution was mandated. MERS needs to go, and we, the people, need to get our titles back clean and clear. Wow, would that make the economy boom. While we are at it, get rid of the Federal Reserve as well.

  103. New Lie’s US BANK

  104. Thank You for the 2nd opinion MS! With two confirmed Expert opinions … I couldn’t go wrong. I filed two weeks ago. No response as of this date.

  105. KC File it – you will not regret it ……Judge in court last week called the standard arguments to date acrobats and garbled hear se .

    You must be detailed and specific

  106. The purpose of the experts anlaysis and investigation is to address and attack the financial fraud that remains elusive and often complex. Federal investigators acknowledge these types of criminal acts are hard to prove and very time-consuming. For this reason many prosecutors shy away from them as not cost effective, given that white-collar sentencing is routinely not worth the investment
    These matters concern certain related mortgage backed securities deemed general ledger fraud that only accountants trained in forensic analysis can adequately prosecute. One US Prosecutor for the JP Morgan Chase matter asserts “…[we] welcomed IRS agents and their loads of Byzantine evidence with open arms.” The prosecutors continued , “If we don’t do them, nobody will,” he said in a recent interview.
    The typical household litigant and local web page counsel does not have the resources, sophisticated equipment, specially trained investigators, and under standing for national jurisdiction. Therefore the analysis provided by expert , in his investigation and best efforts evaluation, must focus on the most mundane common place and simplest explanation for the court hearing arguments in a complex civil matter.
    The alleged violations include Generally Accepted Accounting Principals under GAAP such as FAS 140, codified SFAS 140-3, revised ASC 310,320 380 and Securities and Exchange Commission SEC 1122AB. In such an engagement are certain ledger evaluations based on empirical analysis and to that extent, case law governing trust and securities violations. The arguments are for claims perpetrated by the issuers and holders in a criminal atmosphere of conspiracy , collusion and by a misjoinder of parties.
    This examination is intended to examine and uncover all fraudulent business practices and foreclosure procedures that follow a M&A stepped accounting procedure. These tact taken by bankers hidden behind third party originators conclusivly resulted in a windfall of unlawful mergers and acquisitions . The problem is the M&A startegy is a wrongful mixture of homeowners land and title confiscated to collateralize the merger financing. These private placement memorandums are discovery that demonstrates how the registration of equitable shares issued in the name of the homeowner is hidden from view.
    The causes of action are obvious upon their discovery and otherwise absent from a lawful recovery. This necessitates an early request for production and preservation issued by the forelcosure vicitim just prior to filing.
    Every mortgage was charged off and written down to a nominal value . This cannot be left from the pleading. Foreclosure is a matter of waiting out a certain servicing term “black hole” necessary to allow a vagrant lender attorney to reconstitute value under the FDCPA.
    As for the “lost note” , the instrument is obviously lost to a charge off and cannot be admitted into a court of law . The deed or mortgage is the save-all under a bizarre recent acccounting manuever that establihes the yield as a notional value that substitutes out the note
    Manipulation of the foreclosures timing is necessary to reconstitute
    The title holder is lost to the fee simple estate barring a right of repurchase. Title holders unaware of the right to a REPO contract are left from subrogating and salvage as compared to arguing a conventional foreclosure. The notion of bank FDCPA recapture by secretive reconstitution requires the household to take a closer look at (1) the time payments ceased, (2) timing of the default and (3) years of credit he is due back for payments made during the false and wrongful foreclosure recovery.
    Key Essential Formulas:
    (Settlement Date – Charge off ) X 2 = Reconstitution
    Reconstitution -180 days = IRC 1.1031 Exchange
    ABA Wire – Existing Liens = Subordinate Loan (2nd Mtg)
    Mortgage – Existing Liens / 5 = Ann Debt Service
    Wire + Net Lender Cost= Basis in assets )
    This assignment is under a expert witnesses fee based engagement and shall include the foreclosure victims entire request for performing all necessary investigations and quintessential summary analysis. The final auditors report shall be submitted in a form making it eligible as expert testimony and this engagement includes the cost of testifying in New York State Supreme Court.
    Accountanting Experts

  107. MBS Instrument issued by New York common law trust that was never funded, and has no assets or expectation of same

    MBS Instrument was issued by NY common law trust on a tranche that appeared safe but was tied by CDS to the most toxic tranche.

    Insurance paid to investment bank instead of investors

    Credit default swap proceeds paid to investment banks instead of investors

    Guarantees paid to investment banks after they have drained all value through excessive fees charged against the investor and the borrowers on loans

    Tier 2 Yield Spread Premiums of as much as 50% of the investment amount.

    Look , I did this for a living for a long time. I got out to help the people who now attack my factual based analysis or discount what I am saying …not selling !


  108. Leave a Reply

Contribute to the discussion!