Deny Everything: It’s All a Lie Anyway

It is hard to wrap your brain around the profound tragedy of greed defining a whole generation, of brilliant minds figuring out ways to take control of all the mediums of exchange. Who would have believed it? Who believes it now? But I was there. I attended meetings in the early 1970’s that laid the foundation for what would be one banking crisis after another as the Wall Street titans plotted to take everything from us — what little wealth we had, what dignity we had left, what lower we had through voting by buying the levers of power, and understanding they could control the consequences.

Yes, deny everything because from the start the mortgage meltdown was nothing more than elaborate fraud on the citizens of the world, the banking and commerce systems that were bringing us together. Now these ruthless sociopathic titans have cornered the supply of money and further seek to corner the markets in natural resources. To what end? They don’t even know. They just want more.

Your note and mortgage were part of a fraudulent scheme designed to defraud investors and government agencies, sovereign wealth funds, thousands if community banks and credit unions eliminating even the illusion of a free market place where everyone had a fair opportunity to grow. Your mortgage and note were evidence of fictitious transactions, as were the initial investments of pension funds and other investors. More fictitious transactions hid the reality while ideological rants reminded us that we should pay our debts but failed to remind us that committing fraudulent acts deserve restitution not rewards.

Follow the money all the way through and you will find the monetary transactions that never match up with the mountain of fabricated, forged paper trails. Follow the money trail and the rush to foreclosure makes perfect sense — that the lowest proceeds from foreclosure were necessary to perfect the PONZI scheme.; how a performing loan is a liability and how a foreclosure puts a lid on trillions of dollars in liability for the intermediaries that made themselves principals in transactions that were simply loans from groups of investors to the borrower.

See how the loans were paid in full at the time of origination or acquisition and how MERS was only a necessary tool to hide fictitious trades to account for the money stolen from pension funds, investors, borrowers government guarantors and of course the most vulnerable — the buyers.

Do it through discovery and ask the right questions, demand the right documents in the money trial and compare them with the pile of worthless paper reciting transactions that never occurred. Deny the debt, deny the note, deny the mortgage, deny the assignments, deny the balance they say is necessary to bring the loan current, while investors lose trillions and the proceeds of most payments never went to investors or borrowers but to the intermediaries, the conduits of these pernicious transactions. Follow the Servicer advances and see where that takes you and compare it to the demand for funds from the borrower who owed far less, if anything, to the creditor who was being defrauded by the Wall Street titans.

Not all loans are the same, but most of them followed the same general patterns of conduct. If you are persistent I discovering the truth, it is there to be found. And any good trial lawyer will reveal that truth. Deny everything and make them prove the loan. They can’t. .

53 Responses

  1. @Christine Where are your case citations regarding your win at the appellate level?

  2. justme, on November 28, 2013 at 9:41 am said:

    I’m not an attorney but I do know that each state and actually each court (and the Appellate Court has their own rules too) has it’s own set of rules you have to go by them. My advice is to go to MDFraud’s legal lounge, look up other cases tried in your area and read the pleadings and see how they did it. It’s time consuming for sure… but whereas you may be up against a newbie lawyer, they will have the benefit of a seasoned lawyer to help them and that seasoned lawyer has seen 100’s of you come and go and you can just as quickly lose on a technicality of procedure as you can with an improper pleading style. YOUR court has a published rule book… you should get it and your state has a published set of court rules book, you should get it too and read them both. I know of no shortcuts here. Sorry.

  3. @justme the Notes in blank form are hold by Ginnie Mae in every case when a loan is pooled with Ginnie. I got a letter from there legal team as to how the Notes are held, that was written in early 2010 before everybody was catching on. Also I got a letter from Wells Fargo admitting it but you can find it also in the regulations as to how this goes down.

    But because it would be impossible for Ginnie Mae to physically pick up these blank Notes and you risk that fact that in the name of anybody a blank Note does belong to the possessor. So what happens is that the lender is made the custodian of records so that there is an actual physical exchange as the custodian is not the holder for itself but for Ginnie Mae.

    I believe the government know that they are caught but are working on a solution because it is what it is, as each loan in the $1.1 trillion securities got a problem. Remember part of UCC 9 is the holder has the burden of proof they purchase the debt.

    Remember a Note is only a document of debt and if you can prove there is a debt owe the Note is no longer a legal instrument. So you hold a Note that not got a debt, how is it possible to place a lien against the security? You cannot because your not owed a dime!

  4. Good for you, Poppy—and you are right…every case is different…no matter what snot-nose says.

  5. @John R, I HAVE been lacking on keeping up with what is going on. I do not really venture off to media sites and whatnot to keep on top of what is going on. With the attorney getting paid, I know how it works and I also happen to believe the attorney working my case is not who is was assigned to. They put a newby right out of school on my case, after my answer & cc a more seasoned attorney had to start in but she is still lead. Even though they get paid hourly, I am guessing whatever amount of work they will get paid for, 1. will not be the most familiar area and they will really have to study up on securities fraud/etc, 2. Kinda worthless from the start when the previous owners still owned the property because the closing agents messed up and the bank from the previous owners verified they own the property.- Why even go down that road from the start when it all was done when they held no valid title or interest in the property.- But then again, indeed, why not claim a few good billing hours in there?
    WI STAT; 409.318  No interest retained in right to payment that is sold; rights and title of seller of account or chattel paper with respect to creditors and purchasers.
    (1)  Seller retains no interest. A debtor that has sold an account, chattel paper, payment intangible, or promissory note does not retain a legal or equitable interest in the collateral sold.

    I was going to say, Ginnie does not have actual possession of the note,they never do unless they get the notes from a defunct issuer and keep them as TBAs. The Doc custodians have the instruments, in any instance releasing them to the issuer/forecloser. Note in blank becomes payable to he HOLDER, plaintiffs favorite line. They are hitting that HARD. Problem is, they filed the note a few times as true- and it was NOT a copy with the blank endorsement on it. By all means, please produce the HUD-11708! Let’s see when that puppy was released ….bucks to bet it was AFTER they filed suit. More then that – I do not think they have it. If they do- The Doc custodian really did a shit job not verifying the documents were correct. And the 11711A! I have filed a bank copy allowing for the Judge to see the writing on the wall.
    I have played on UCC 9 as well.I am just pulling on bad memory here, but if you have a bifurcated note & mortgage that becomes non negotiable, the UCC does not apply. Correct? Incorrect? Coffee is not circulating yet…. I am not admitting I owe anybody. What I do admit- is I need some fricken pointers here as to when you find new things out….

    ~~~~~~~~~TO ALL:
    HOW DO YOU INTRODUCE IT! Does everything you want to accuse them of have to be in your counterclaims? EX: can you throw a RESPA violation into a pleading when you find the existence of it, which you were not aware of before? Same with anything, new documents, whatever…..motion to amend counter claims? It’s been wayyyy too long for that. I have asked this like 5 times dammit someone answer please. (awaiting MSJ, is where I am) HAPPY TURKEY DAY! GOBBLE GOBBLE!

  6. @justme, it seem to me that when we go down the road that you owe someone, then who is that you owe? I think if I am arguing and we know for a fact that your loan was in a pool, then how the loan got into the pool is a standard procedure for GNMA pooling. The Note must be sign endorsed in blank and at the point the Note is relinquished without being purchase, the subject turns to who owns the debt and in all cases it not the holder Ginnie Mae.

    So no one id behind on a payment when not payment is due, as Ginnie Mae is not a lender and by law cannot except payments as they are not a lender and did not purchase the debt. There was an arrangement is between lender and investors that was post origination that they would relinquish the loan in order to participate in selling securities and would draw on the securities for funds. Now this did not act as a sale because the investor (Federal Reserve Bank) were not buying mortgages but the 100% federal guaranteed MBS.

    The Lenders risk is being caught with a title that got a a blank endorsement if requested to present the Note to the court, and that loan been placed into a Ginnie Mae pool. As the standard procedures tell you that the two are using the process of UCC 3 and is even more with the signing of the HUD11711A signing to cover Ginnie Mae in the event of financial trouble by the bank, but the problem that is the pink elephant in the room is UCC 9. Where the sale!

    You cannot simply toss around a blank Note and once the Note has been separated from the Note there is no way possible to even reunite them, because Ginnie Mae who is in physical possession did not purchase it.

    So your in court admitting you owe somebody and you did not pay why? And we expect to win these type of case? However what I am saying is if we owe somebody then they need to petition the court that a debt is due, but whether we owe bank A and bank Z is in court claiming a debt owed….where is the receipt? And if bank A is claiming the original term of the contract due but there been a blank endorsement signed and the loans been pooled, the burden is on then how legally that transaction occurred, and not that we as borrowers owe a non financially interested party!

  7. justme, on November 26, 2013 at 9:42 am said: nothing specific but your tone, to me, sounds as one of we’re losing… there’s been a whole bunch of wins. Check out and scroll down the list on the left… it is the best collection of fraudlosure related cases that I know of on the net. And remember, there’s been a bunch of wins that aren’t allowed to be shown to the public. These are just the ones that are. BTW… this IS caselaw.

  8. davies910, on November 26, 2013 at 2:58 pm said:


    Was just wondering if you could post your source on this piece. thanks! JohnR

  9. Oh what a Tangled Web thee Weaved.

    Explore Explore Explore
    Brick Walls at Every Door …
    No Way Out! No Way Out! Thee Sit & Pout!
    No Way Out! No Way Out! Yee Sit & Pout!

    Round and Round We Go …
    Brick Walls at Every Door …
    Once it goes In … It doesn’t come Out!

    Just admit it .. Admit It!
    You cant take it with you when you Go ..
    Just Make Sure It Stays with the Family Flow…

    Irrevocable it be … and you can not make yourself beneficiary.

    Bankrupt Remote it is .. No Creditors can Touch …


  11. justme, on November 27, 2013 at 12:06 pm said:

    said ” I am sure you don’t want to dive into all this…..unless you are schooled on all this securitization crap and want to dive into the loan being pooled, for how much, where it is at, the rules for that, who handles the payments to the investors, where are the certificates etc etc etc…..why not just speak with your client and give me my house, eh?”

    Your question above shows your absence of knowledge about how these attorneys get paid… they charge by billing “time” against these cases. In other words they would rather… talk to you on the phone for housr AND do all the legwork and paperwork against you AND run through modifications that have absolutely no chance of being accepted… because they charge by the hours the have to screw with your case and to an attorney… mo billable hours = a good thing.

  12. neidermeyer to answer the question about NY Trusts… in the Pooling and Servicing Agreements of these trusts there is a section that reads something like…. “all parties to this agrem=ement agree to be held to the Laws of the State of NY (sometimes Delaware). You see each state has it’s own Trust Laws and since most of these trusts were created in NY, then they have to follow NY Trust law, not YOUR State’s trust laws! This is important befcuse the judge presiding over your case, unless you are in NY, most likely doesn’t know 1. that the trust is to be governed by NY Trust Law and 2. New York Trust Law! He know’s YOUR state’s trust law…. but that don’t count! Study up from the foreclosure sites about NY Trust Law and you’ll find out why… it’s important.

  13. christine,
    Thanks for the great advise, I agree completely.

  14. This is what makes me such a tool. I have all this info and do not know what to do with it! Hell if I’ve found any attorney that wants get paid just to advise me how to make it effective.
    Personally- I would like to talk to the attorney for the servicer- say, hey, you know what, I am sure you don’t want to dive into all this…..unless you are schooled on all this securitization crap and want to dive into the loan being pooled, for how much, where it is at, the rules for that, who handles the payments to the investors, where are the certificates etc etc etc…..why not just speak with your client and give me my house, eh?
    What are your thoughts on that? The firms are bogged down, they do not want to have to get into all the nitty gritty, but I do, and I will, so…

  15. Christine
    I UNDERSTAND what you went through to get there,
    emotion here is JAZZED

  16. Christine,
    I have emailed you and looking for my boxing gloves. Thank You Jaime Congrads again

  17. “Holders of Ginnie Maes (such as the Trusts) have no security interest in or lien on the underlying mortgages.”

    !!!!!!!!!!!!! HOT DAWG I LOVE SAYING THAT !!!!!!!

  18. Charles, I do not think (this is all thought, not fact!) they are “hiding” the pools per say, they are hard to find because many were pooled initially by the actual servicers, then those pools were combined again into a huge “GNNMAII JUMBO” that resulted in a multiple issuer pool where the pool number turns from say ‘0001234’ into ‘0001234MSF’ and the issuer ID goes to GNMA as issuer for the jumbo pool. GNMA on sec/edgar is not as near as expansive as many of the others but the problem is the prospectus showing the first issuer are not identified, if the prospectus is in there at all, and I have yet to find anything useful on sec/edgar.More like a giant report of who holds what and none of it goes down to loan level or original issuer to find if your loan is in there.A certificate amount with face value and maturity date is about all you have to go on which is squat. Schedules, blanket bonds,..nothing useful.When they merged with blackrock in dec 05 it went nuts.They retained NO ASSETS AT ALL. In 2008 gnma “ceased to be an investment company” along with almost all the trust/fund named registrants under it, they liquidated and deregistered. Most assets/holdings flopped over to blackrock.. shareholders of GNMA were given their shares through liquidation and GNMA started the whole “guaranteeing” junk and not “buying or investing”. I can’t tell you this is flat out what happened it’s just what I read-on the internet- which is S0o0o reliable….. wink wink. That leads me to believe ALL loans pooled/made prior to at least 08 that were gnma are LIQUIDATED! Kaaaput! If you look up the N-8F/A’s you can find the merger and orders etc. But – this was NOT FOR GREITS!! I do not think anyways….from what I can tell most pools became modified pass through pools converted into the greits- the jumbo pools- min is 7 million. ((((this last paragraph might be really assbackwards so you’d have to really look it up, I was speed reading through sec crap and read this – google gnma and blackrock or something?))))))

    “Ginnie Maes are backed by the aggregate indebtedness secured by the underlying FHA-insured, FMHA-insured or VA-guaranteed mortgages and,except to the extent of funds received by the issuers on account of such mortgages, Ginnie Maes do not constitute a liability of nor evidence any recourse against such issuers, but recourse thereon is solely against GNMA. Holders of Ginnie Maes (such as the Trusts) have no security interest in or lien on the underlying mortgages.”

    …like that last sentence there? ..I sure as hell do.
    go to the very bottom and scroll up to “rick factors”

    You know what pisses me off? The interest rates – the issuers place the loans in anywhere from 0- 2 %tops, I think, somewhere around there- its different for different pools, OVER what your actual interest rate is- that is where the issuer servicing, GNMA – all the “fees” – they come from entering your loan a tid bit below the interest rate to collect and distribute the rest as their dam fees. I am going way off here and need to go. – oh=- loan level – if you can get your CUSIP or pool bnumber tool about in gnma mbs disclosure data. It’s all there and more. MOST the time. Also dig round in entp neighborhood watch. Numbers are never right because if the servicers want to maintain their good standing to get incentive funds for making modifications and what not they need to keep certain ratios between their default loans, not modified, modified, etc.
    Charles, that will go right down to the exact number of HAMP loans, loans, non hamp mod loans, loans in Pre-foreclosure, 30/60/serious delinquent IN YOUR CITY, IN YOUR STATE. Great tool.
    I still do not know HOW to put this all together..I mean i do…but I am in a pre msj and need help in ‘the construction’ of how when you find new crap you introduce it. I anyone can point me in a direction with that (WI) awesomeous. Find new evidence, they didnt have the note- the pooled it late etc etc – can you just throw that in there?? Do you have to ask to enter additional evidence? Can you just throw it in there as ” submission of new evidence” ? monday opposing was not even there it was by tele and the Judge did not want to see nothing, he wanted to give me time to see the mod and accept it. I got it today. It says nothing ,more or less -than ‘your behind, this is your payment, pay it 3 installments to show good faith’ standard sign and return.You must comply with this schedule or it will result in a termination, dah dah dah. NOthing more. Is that IT? OHY!
    Happy early TURKEY DAY ALL! I’m lovin everyone’s posts! They have been really ‘connected’. It’s nice to see the love lol!
    Now go make sure you find your xxl trousers for tomorrow!

  19. Way to Go Christine! RESPA, TILA and REG Z Kick Ass!

    Hip Hip Hooray to Davies! Right on Target! Unmarketable Titles!

    In my case …. ” It cant come back no more… no more.. no more”! KEPT AT BAY
    That is why BAC and BOANA tried to get FC under CWHL 08 FRAUD SUIT
    …. the kicker… none of the buttwipes are in the mortgage or note as lender.


    KC in in Quiet Time thinking out loud to much.

  20. FYI here:

    I won a settlement with “deny”…BOA, they had to pay all of the arrears (3 years worth) and pay my lawyer, which by the way, was the only time I used one and handed him “all” the information…every case is different.

    The information herein does not apply to all. Just saying…

  21. Justme , Thanks for the info ..

    Christine , BRAVO! and congrats ..

    UKG & Eggs , right as always … judges are complicit.

    Charles Reed , RIGHT ON THE MONEY

    “what we had on the table right now in full sight is that these MBS don’t purchase these loans. So if the loans are not purchase yet the Notes in a blank form are transfer to another is legal but what not legal is that entity can act under the Note because they don’t possess the authority to act as a bank.

    In the ruling yesterday in Mass. Fannie Mae v. Carvalho and the Note hit the nail on the head that Fannie Mae (GSE) are not a National Bank so they cannot claim provisions of banking laws.”

  22. 4closed,

    Thank you so very much.

    I have been battling for years against bad advice many people followed and lost everything as a result of; spending hours finding attorneys for people everywhere I could so that they woudln’t fall prey to bad advice; trying my darn best to educate. Maybe now, I’ll have enough credibility to stop them from diving into the deep end and drowning but those who listen to bad advice from people who never fought still won’t have a prayer.

    I posted my e-mail. You’re welcome to contact me. I’ll tell you what I know. I’ll tell you what I don’t know. It will be on the up-and-up. Everything I advocate, I did. It’s still not yet a home run. Do you have 3 or 4 years of fight in you? Contact me if you do.

  23. UKG,
    I totally agree–the judges are complicit. Trespass Unwanted said it really well the other day, something to the effect that these issues have been presented to the courts in a myriad of ways and the judges know this shit isn’t happening in a vacuum, and that because of those things, the judges can suss out what’s really going on. There is more than enough evidence just in the public domain for judges to know what’s going on. This idea that somehow judges just aren’t hip to the fraud because they just don’t know enough about it is ludicrous and inexcusable.

    And again, there are many fine attorneys across the country who know how to prosecute a case, know what arguments to use, know about motion practice, etc. And they routinely lose when they should clearly win. How many times have we read blogs from attorneys and seen court transcripts where the judges are helping the bank attorneys along, giving them extensions of time and so forth. The problem is not the attorneys or the pro se litigants. The problem is definitely the judges, with so few exceptions that there might as well not be exceptions.

  24. UKG,

    Call me anytime. If I don’t P/U, leave a message.

  25. Christine,
    So glad to hear the great news….happy happy happy, made my day!
    Have a great holiday 🙂

  26. Christine, we’ll talk tomorrow. Thanks Brian Davies, enjoyed the read. Very enlightening.
    But I am truly puzzled that the day before yesterday the “judges were impartial because”
    Today we acknowledge that the legal profession has become nothing more than government sanctioned racketeering. It’s all a lie!
    And these so-called “officers of the court” have successfully bullied and lied their way to stealing 6 or 7 million homes?
    Blame the judge? Don’t blame the judge? Huh?
    The judges are the problem now. They are complicit. There’s no other explanation for the willful blindness they confer to the bar members on the other side of the law.

  27. @justme my question is exactly how you found that information, but like you I can find others but cannot find mine, but I believe that because they are hiding the Washington Mutual Bank pools as Wells Fargo is exchanged as the issuer without a purchase being conducted. I feel that at the time Wells Fargo took over as the mortgage servicer the FDIC felt the bank was going to fail in 2006.

    However what is interesting is you said you could see who received a HAMP modification, but we know from the stats that during 2009-2010 that 50,000 VA borrowers did not get modification which should have been 100% of the VA request a HAMP could not mod, and VA HAMP supposed to start on Feb 1, 2010 was put off at least by Wells Fargo until Aug 8, 2010.

    But my point is that the same reason that these loan could not be modified, the same applies to a government insured loan that was not in any trouble and simply just wanted to refinance is impossible (but is done always), as the loans cannot transfer out of the pools as the holder of the blank Notes until the end of time, as the Note don’t have Ginnie Mae listed on the face of that document, and no proof of purchase. So you cannot re-endorse the Notes because it does not tell the story of where the Notes has been (who pay who what).

    I am interested as to when these HAMP mod where to be conducted if they were after 2010. But as Ginnie Mae cannot originate, but or sell they also cannot modify loans as they don’t own the debt!

  28. And I will post that again and again and again, until LL comes up with actual wins on Garfield’s theories so many people jumped on but understand next to jack about and end up losing everything on.

    Information is great. Misinformation is acceptable to a point in this world based on lies: honest mistake, right? Disinformation is criminal.

    Pick your criminal. He’s the one who made money out of your losing yours and getting nothing in return.

    “Deny Everything: It’s All a Lie Anyway”

    Wrong and dangerous. Show us that this strategy works. Show us the wins a la Garfield. Real wins.

    There are much better strategies that work. I won my appeal using none of those securitization, MERS, no-money-loaned, pretender-lender, violation of Sherman anti-trust and what-not theories serious attorneys won’t even touch. If Tnharry, Jan Van Eck and Breidenbach no longer post, there is a good reason.

    Now for me, it’s on to the negotiating table. And it won’t be for a lousy modification. No BK involved and still living in the house with no payment for 3 years.

    Pick your gurus. Don’t cry over the results.

  29. Eggs,

    write me at

  30. Congratulations, christine! Can we get a case cite so we can look it up on PACER?

  31. entp. hud. gov ~can be a decent place to tool around and find thingers.

  32. neidermeyer – This is what I have read and cannot verify it at all, but I’ll take a stab 🙂 My prospectus – I do not even know where it came from really. I was sent it from a kind soul and it specifically states the securities are exempt from registration requirements per 1933 etc etc etc…..GNMA. The CUSIP, I think they function like a loan ticket, “pre-selling” the notes. Most loan level info is available down to the number of loans in each state, what purpose loan they are,how many have been repurchased or modified via private/HAMP etc. even average credit scores, loan amounts, etc. You just need to know where to dig. I can easily say I have spent over 500 hours alone just digging, I have found other peoples loans, not mine. I have as well NEVER found and “trust”. Want to know who I am?? This is who I am: GNMAII POOL #003774 SER 2035 5.5% DUE 10-20-2035 REG CUSIP: 3******P9. This is who I am. And one more. My loan was pooled once, then put into a multiple issuer pool. As far as I have not found, it was never repurchased, removed etc then again at full amount a few years later repooled with a whole new CUSIP and different pooI. I actually keep an eye on my
    GNMA II GTD PASS THRU CTF MULTIPLE ISSUE whatever on finra. I have come so far so to even find the Master custodian agreement. The note info is not there because the document custodians do not have to report that anywhere to be public. Again, this is my belief how this crap works, or a rough thinking, but the Depository has the book entry info, – those “pink slips” which are HARD to find if at all if you are not buying them, the CTPA has the fund “flow” the DC just verifies correct paperwork and does a really shitty job..OR the issuer is a self holder and you don’t find natta because they pooled an imaginary figment of your note. The only way I can see a PSA ‘making’ a trust is by allowing for the registration of the securities? I could be wrong, but I am fairly sure i have no trust. Nor trustee. JPM is/was my CPTA. FedREs BoNY depository. I have all these pool numbers, cusips, all they have led me to is actual investors and ‘schedule of Assets Held for Investment Purposes’ Which is kind of fun. Monsanto, some nuclear decommissioning thing, prudential something, a bunch of others.Maybe some just do not have a trust? My theory`ish-ness anyways….

  33. Let’s push further,

    I WON MY APPEAL in Federal Court. Without any of Garfield’s theories.

    And none of the bloggers here had anything to do with it. Actually… Tnharry, Breidenbach, Jan Van Eck will relate: it was strong, sensical, rule-of-law lawyering. No exotic theory such as pretender-lender, securitization (or lack thereof), I-owe-nothing-insurance-paid-it-all, violation of Sherman anti-trust law, discrimination, MERS or any such thing. Just solid law. Respa, Tila, UCC, Conversion… that kind of stuff.

    Again, pick your guru. Don’t cry about bad advice: that’s all people will get reading and following bloggers here. And Garfield is still very short on wins.

  34. Neil theory on the funding of the loans only matters because he wants to prove that it was done to hide the actual source. I get that but what we had on the table right now in full sight is that these MBS don’t purchase these loans. So if the loans are not purchase yet the Notes in a blank form are transfer to another is legal but what not legal is that entity can act under the Note because they don’t possess the authority to act as a bank.

    In the ruling yesterday in Mass. Fannie Mae v. Carvalho and the Note hit the nail on the head that Fannie Mae (GSE) are not a National Bank so they cannot claim provisions of banking laws.

    Look the Title matters and instead of whoever is handling these matter are going into court, as in this case Wells Fargo claiming that they are holding the Note as the owner of, and are acting under the rule of the court in that fashion. However Wells Fargo is coming into the court with unclean hands committing fraud by duping the court into believing that Wells Fargo is the owner of the Note when in fact it is not.

    There can be no Title if the Note and the debt are not held by the same party at the same time, because one without the other does not exist. So were the money came from initially at this point is unimportant because one the Note and debt split neither one exist in a legal manner because they are not a Note any longer in the meaning of a Note and because you don’t possess the Note, and in the case as Ginnie Mae we know for a fact that ever loan placed into the securities pools must have the Notes signed endorsed in blank and also a HUD11711A also signed, which says that in the event of financial trouble by the issuer that any and all financial interest in the loans are relinquish to Ginnie Mae. Now what Ginnie Mae thinks this “will” does is it cannot assume the debts without having purchased it.

    You have the GSE making the local government think that Federal government has a superior position by law of the matters, however their is no Federal law on foreclosure as it a state control land matter.

    The bottom line is that the GSE are screwed because it coming to light after this long battle that there hand are unclean and they screwed any and every single foreclosure ever done in a loan that was placed into a pool because the debt was separated from the Note and not Title can be valid after the relinquishing of the blank Notes!

  35. From FDCPA:

    Validation of Debts
    A debt collector must provide the consumer with
    certain basic information. If that information was not
    in the initial communication and if the consumer
    has not paid the debt five days after the initial
    communication, all of the following information
    must be sent to the consumer in written form:
    • The amount of the debt
    • The name of the creditor to whom the debt is


    So they have VIOLATED the FDCPA laws. Period.

  36. I guess my problem is that I cannot see how a PSA , prospectus , cusips , SEC approval and all that can exist ,,, and shares are already presold without the trust already existing and the notes deposited…

    To me it’s pretty simple that one cannot sell something “on the come” and have SEC approval. There has to be a defined order that actions must occur in. You don’t just go **BANG** here’s the whole package … “buy it while it’s hot boys”…

    It is also apparent to me that (even if it was allowed) that all (note/loan level) trust info should be available to the certificate investors and all potential investors from a public location ,, not just some server at JPM and that “trust” info must remain available.

    And I can’t see how you create a legal entity with the name of “My MLT Trust 2007” and risk a “collision” when someone down the street creates his “My MLT Trust 2007” and neither registers the name or worse when one is registered and one isn’t.

  37. carie,
    I have no idea, but I would want to give Neil, the benefit of the doubt, or maybe just ask, is it a possibility he has left out a finishing statement or word, or possibly miss spoke? We all make mistakes especially when under stress, or piles of work.
    Give the guy a break, he works very hard.

  38. “Deny Everything: It’s All a Lie Anyway”

    Wrong and dangerous. Show us that this strategy works. Show us the wins a la Garfield. Real wins.

    There are much better strategies that work. I won my appeal using none of those securitization, MERS, no-money-loaned, pretender-lender, violation of Sherman anti-trust and what-not theories serious attorneys won’t even touch. If Tnharry, Jan Van Eck and Breidenbach no longer post, there is a good reason.

    Now for me, it’s on to the negotiating table. And it won’t be for a lousy modification. No BK involved and still living in the house with no payment for 3 years.

    Pick your gurus. Don’t cry over the results.

  39. @ Davies910 or “ALL” ,

    I have often seen reference to a NY “common law” trust ,, I do not know what this means… I take it to mean something along the lines of a “common law” marriage … where no legal “license” is granted by the state and nothing is recorded BUT after a certain time period it is accepted as true and valid despite the defects and lack of substantiating paperwork.

    My question is … we have seen many RMBS securities marketed by the banks .. with PSA’s , cusips assigned and prospectuses distributed and referencing or inferring that a trust has been created.. The PSA certainly contains rules that the trust must follow… but then we can find no evidence of that trust in fact in the corporate name listings or registered in any state or federal database/listing …

    My trust is one such beast , nothing registered in NY or Delaware (or any of the other states) … at one time I actually reserved the name of “my” trust for myself (the reservation has since expired) … It should be noted that all prior iterations of my trust name 2003-xxx 2004-xxx 2005-xxx 2006-xxx etc. etc. were registered in Delaware as corporate name entries with all the usual contact information , I take it that there IS a legal reason for registering the name.

    Mr Davies , how sure are you of the statement that the PSA creates the trust ? I don’t see that , I see it governing the trust , I see it as a companion document but I don’t see how it creates a trust , only how it governs one.

    Anyone with a definitive answer?

    Thanks in advance..

  40. Can someone tell me why Neil writes that the “loans” were UNFUNDED, and then he writes this:

    “…transactions that were simply loans from groups of investors to the borrower…”

    Is he nuts?

  41. davies910,
    I will read, read, and re-read your information, thanks for the education.


    A mortgage securitization is created when a group of [several thousand] mortgages, commercial or residential, are pooled into a security known as a Mortgage Backed Security (MBS). The MBS is sold as a security and is usually traded on the Over the Counter “pink sheet” market. These securities are likewise registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
    The basic economic principles of the secondary mortgage market apply to MBS transactions. The MBS investors, known as trust-certificate-holders, pay the aggregator of the mortgage pool, also known as the “seller”, a premium for the present value of the future cash flow from the mortgage pool. This is commonly known as the “discount”. The seller’s profit comes from the “spread”. The investor’s benefit is receiving stable cash flow from an investment grade security.
    Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit or “REMIC”
    However, RMBS (Residential Mortgage Backed Securities) transactions are different from traditional loan sale transactions in one remarkable way. RMBS transactions are so designed that they are subject to income-tax taxation at the investor level only. REMIC trusts avoid entry-level taxation. The millions of dollars of income generated annually by the thousands of mortgages in the mortgage pool are taxed at the investor-certificate holder level only.
    To accomplish this, the mortgage pool must be set up as a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit or “REMIC”. If the mortgage pool is not set up as a REMIC, the income from the pool could and would be taxed twice by the IRS (and the states), once at the pool level and then again at the certificate-holder level. It is therefore crucial that the REMIC rules governing RMBS trust construction are followed to the letter of the law. REMICs are created as New York common law trusts so that the trust assets are insulated from creditors who may seek to “claw back” trust assets that were transferred from insolvent transferors.
    To achieve REMIC status, the RMBS must meet three specific criteria:
    1) First, the RMBS mortgage pool must be static. Once it is created it cannot accept any new assets into the pool. The assets must be specifically identified and vested in the trust within a statutory [IRC §860(d)] time frame.
    2) Second, the trust must take good title, in its name, to the assets (mortgages and notes) deposited into the trust.
    3) Third, the assets in the trust must be insulated from creditors. This is accomplished with a series of fully documented sales (negotiations) starting from the originator and culminating with a sale from the Depositor to the Trustee on behalf of the Trust. If this series of sales is properly done, the trust assets cannot be reached by creditors in the event the seller/originator of the loans that constitute the corpus of the trust files for bankruptcy. This is called “bankruptcy remoteness”.
    In order for the RMBS transaction to meet all three criteria a trust must be created. The trust creation document is usually referred to as a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”). The PSA is the document that both creates the trust and governs all trust activities. Securitization failure or REMIC failure occurs when the loans intended for the trust fail to be vested within the trust in accordance with the rules set forth in the trust document.
    New York and Delaware law are unique in that these two jurisdictions provide a protective “void” cocoon over the trust to protect the beneficiaries [certificate holders]. The void ab initio of New York and Delaware law operates to exclude from a trust, as a matter of law, those assets that would or could threaten a trust asset’s[s’] tax fee pass through status and/or bankruptcy remote status. California and other states do not have such holdings as any acts there may be voidable or void. It is such confusion that creates odd holdings in states such as California.
    Securitization failure destroys the marketability of title to real property. EPTL §7-2.4 in the context and construction of New York’s trust law as a whole and why it is relevant to foreclosure. Courts must also understand the historical context and application of ultra vires acts of a trustee being null and void ab initio. Without understanding the reason for applying the statute, EPTL §7-2.4 appears to be a draconian rule, with a resulting draconian “remedy” for what appears to be a ministerial error by REMIC trustees and those parties that created and funded the REMIC trusts.
    The failure by the above-mentioned participants to abide by the terms of the REMIC trust is anything but a ministerial error. Ultra vires acts of REMIC trustees result in devolution of title to every deed that was and will be passed in a REMIC foreclosure. The ultimate outcome of these ultra vires acts is that every deed passed pursuant to a REMIC foreclosure is a nullity rendering the transferees of title holding nothing more than a worthless deed; thus the necessity of applying EPTL §7-2.4 in its literal interpretation.
    Several jurisdictions interpret New York Estates Powers and Trust Law Section 7-2.4 in the context of securitization failure. These courts have declared that transfers to the trust that violated the terms of the REMIC Pooling and Servicing Agreements are therefore void ab initio. If the transfers to the respective trusts are void then millions of foreclosures have been and are being prosecuted by parties that have no interest in the underlying note obligations. Likewise, many liens and deeds of trust were, and are now, in the hands of entities that do not possess the right to enforce the equitable remedy of foreclosure.

    Section 7-2.4 states:

    If the trust is expressed in the instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every sale, conveyance or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, except as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is void.

    New York shares the void rather than voidable position with only one other jurisdiction, Delaware. Nearly all REMICs were created under the laws of these two jurisdictions to comply with the Internal Revenue Code REMIC statute’s dual requirement that the REMIC trust insulates the beneficiaries from creditors (bankruptcy remoteness) and that the trusts are “closed”.
    Very often the transfer of the loan to the trust occurred years after the specified “cutoff date” date, if at all. Pursuant to New York and Delaware law the acceptance by the trust in contravention of the terms of the trust is void.
    As a practical matter the transfer date is an evidentiary issue that would require discovery and a determination at a motion for accelerated judgment or trial. All the information pertaining to the factual issue is in the exclusive possession of the foreclosing entity or their predecessors in interest. The public real property record may contain some information relevant to the date of transfer of the loan. However, the record of document transfers between the participants is wholly proprietary to the trustee and the appointed trustee document custodian(s).
    The legal principles and policy considerations of EPTL §7-2.4 date back to ancient common law. EPTL §7-2.4 was born out of those sections of the New York Code that dealt with title to real and personal property owned by a trust. In 1966 the enactment of EPTL §14-1.1 repealed all those laws and were consolidated into one statute, EPTL §7-2.4. The New York Code contained special provisions that stated the common law principal that any person with actual knowledge of the fact that real or personal property was owned by or titled to a trust was charged with constructive knowledge of the terms of the trust.
    These were known colloquially as the “widows and orphans laws”. These laws were written so that an evil, corrupt and mean spirited trustee could not unlawfully sell trust assets to an “innocent” purchaser to the detriment of the trust’s purpose. The converse is also held to apply wherein a trustee exceeds its authority to acquire assets. Any purchaser/seller of assets to or from a trust is charged with having knowledge that the transfer was with the trustee’s powers. In In The Matter of Pepi, 268 A.D.2d 477 (2nd Dept. 2000) the court held:
    Since the appellants had reason to know that the conveyance was made in contravention of the trust, the transaction is void (see, EPTL 7–2.4; see also, National Surety Co. v. Manhattan Mortgage Co., 185 App.Div. 733, 736–737, 174 N.Y.S. 9, affd. 230 N.Y. 545, 130 N.E. 887; Boskowitz v. Held, 15 App.Div. 306, 310–311, 44 N.Y.S. 136, affd. 153 N.Y. 666, 48 N.E. 1104).

    This principle of common law prevented a seller of property to a trust or a purchaser of property from a trust in contravention of the terms of the trust to be able to claim bona fide purchaser status. These principles were recognized in National Surety v. Manhattan Mortgage Co., 185 A.D. 733 (2nd Dept. 1919), Affirmed 230 N.Y. 545 (Ct. App. 1920). In that case, Manhattan Mortgage, the third party defendant, was held liable for the malfeasance of the trustee because it had actual knowledge that the property interest transferred was held in trust. The Court’s decision used common law from other Court of Final Review level decisions to support its reasoning. The Court stated:
    “In Clark v. Whitaker, 19 Conn. 319, (Connecticut Supreme Court, 1889), it was held: ‘Where a party was not personally engaged in the acts of taking possession, using, and disposing of the property in question, but co-operated with the principal actor, by aiding and abetting him in doing those acts, and subsequently recognized and approved of them; he was held to be chargeable with the conversion.’ In Moore v. Eldred, 42 Vt. 13, (Vermont Supreme Court, 1869) it was held that if one, having reason to believe that personal property in the possession of another person has not been lawfully acquired, advises or co-operates with such person to induce him to make a sale of it, he may be held liable directly as for a conversion. In Cone v. Ivinson, 4 Wyo. 230, 35 Pac. 933, (Supreme Court Wyoming, 1894) it is held that one who instigates a conversion is as much a principal as the one performing the act of conversion.’ These authorities are directly in point, because a trustee who wastes the property of an estate, and is guilty of a devastavit, converts that property and may be held liable in an action for conversion. Whether or not, therefore, the defendant may be held to have acted as vendor of a part of the mortgage, or as agent for the guardian in the purchasing of the mortgage interest, or even as merely aiding or abetting in the use of these funds, known by him to be unlawful, it has become liable to the plaintiff for the injuries sustained. The judgment should therefore be reversed, and judgment directed for the plaintiff as demanded in the complaint. Findings and judgment to be settle upon notice.”

    The principles described in National Surety evolved into New York’s rule that imposes constructive knowledge of the terms of the trust if the parties to the transaction have actual or constructive knowledge that the property is held by a trust. New York made a policy decision long ago that it did not want to litigate the issue of actual knowledge by a transferee of property from a trust. A bright line rule was established at common law [and then codified] that states a transferee with knowledge that property is in a trust has constructive knowledge of the terms of the trust. See In the Matter of Pepi, 268 A.D. 2d 477 (2nd Dept. 2000). New York courts limited their review to interpreting trust construction to determine the nature of the trustee’s authority.
    New York law states that an ultra vires transfer of assets to or by a trustee on behalf of a trust is void rather than voidable. If the transfer were voidable then the damaged party would have to bring an action against the malfeasant parties to have the transfer declared void. In New York the transaction is void ab initio, just like it never happened. The trustee’s defense would have to be that it had no knowledge of the terms of the trust. This would of course be an absurd proposition and would be stricken. The trustee has actual knowledge of the terms of its own trust.
    The person or entity that has authority to make lawful transfers of the note and mortgage within the RMBS varies depending on what stage of the transaction the transfer was made. The transfer to the trustee must be lawful pursuant to a document or writing that does not create a presumption that the transfer violates state law or other controlling trust document. This is not a form over substance argument. In RMBS transactions, a violation of state law or of the PSA would open the trust to liability from creditors and the loss of tax free pass through status to the asset[s] that were transferred in violation of the trust document.
    In particular, the entity that presumably needs standing to enforce the mortgage needs to prove as a threshold matter that they have the lawful authority to do so. Since there have been numerous transfers of the note and mortgage the downstream holder of the note and mortgage must rely on the proper and lawful transfer of those documents throughout the chain of possession and title respectively.
    Devolution in title due to securitization failure has consequences before and after transfer of title. Prior to a transfer of title, devolution is relevant to the identity of the entity that has the authority to affect the satisfaction, modification or consolidation of the mortgage. After transfer of title, devolution is an issue because the entity that satisfied or foreclosed the mortgage had no authority to do so, and the person who took title, either took subject to an unsatisfied lien or subject to a defective foreclosure.
    The entities that had the authority to foreclose did not foreclose. The wrong party foreclosed and either holds title or has transferred title to an unsuspecting transferee who believes that it is a bona fide purchaser, whereas in reality, that person is anything but. Transferees of foreclosure deeds have taken title from an entity that had no interest in the property to transfer. Nemo dat quod non habet. You cannot give what you do not have. Nemo dat trumps bona fide purchaser every time. This is why we purchase fee policies when we buy real estate.
    However, finding a title insurance company that will insure your fee interest in real estate is not the same as receiving marketable title. Insurable title is not marketable title. Marketable title is title that is free from reasonable doubt or any sort of threat of litigation. In the case of real estate that is encumbered by a mortgage that was placed into an MBS the source of the satisfaction of the lien may be in question.
    In Voorheesville Rod & Gun Club Inc., v. E.W. Tompkins Co,. 82 N.Y. 2d 564 (NY Ct. App. 1993) The Court of Appeals defined marketable title as follows:
    We have said that a “purchaser ought not to be compelled to take property, the possession or title of which he may be obliged to defend by litigation. He should have a title that will enable him to hold his land free from probable claim by another, and one which, if he wishes to sell, would be reasonably free from any doubt which would interfere with its market value” As can be seen from these definitions, marketability of title is concerned with impairments on title to a property, i.e., the right to unencumbered ownership and possession . . ..

    The RMBS transaction and REMIC failure creates uncertainty concerning the legal effect of any action taken by the trustee or its agents concerning rights in that property. This uncertainty applies specifically to the authority of the trustee or its agents to satisfy a mortgage that the trust does not own.
    A break in the chain of title to the mortgage results in the fee owner being unable to transfer title to any person free and clear of encumbrances. If the satisfaction of mortgage is made without the authority of the person entitled to enforce the note and without the authority of the last lawful mortgagee of record, the note is not discharged and the lien continues to exist.
    Devolution in title would occur if any party other than the last mortgagee of record executes the satisfaction of mortgage. Devolution is simply a break in the chain of rights in real estate. The only party that can affect an interest in real estate is the party [or that party’s lawful agent] that has an interest in the real estate. Every state defines “interest in real estate” by statute or by common law interpreting statutory construction.
    The issues in MBS transactions concern the chain of authority derived from the original mortgagee of record. We will begin with the assumption that the original mortgage and note were prima facie valid. The only party that has the right to assign or transfer those rights in the mortgage begins with the original mortgagee. Likewise, the only entity that has the right to exercise rights under the mortgage, such as the right to satisfy the lien or foreclose on the lien/deed of trust is the entity that is the last mortgagee of record or its successor and or assign.
    Seen in this context, there is no difference in the rules for any entity that claims an interest in real property. The authority to affect an interest in real property can only be vested in the entity that is designated on the instrument that created that particular interest. This same principle applies to deeds, mortgages, agrarian, riparian, leases, air, subterranean, easement, license, restrictive covenant and every other stick in the “bundle” of rights associated with ownership of rights in real property. The reason we maintain a public property record is to give the world constructive notice of the identity of the entities that hold rights in real property and the time those rights were created and transferred.
    Every jurisdiction has laws that govern the creation of these rights including a statute of frauds that demand the rights are created by an instrument in writing, how the person granting those rights is given the authority to do so, how or if the instrument needs to be acknowledged [notarized] and if the instrument needs to be recorded in the public land record to be valid.
    The lender seeking to enforce the loan can choose one of two remedies. The first is the right to enforce the lien “at equity”. This involves the exercise of the power of sale (non-judicial) or obtaining a judgment of foreclosure and sale and selling the property at auction (judicial). The other remedy involves the entity enforcing to disregard the lien or deed in trust altogether and choosing to seek a money judgment only. This is referred to as the remedy “at law”. The entity enforcing must choose a remedy. It cannot elect both.
    Foreclosure is the involuntary transfer of title pursuant to judgment of sale (judicial) or power of sale (non-judicial). What is actually being foreclosed is the fee owner’s right of redemption. The right of redemption can only be foreclosed by the entity that has the right/authority to enforce the contractual debt (note). The property must be titled to the successful bidder after the sale or to the plaintiff if there is no successful bidder. In New York the RPAPL requires that title passed post-sale be “sourced” via the recording of the mortgage or assignment of mortgage prior to the sale. The referee cannot pass title until the [foreclosed] mortgage is recorded.
    In New York the referee can only transfer title under authority of the judgment of sale. This is to ensure that any successive purchaser has certainty that title was derived pursuant to lawful sale by a lawful party entitled to enforce not only the underlying indebtedness but also by the party who was entitled to enforce that indebtedness to foreclose the borrower’s [fee owner] right of redemption. Similar principles apply in other jurisdictions under different statutory constructions. Nevertheless, the overriding policy considerations are the same; the chain of title to real property, [via the lien or deed of trust] is preserved and remains certain throughout the foreclosure process.
    The issue in RMBS foreclosure is that the entity foreclosing is either the trust itself or the trust’s agent designated as such by agreement. If the trust cannot or could not take lawful possession of the note due to a restriction in the trust agreement then the trust has no authority to affect any aspect of the loan’s servicing, management, right to declare a default or foreclose. This is the definition of securitization failure. The trust does not and cannot ever own the loan.
    REMIC failure is a proper defense to mortgagors because REMIC failure destroys the marketability of the mortgagors’ title. Every mortgagor has a right to know who owns their loan. Successor mortgagees, mortgagees that are not the original payees on the loan, claim that mortgagors do not have standing to assert the ultra vires/REMIC failure defense. However, every mortgagor has the right to know the identity of the entity to which they should pay. Mortgagors also have the right to an explanation as to how the presumptive mortgagees obtained “title” to the mortgage or deed of trust. REMIC mortgagee’s classic argument essentially states that mortgagors have no right to know how the successor mortgagee became the successor mortgagee. This is absurd.
    The legal result of successor mortgagee’s argument is that successor transferees of title to the real property, whether through foreclosure or arm’s length contractual transfer, have no right to know if they are receiving title to real property free and clear of liens or encumbrances. If the entity that purports to satisfy the lien has no authority to do so then the mortgagor/homeowner cannot pass marketable title. Likewise, the purchaser has not taken marketable title and that title may be subject to attack by the true owner of the note.
    Transfers of loans to REMIC trusts fail due to the ultra vires act of the REMIC trustee. The commonest and most easily discovered ultra vires act as relates to an affirmative defense to the foreclosure is the trustee’s acceptance of the loan past the trust’s cutoff date. The cutoff date is usually defined in Section 1.01 of the trust’s Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The PSA is the document that creates the trust. All the contractual obligations between the trustee, the certificate holders, the depositor and the master servicer are contained in the PSA.
    A breach of any contractual obligation by the trustee with relation to any loan is an ultra vires act. An act by the trustee not specifically granted by the trust document is void as per the rule pertaining to common law trusts created under the laws of New York. This rule is in place to protect the trust and the certificate holders from acts by the trustee or its agents that are ultra vires of those powers specifically granted to the trustee. The purpose behind New York as the choice of law jurisdiction that govern these trusts is that, in New York, ultra vires acts of a trustee are treated as if they never happened. This has been the rule in New York for well over one hundred years.
    The affirmative defense that plaintiff cannot be the proper party in the action is the mirror image of the counterclaim for a declaratory judgment as to the identity of the entity that has the right to enforce the loan. A demand for trial is made in the counterclaim concerning the determination of the identity of the entity that is the person entitled to enforce the note and assert the equitable remedy of foreclosure. In this sense, the factual basis for the affirmative defense is similar to the counterclaim.
    However, the difference between the affirmative defense and the counterclaim is that the affirmative defense of “plaintiff lacks standing” is only asserted against the plaintiff. The counterclaim involves naming every party to the REMIC transaction that had an interest in the note. A determination by the court that plaintiff lacks standing is non-instructive as to the identity of the person entitled to enforce.
    To determine the identity of the proper party with authority to enforce the note, every entity that had a role in the RMBS transaction would have to be a third party defendant named in the counterclaim. In other words, defendant may owe someone money, but it is not the trust. Once the court determines it is not and cannot be the trust, the third party defendants will have to fight it out amongst each other. The end result is that foreclosures commenced in the name of an improper party will be dismissed. The mortgage lien still exists against the property in the name of some entity.
    It is clear that the REMIC is constructed as a common law trust with a “commercial” purpose. This alleged dual function has raised form versus substance arguments as to REMIC classification and treatment under New York Trust law. This issue is just being addressed by courts in New York and various other jurisdictions with widely varying results.

  43. Deborah Wynn,
    You are correct that court rules are won on facts. I don’t talk about the facts because honestly I have a hard time understanding all the facts, and I don’t want to talk about things I do not fully understanding.
    It is also important to see all sides of a point of view and I do speak from mine. Thanks to you as well, for bringing your view point it’s is very helpful. There are times I need the facts and there are times I need to address the emotional impact this has had on all of us.
    Thank You for all the support I get here. Jaime

  44. To justme,
    Thank you, that did make me feel better knowing someone is listening.
    We walked away, it was in a time when so few understood what was happening, we knew no different.
    I don’t know how I would react today faced with leaving my home with the knowledge I now have…. I take that back, I do know how I would respond; like always for me ” I do what is the right thing the correct answer is, what is the best thing to do given the choices in front of me.” always do the right and morally correct thing, this will reflect back through your children’ eye’s.
    For me and my family the stakes were very high, my children’s lives were tied to our home, our family. My husband and I took being foster parents very seriously, I loved it, it was tied to my very soul, it was my breath, my thoughts, my life, I loved everyone of these kids that passed through our doors. For me, for my children, our family the loss of our home was the loss of our family, our way of life, my heart.
    Thank you again and have a wonderful holiday

  45. well now
    I get very emotional thinking about this horrific thing against mankind, sure I have cried a river,
    but when it comes to court, there is no useful emotion that will serve you, just: law, facts , rules and case law. these are your tools.
    not a lawyer prose, just my opinion.
    I Love you all.

  46. AZ has the 33-811(c) ARS the biggest, most foul, statute ever invented. it is the straw that broke the camels back.. NO GOOD LAWYERS IN AZ, EVER..

  47. Sorry Bill! The single thing this blog will do is give you ideas you can try to do in an effort to correct this mess but it will not help. This blog is truth, theories, rants, and some form of holding on. Many people post some great links and case law,many pick away at plans of action, strategies, tactics, layman “how to’s” and really helpful information BUT for the most part the only thing you can take away from this blog is how you decide to use what you read.
    @4closed30kids – I am sorry. I feel your pain, to a lesser degree however. If anything, know your words do more than just sit in a post. They do more than that. Many people will have a spill fest on here (guilty) and see no one reply’s to what they have wrote. Most people on here cannot help anybody anyways but what they can do, ** this is for all you that have done this, been through court, won/lost and do not say jack shnabbit- or if you know of any ‘thing/way’ to throw out there and you do not**Granted most ppl have, many, many times, this blog is so scattered to it is ridiculously hard to locate the comments that do contain useful info***ANYWHO – more people than you know read these blogs. When normal day to day people post their struggles,their attempts, success, whatever it may be….it gives a bigger picture of what has/is happening and more help to me personally than most other things. You wrote of your kids earlier and I could not help but think “that will be”. My kids are little still and the way our life has changed because of this court crap, were at the top edge of that swirling whirlpool before it sucks you down through the drain. I have become obsessed. Many of us have. Even long after the fact. I do not want that. I want my house but I have a badddd hankering to destroy it and let them have the POS. It is not worth the ruin that can so intimately disintegrate a childhood.

    I’s beg Neil’s blog was written in emotion…..what happened, Neil?

    2-3 foreclosures are filed everyday in my little town. I can’t imagine bigger places. Not many at all (none that I know) “win” in any form. I am stuck in a false reality thinking “yeah…that IS fraud….yeah! This IS what happened…..look! I have proof! There is NO WAY the Judge will just toss this, no way………”
    And I am starting to think I AM really delusional.
    1.- It is fucking RIDICULOUS one needs a lawyer on their side if they have some court know-how, can speak well and already has SOLID PROOF. Ridiculous.
    2. – Deny everything, admit everything…..sing….I have said from the day I was on here…..It’s all in the Judges hands. If he is not interested, your kinda SCREWED.
    How many people have we heard from that have been restricted from entering key things as evidence, not heard at all, passed off like a bum, ….people that had the downright worst things happen to them…’s all up to the Judge.

  48. My suggestion Bill: check under FDCPA rules for the foreclosure, after the fact, damage and act has been completed…IMHO.

    As for AZ, Maricopa is the largest, from what I can tell, paper mill for hiding satisfied mortgages, from every state. That state is corrupt to the core. Hang in there, everyone knows….keep digging, there has to be a couple of honest lawyers around, LOL.

  49. Does any of this going to help those who have already lost properties due to questionable docs?

  50. I have been watching the history channel a lot this week;
    I long for the moral men and women that started this great country. I am sure they had their faults, but at least they tried to hold on to moral values.
    I long for the innocence I had, my hopes and dreams to make a better life for my son are gone now.
    My dreams have gone and I am now faced with fear and not trusting of others. It has made a profound difference in who I am as a person.
    Instead of the sweet person I used to look at in the mirror, I now see anger, sadness and disappointment in my eyes.
    Instead of dreaming of a house with a white picket fence and giggling children strung about, I think of my families safety, shelter, warmth, food storage, water storage, and tucking money away, no not in a bank, I don’t trust them anymore.
    I long for the days of innocents, sweetness, warmth and strength, I got from being a part of this once great country.
    I do wish all of you a happy and safe holiday.

  51. Hi james, you can find a link to a lawyer right here on this website

  52. I would like to know what MAGIC you have to have to find a lawyer? I’ve spoke to a dozen or more and they all have a “glass half empty” mind.. Where do you find one would would like to try to win?? They don’t exist in Phoenix, Az.. and if they do I’d love to know how you find them because I’ve spent 2 years and a bunch of money wasted on consultations for NOTHING.

  53. I don’t wanna be your friend
    I just wanna be your lover
    No matter how it ends
    No matter how it starts

    Forget about your house of cards
    And I’ll do mine
    Forget about your house of cards
    And I’ll do mine

    And fall off the table, get swept under

    Denial, denial

    The infrastructure will collapse
    Voltage spikes
    Throw your keys in the bowl
    Kiss your husband goodnight

    Forget about your house of cards
    And I’ll do mine
    Forget about your house of cards
    And I’ll do mine

    Fall off the table, get swept under

    Denial, denial
    Denial, denial

    Your ears should be burning
    Denial, denial
    Your ears should be burning
    don’t wanna be your friend
    I just wanna be your lover
    No matter how it ends
    No matter how it starts

    Forget about your house of cards
    And I’ll do mine
    Forget about your house of cards
    And I’ll do mine

    And fall off the table, get swept under

    Denial, denial

    The infrastructure will collapse
    Voltage spikes
    Throw your keys in the bowl
    Kiss your husband goodnight

    Forget about your house of cards
    And I’ll do mine
    Forget about your house of cards
    And I’ll do mine

    Fall off the table, get swept under

    Denial, denial
    Denial, denial

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: