Banks Fake Documents Because They Can’t Establish Ownership of Loan

The question is always posed — why did banks need to fake, fabricate, forge, and robo sign mortgage documents? The answer is partially revealed on citing Lynn Symoniak’s settlement in which she received more than $30 million personally for challenging the banks. According to the Salon article the reason for the fakery was that there was no legal way to establish ownership of the debt, note or mortgage and therefore no legal way to enforce collection of the debt or foreclose on the mortgage. This is exactly what produced a flood of lawsuits from investors who advanced money believing they were protected by mortgages and notes and a debt that was secured by a perfected lien on real property.

If the original loans were not faked, there would never had been any need to take the assignments, endorsements etc. And there would not be any question about who owned the debt, note and mortgage. But there is a question of ownership and the answer is nobody owns the loan but the investors own the debt, less third party payments from servicer’s making non stop Servicer advances, insurers, co-obligors, and maybe guarantors as well. Of course if the documents were faked there should never have been a payment on a Fannie or Freddie guarantee, there should never have been a payment from insurers, and there is a question as to whether the servicer’s would have been required to make those advance payments — except that they were part of the PONZI scheme.

Am I the only one raising the issue of where the servicers are getting the money to make monthly or quarterly payments on hundreds of thousands of mortgages? It MUST be from the fund the investment bankers are holding when they skimmed 15%-20% off the top of what the investors advanced for the purchase of bogus mortgage bonds. And THAT was the real reason the documents had to be faked from the start.

It turns out that the investors were told a big lie. First their money did not go into the Trusts that issued mortgage bonds. Those bonds created the illusion that the investors were getting something for their money. But the investment bank never sent the money to the Trustee for the Asset backed Trust. So the Trust was never funded and therefore was unable to pay for origination or acquisition of loans. What is revealed in the Salon article, is that even if they did purchase the loans, the Trusts never received title to the loans. No documentation was ever created or executed to show a valid transfer to the trusts — except for those loans that were in foreclosure and especially those that were in litigation. So they faked it. And the reason they faked it is that they believed they could get away with it. And despite the obvious illegality of this scheme, the banks were right in their assumption that they would get away with it.

But what is not discussed in the Salon article is that the actual note and mortgage were fabricated documents in most cases. And that is why the investors sued the investment banks for FRAUD alleging that the mortgage origination documents (note and mortgage and disclosure statements) were unlawful and unenforceable. Why? Because the investors were the lenders and they were ignored in the documentation of the loan. Instead, the investment banks diverted title to themselves. Hence the FRAUD allegations from investors, government agencies, insurers etc.

So if the note and mortgage were unenforceable then what happens when they are “assigned”? The legal answer is nothing happens because the base document being assigned is fabricated. The answer though in the real world of the judiciary is that the assignment eliminates the need to inquire about the original documents. Judges are all too willing to believe that banks would not assign something that was worthless. Since the assignment looks valid on its face, Judges disregard valid defenses because in their experience banks are more credible than borrowers. This is no longer the case. The borrowers are credible and the banks are lying.

So when you raise a standing defense, it is disregarded because the judges simply think that the banks are credible and borrowers are not. This is not corruption. It is ignorance of the facts. And they are ignorant of the facts because lawyers continue to hammer on technical deficiencies in the documentation instead of educating the judge on the facts of the case. The facts of the case depend upon the actual transactions that were completed — contract law 101 (offer, acceptance and consideration — all absent in the deal that shows up in the documentation of the loan). But in order to educate the judge the lawyers must educate themselves. And in order to educate themselves they need to get a title and securitization report, study it and understand it. That is why we offer to attorneys a consultation after they get the report.

191 Responses

  1. I am Mrs Katrina a private loan lender We Offer loan in Maximum at 2% interest rate. We are certified and trust worthy. SERVICES RENDERED INCLUDE: * Personal Loans * Business Loans * Consolidation Loan *Home Improvement *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation In other for us to proceed, you need to fill and return the loan application form below: BORROWER’S DATA REQUIRED First name: Last name: Business name(If Any): Loan Amount needed: Purpose of Loan: Duration: Date of birth (yyyy-mm-dd): Gender: Marital status: Monthly Income: Home Address: City: State/province: Zip/postal code: Country: Phone: Email: Job title: Occupation: Email us today via {} Note: Applicant below the age of 20 should not apply as this is against the company’s lending policy

  2. You are aware of thus substantially about this trouble, taught me to be professionally think it over coming from a great deal of various perspectives. Its like people are certainly not needed until it is something regarding Lady gaga! Your personal stuffs great. Usually handle it up!

  3. Interesante apreciacion en tu artículo 🙂

  4. needcaselaw, that was a heck of a read- thanks. Doesn’t appear any stone was left unturned. People in Washington should appreciate this (one of the issues in the case is removal and denial of remand):

    “In Klem v. Washington Mut. Bank, 175 Wn.2d 771, 295 P.3d 1179 (2013) ……………Wash. Const. art. IV, § 6 provides in pertinent part: “… The superior court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases at law
    which involve the title or possession of real property…” *

    “In Klem, the Supreme Court, applying the principle that statutes must be interpreted constitutionally, ruled that the “constitution and equity” require trustees, acting as “substitute judges”, to be neutral with regard to borrowers and beneficiaries.
    Klem, 175 Wn.2d 790.” **

    *most states’ constitutions probably mirror Washington’s, stating that
    state courts should be the original jurisdiction for all cases which involve the title or possession of real property. I think it’s Butner v U.S. that’s most often cited for its finding that property rights are determined by STATE law.

    ** Now, the question is: what does it look like for a dot trustee “to be neutral with regard to borrowers and beneficiaries”? ‘Klem’ may provide an answer. I didn’t go find it. Calling for neutrality stops short of imposing a fiduciary (like DC does, I think, and maybe other states where the banksters haven’t influenced legislation), but it’s something.

  5. dING dING Ding

    If there is no lien … there is NO mortgagee,

  6. And Poppy … Give your Ins Agent an Alternitive … Stop the Payments from the third party and the Only Loss Payee is You ON THE POLICY YOU PAY FOR ON A PROPERTY YOU OWN! Tell them to force BOA to prove they are mortgagee of record. (flush).

    If they refuse..


  7. You got it KC…I have filed an affidavit disputing the debt and am paying the taxes and insurance…funny, disputing the debt has given me more ammo…The players keep changing?

  8. Poppy, just one payment is an admission of the debt.

    Pay the Taxes and Ins and don’t give them a loss to fc on.


  9. Poppy,
    Christine Nailed It. The debt collectors are simply pressuring you to make a payment to reinstate the SOL for failure to Prosecute.

  10. Their is no lien on mine either, according to the accounting(multiple accounting ledgers) since 2009……Hmmm

    The question is: whom are they collecting for and how are they getting away with it? Debt collectors is my best guess…

  11. After procrastinating for a lengthy period of time for a Solution. This is what I decided to do.

    Enforce One Contract and use the Rescission Lifeline on the other.

    Neil has been saying it for years ” They cant have it Both Ways”

    1031 exchange

  12. Private placements issued by banks as the issuer, depositor and seller are to themselves and immune from SEC regulations under the supervision of the department of treasury. The PSA is like a living trust created for tax deferred purposes. It cannot be breached ….1122AB is your only hope !

  13. P.S. … Our Mortgage is NOT filed with SEC!
    Not subject to SEC Rules and Reg.

    Private Placements (less than 300) not required to Register with SEC aka An Inside Job! Unregulated! And now regurgitated.


  14. I’ve learned what I learned because I was trying to PayOFF the mortgage to the party owed … the party with the ability to release the mortgage and note all legal like without putting me in a position that if I pay the wrong party and a fraud release is filed …. that the proper party shows up next week and says …
    Sorry Granny… You paid a pretender, …. You owe Me, Here is my Proof… now pay up or move out!

    Hence TARP!


  15. RE:
    ” I can only gather from your limited response, that you have no idea what the accounting standards mean”.

    Not my problem what you believe …
    I’m not the one in FC, and I wont be any time soon.

  16. Bob G,

    RE: “I’m asking you to explain the accounting standards and how they would apply to a foreclosure defense”

    I thought I just explained … I’m not in FC, so asking me how to apply the accounting standards in a FC defense is MOOT! And If I tried … It would be Proffer.

    Might I suggest you Hire your own Attorney and Expert Witness?
    If you don’t like MS … fine. Use Neil or a Former IRS Tax Accountant … if you know any.

  17. KC

    Not asking for legal advice…I’m asking you to explain the accounting standards and how they would apply to a foreclosure defense. You posted this stuff, not me.

    I can only gather from your limited response, that you have no idea what the accounting standards mean. So how could this possibly be of any help to anyone on this forum?

    Why do you folks even bother posting this crap?

  18. Bob G,
    I’m not in FC so I wouldn’t be able to apply it to a fc defense in legal terms. I’m also not an Attorney so I dare not give legal advise either.

    But Maybe Neil will write about it someday,
    Its all part of following the Money.

  19. KC

    For those of us who are slow on the uptake, could you please explain the relevance of GAAP FAS 140 and SFAS 140-3 to the issue at hand, i.e., foreclosure defense?

    Also, could you please do this in easy to understand lingo?

    Bob G.

  20. MS,

    RE: “Your a guarantor or surety allowed the right of subrogation -you were denied that right and are entitled to claim title back. . . as you gave it. free of aliens and encumbrances “.

    KS says … I know that Silly! No liens here.

    But the aliens do encumber the deed.

  21. If you Like Your Chicken Extra Crispy ….
    Throw a few logs on the Fire & Turn Up the Heat,
    Tune in on GAAP FAS 140 and SFAS 140-3

  22. For damages, ( in the event that defendant fails to surrender the title for cancellation) in the sum of $194000, plus interest thereon from and after _____ at the rate of _____ percent per annum, as compensation and in addition to the demand for cancellation.
    For damages in the sum of $____, plus interest thereon from and after ___, 19__, at the rate of ___ percent per annum.
    For exemplary and punitive damages in the sum of $____.
    For costs of suit herein incurred and for any other further relief as the court may deem proper.

  23. Did You Hear That?

    “the estate transferred and conveyed irrevocably into trust”

    Huh? The Estate?

    Conventional Mortgage and Lien?

    Ut Oh … here comes the babysitter … KC on way to QT.

  24. Any Guesses Why they wouldn’t Give Me a Payoff?

    “I Want My Title”

    Stomps My Feet!

    Go to Quiet Time KC .. NOW!

  25. ” Defendant made the transfer with intent to defraud plaintiff ”

    Yes they Did!

    Shame on Them!

    Don’t Mess with Grandma!

  26. Countrywide Home Loans Inc, in 2007 provides the plaintiff a conventional mortgage sold as an enforceable contract and agreement,

    The CWHLInc wire amount was moved off balance sheet meaning it was lifted off title to the estate.
    In doing the PPM securities holders who are the registrations securities issuers were allowed to construct a New York indenture holding fractional shares of the estate transferred and conveyed irrevocably into trust. Therefore Plaintiff alleges facts establishing a basis for a claim for facts constituting ground for rescission of underlying transaction making instrument voidable and for exemplary damages, whereas the Defendant claims are for a transferred asset the loan, sold on or about Nov 21, 2008 for value.
    Defendant knew at the time of making the transfer that the purported mortgages was not enforceable, but he did not disclose this fact to the grantor and Plaintiff.
    Defendant made the transfer with intent to defraud plaintiff.

    Exemplary and Punitive Damages ?

  27. JG, they didn’t skim anything .. they stole the Whole Kit and Kaboodle …..

    Stripped the Estate of Title
    Stripped the Investors of their Funds
    Stripped the Taxpayers with the Bail Outs

    *** .pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), 12 U.S.C. §1833a.

    This action arises out of Defendants’ loss of its investment by congressional enactment under the Troubled Assets Relief Program “TARP” for charging off and writing down the outstanding balance against purchaser and all other defendants and or indispensible parties to claims that include the purchasers and registrant against the titleholder and consumer household

    yACKY yACK .. don’t come back!

  28. NG: “Am I the only one raising the issue of where the servicers are getting the money to make monthly or quarterly payments on hundreds of thousands of mortgages? It MUST be from the fund the investment bankers are holding when they skimmed 15%-20% off the top of what the investors advanced for the purchase of bogus mortgage bonds. And THAT was the real reason the documents had to be faked from the start.”

    Nah. Maybe some, but a bunch is likely courtesy of taxpayers by way of “HAMP” billions and GSE guarantees. And they may be “calling on”
    any other insurance deals they set up to get around what I still believe is a seasoning requirement on loans headed to securitization (the seasoning requirement they ignored in its entirety).

  29. Over the years I had been looking at a 30yr conventional mortgage, trying to enforce it.

    Then one day I discover that the Warranty Deed was not filed, that there is no lien filed against the property, but there is an encumb called a “Trust”. This Trust was created under the pretence of a Mortgage.

    Interestingly enough … I compare the TWO copies of the docs labeled a mortgage, THEY CONTAIN DIFFERENT TERMS!

    One copy to file at CR office and one copy to file with the court.

    Oh … How do I choose witch one to enforce? They neither one were presented to me for my acknowledgement …. so how the heck do I know what the True Terms were? Both Mortgages contain my husbands acknowledgements on every page …. so its obvious one of them is a forgery? How is he to know witch one?

    Dag Gone Questions ……. And to much Coffee….

  30. MS,
    I know .. I know .. Dag Gone Morals!!
    I already filed suit …. they didn’t answer. What a shock, they haven’t answered me for years .. I don’t know why I thought this time would be different. Moving for SJ with prejudice, but will preserve claims just incase of a without prejudice ruling.

    Nah … they aint going to file fc … they been put on notice (lack of standing), such an event would only cause me further harm. Further Harm in addition to the liabilities they already hold for previous harm.

    You know what sucks the most? I have to sweep my values and morals aside, because if I don’t …. my weakness will get me steam rolled…..


  31. I agree in part Christine, but when one party has the intent to defraud the other party …. that’s a game changer.

    Cannot breach a trust to yourself under TARP and the 2008 passage of the Economic Stabilization Act for short selling title to shares held in trust

    I never asked for a Free House and Don’t Want a Free House!
    Holy Shiest —you learned nothing from me . Your a guarantor or surety allowed the right of subrogation -you were denied that right and are entitled to claim title back. . . as you gave it. free of aliens and encumbrances

    As a matter of fact … As of Nov 21st we entered into our 7th yr anniversary here.

    Foreclosure time …five year bond , year one to establish value and year seven to short sale title under a corrupt derivative scheme.

    Your all over the board sweetheart …stop chatting and start suing

  32. @KC – You do realize that the SEC allows trusts to be composed of trusts, don’t you? I have no clue which PSA would prevail; but it can only get uglier …

    immune from the SEC try 1122 AB

  33. @KC – You do realize that the SEC allows trusts to be composed of trusts, don’t you? I have no clue which PSA would prevail; but it can only get uglier …

    Private placements issued by banks as the issuer, depositor and seller are to themselves and immune from SEC regulations under the supervision of the department of treasury. The PSA is like a living trust created for tax deferred purposes. It cannot be breached ….1122AB is your only hope !

  34. I agree in part Christine, but when one party has the intent to defraud the other party …. that’s a game changer.

    I never asked for a Free House and Don’t Want a Free House! As a matter of fact … As of Nov 21st we entered into our 7th yr anniversary here. Its been mostly HELL! We planned on doing bathroom upgrades and replacing the 21yr old carpets and pads (I have severe allergies to) right after we purchased it, …. But I wasn’t about to throw away good money after bad …..

    A New House and Hardwood Floors Sound Nice!
    I suspect that because the mortgage is paid in full …. I get All the money plus back interest, fees and damages.

    I like paying cash … nobody to control you.

  35. Good Luck Java!

  36. KC,

    “either way requires rescission”. Rescission means that you lose the house. You may get some of your money back but you’re moving out.

    Choose what you want to accomplish and stick with it.

  37. Christine, …. either way requires rescission. ” Origination Fraud” on the Face of the Contract! Read It and Understand It Folks!

  38. Elex… Yes I do! What Trust comes First? Messy!

    Christine, as a friend of mine says …” I already pee’d on my Tree”! Marked my Territory! LOL!

    After All …. How Hard can it be to Enforce a contract they wrote themselves? Unless of course they knew from the beginning they couldn’t but wouldn’t have to … if …

    Anyway … If they cant honor the contract … They Pay!

  39. KC,

    You’re barking at every tree you see and, except for the one you really, really like, they’re all wrong. Can’t do that. Can’t contact banks either. And especially crucial, can’t fax anything until you know what you want to accomplish.

    Find out exactly what you want. Find the tree you like. Free house (that can be done but you need to know what game to play and how)? Damages and you don’t give a hoot about the house because there are 20 better ones waiting for your where you want to live? Make a name for yourself? Screw the banks on principle and changing the landscape? Get your tax money back after seeing the obscene bailouts and losing your shirt?

    Pick your fight and stick with it. And the best advice no one will give you but it’s still the best one: pick the fight you know will make you enjoy the trip, whatever the outcome. We’ve talked a lot and you’ve noticed that downtrodden ain’t what it’s cracked to be: I won’t have any part of it.

    Get an attorney: they are good at telling you what NOT to do (paranoia can be an asset. Just don’t get contaminated). And get very, very clear on what you want to accomplish. If, at some point, you have no more use for your attorney, dump him/her. We live in a society of tools. You’re a tool for someone else. Everyone is a tool. It’s not about emotions. insecurities and being personally liked by people who really don’t care about you. It’s about getting results and standing up for yourself without shedding blood. Once you accomplish that, everything follows course.

  40. @KC – You do realize that the SEC allows trusts to be composed of trusts, don’t you? I have no clue which PSA would prevail; but it can only get uglier …

  41. How do you like the clause in the mortgage that says you .. as grantor (not mortgagor) will defend the title? You are the settlor/grantor and the Warrantor …. Catch 33 …..

    Who is suing you for Title?

  42. Imagine my Shock when I found out that the Deceased Sellers Rev Trust was still open and holding title? I mean here is the Trustee/Daughter/Beneficiary of parents estate talking to me … saying that the trust was closed years earlier after both her parents passing and our purchase of this property. She has checked with her Attorney and his research showed the same …. Ut Oh?

    Where is the Warranty Deed? They didn’t file it, and the Trusts Attorney ( deceased parents attorney) wont talk to Vicky, her Attorney, our Attorney or me. Just Crazy Stuffs!!

  43. Yes .. I know this Christine … When BAC servicing took over CW servicing they claimed a $12,000 default and refused our payments even though I faxed them the payments showing the account current. They kept pushing a loan mod packages, I kept telling them there was NO HARDSHIP, it was their error and I refused to pay the late fees. This went on for about 10months. So we send BAC “Every Dime” and a few hundred extra and DEMANDED PAYOFF AND TITLE!

    Just enforcing the contract, I don’t like doing business with Buttwipes! I don’t and I wont!

  44. I do … And it’s spot on.

  45. KC,

    I see where you are. For a minute there, I lost you.

    Let’s say Bank files against Homeowner (H.O.). Public record. H.O. and servicer get together, H.O. agrees to fork up a few bucks in exchange for Bank dismissal. Bank will do it. Without prejudice. The case is closed. Public record up to the amount paid by H.O.

    Bank will have to refile a brand new case if Bank believes H.O. owes more. Public record (and, under those conditions, Bank often will go through the whole historic, including the amount paid by H.O., which led to the dismissal. Interesting, Huh?) The problem with H.O. playing that game is that, if H.O. paid something everytime Bank filed, it starts the whole clock at zero and every payment is construed as an admission that the debt was valid from the get go.

    I know some people who got suckered into that game 3 or 4 times. They paid something to “extinguish” the default but, in the end, all they did was re-enfore the court into the idea that the debt was:
    1) legitimate as to the parties;
    2) valid as to the amount.

    Doing that is playing right into the hands of the bank. Incredibly dangerous and it truly kicks the can down the road The end result is that the bank has the upper hand since H.O. as implicitely agreed to the debt and the amount.

    Do you follow my reasoning?

  46. Poppy, their are no liens on our property, only a pesky encumb of future interests in the estate that is a restraint on alienation.

  47. Java, Wishing You the Best of Luck! Get those Papers to MS!
    As an Investor, a Taxpayer and a Party to a Household Estate … Basically someone who Got Screwed All the Way Around ….. Trust Me! I had a Good Attorney … and MS knows what she knew!

  48. Christine, I get where you are going, but again .. putting them on notice of your intent and they voluntarily dismiss. You work out (or you don’t) a settlement within the SOL for them to refile their claim. It keeps the claims and settlement off public records.

  49. KC. I will show gratitude after , for sure , and I will do my best to pay it forward as well. I am also getting a contact who may help from Christine. I think that is what we all should be trying to do for each other.

    My situation is crazy and very late in game , so it may not work out. But I will do my very Best to use any information I get to help and reverse this fraudulent fraudclosing. I will let everyone know what my opinion is of that info……I will be as truthful and helpful as I can be and will not base my future comments on whether I win or lose, but on IF I think it’s useful.

    I will always be around here, but may not have any updates on my situation for a month or so…..please be patient and wish me luck !!

  50. I see what you see…and the title is not free and unencumbered. There are numerous issues from what I can tell. And you bet, I want a free and clear title to my land…very, very difficult these days. Even the title companies are excluding “previous” breaches and “liens”…

    This problem is pervasive. I am seeing it in trying to buy property (land) right now, that IS encumbered (encroachment) and the bank, (LOL) HSBC II is trying to get me to sign a quit claim deed. If I want the land I may have no choice…they are selling stolen property as far as I can see…and our government is in on the scam 100%…IMHO

  51. KC,

    I have no idea what you’re talking about. Cases are public record except when specifically gagged. Whatever way they are dismissed, with or without prejudice, the bulk of the cases filed in court, whether state or district, ARE public record. Even BK is public record. And it is very, very easy to confirm whether a settlement did occur or not and who’s shooting from the hip or not.

    Only the terms of settlement are almost always confidential.

  52. And I concur with carie-anon

    Debt collectors are who most of us are dealing with…and if MS is giving you information for “free” just look at it. You have the ability to dismiss it or take it and try and use it, is all I’m saying. We are all adults here…

    As far as the N.A. again, check the case(s) with US Bank…from what I read, they have “anointed” themselves as whatever, trustees, owners, lenders, holders, etc…I cannot speak to everyone and every case…but BOA, US Bank or Ocwen NEVER lent me money, never…and the contract says they are lenders, beneficiaries, owners, holders, UGH… Lies, lies and more lies! And the trust they say the note is in….it does not exist so there goes the case, flush down the toilet. And the PSA garbage And the securitization…I have all of it…I will post some of it or give you guys the Pacer info. As for BOA, I had to sign a boat load of paper agreeing to not disclose the terms and amount of the settlement. But, I’ll risk it, if it lends itself to anyone here who questions it.

    I am not here because I have to be, I am overloaded with multiple cases in different jurisdictions. If anything I share helps, great…if it doesn’t work in your case, ignore it!

  53. Poppy, How does the Household grant and warrant title free and clear irrevocably?

    Poppy, If you were the Grantor or the Grantee of a Warranty Deed… wouldn’t you want that Warranty Deed filed?

  54. KC: It is my opinion 99% it was Credit Suisse. They did the movement of the note, behind the courts back…they were paid a full in claim for losses as well.

  55. Christine, not if the case is voluntarily dismissed. I talk from personal experience. This has nothing to do with MS personally, I am merely stating a Fact from Personal Experience. Its just a Fluke that only MS has had the balls to divulge it publicly.

    Java … He offered to help you Free of Charge… Right? If he is Right… and I know he is. Make sure you show him your gratitude after the fact.

    Dag Gone It if I Had to Know the Truth … barf….

  56. KC,

    “And Bob …. yes, you are asking for to much. Why? Because they are always settle out of court. Enforce the Contract!”

    Actually, we are not. MS has consistently talked about the cases in which he “testified” in court. The case itself is NOT confidential. The fact that there was a settlement is NOT confidential (the dismissal recorded by the court almost always stipulates whether the case was “settled” or “resolved”). The motions, transcripts and what not are NOT confidential. Cases and trial procedings are public information, except when specifically gagged by a judge. it happens extremely rarely.

    The only confidential thing is the amount for which it was settled.

  57. Poppy,, do you know who received the benefit of the second wire (zero balance)? The borrower/debtor unsecured loan or the creditor household estate?

  58. Bob, at no time did I say the N.A.s can not lend. That was another blogger.

    And Bob …. yes, you are asking for to much. Why? Because they are always settle out of court. Enforce the Contract!

    One more thing Bob, were you not the blogger advising people not to take any action until a fc was filed against them? I disagree with the blogger with such an opinion.

    But I will give you credit … you have some good info on fc defense, however you should know …. you can delay a fc for years,… but that is like kicking the can down the road …

  59. KC…re your Marquette Article

    I’m going to say this one more time, because I am unable to carry on an intelligent conversation with brick walls. I’m sorry to have to be so harsh, but enough is enough.

    The Marquette article deals with restraints on alienation between real property grantors and grantees. Or sellers and buyers. It talks about the real property, not foreclosures. Once the property is properly foreclosed upon in a judicial state, the court appoints a referee to compute and conduct the referee’s sale. Their is nothing in the referee’s deed that restrains alienation of the real property to the buyer (grantee).

    The fact that this article mentions trusts is of no moment. All it says is that trustees cannot place unlawful restraints on the sale of real property that they own in trust.

    But in the MBS trusts, the only time a trustee will own any real property is if it credit bids at the referee’s sale, and is the winning bidder. Even then, the deed that it conveys in an REO sale to another buyer does not contain any unlawful restraints on future alienation.

    As for national banks not being able to make loans, I don’t know what more I can tell you. They are authorized to make mortgage loans and they make mortgage loans. They may not have made any within the context of an MBS trust, but they do have the authority to make mortgage loans. Period.

    I just don’t know what more can be said to you and KC, other than show me the cases where MS’s arguments have carried the day. Show me ONE solitary case. Is that too much to ask for?

  60. Bob,

    You and I have spoken, I am no fool and didn’t get creditor status easily…with Ocwen.

    I will say this again. The GAAP stuff is correct, at least in my case. No money for MS, no accolades, no midnight calls…just facts. It may not be for everyone. Jeez!

  61. Not in the PSA, no trust, no PSA applicable.

    They are working a servicers. The deposition is very clear. N.A.’s do not FUND mortgages. They can service, purchase, hold and own….but none I have seen: US Bank, WF, Chase or BOA have lent you money. The reason it matters; is when you try and negotiate and get a mod….no can do!

    This is what I have and realistically made gains with at the settlement. There was no misunderstanding.. they had to pay. They refused to go to court saying they lent me anything. FYI: even after the settlement May 2013, they are now telling me I am in default again and threatening to force-place insurance (again, no lapse) as the “servicer”….I walked into the bank on that loan, supposedly no originator the “real” BOA…it is just not true.

    That’s all I know. I say again and again, most loans traveled in the same way, but the origination, brokering, converting and wiring may be different…???????

  62. RE: Bob G., on December 1, 2013 at 6:18 pm said:

    KC…re national banks can’t make mortgage loans.

    KC responds .. That was a statement made by another blogger, I was just responding to it.

  63. Retake #2… Great for Ill, Mass and WI residents, includes NY Trust Laws…

  64. Poppy

    You go ahead with this guy’s advice and I guarantee that you will end up sadder but wiser. You gals have to find out for yourselves, I guess.

    Have you asked this guy to provide concrete proof of whatever the hell he is babbling about? Get the actual current case cites for yourself. I’m talking about the courts, the parties, the docket numbers and the decisions and orders. Don’t you even care about this stuff?

  65. And FYI Bob: I get exhausted from certain people reading into what I say. I think MY country is a mess. Complacency and superficial to the core. The difference between me and some others: I believe we can get this together. I believe most people are decent and good at the core. They have been bamboozeld…it takes time!

    I have traveled the world, been in the military and the bullshit here can be tiring.

    But being judgmental of others who lack in concern, is only part of the problem. Understanding and educating may work better, if you have the time and caring to try! And I will do my level best, to continue to speak my piece and educate anyone who will listen.

  66. KC…re national banks can’t make mortgage loans.

    Where in the National Banking Act does it say that? It doesn’t. See 12 USC 81-95b.

    What the deposition might have said was that the bank wasn’t acting in its capacity as a national bank, but solely in its capacity as a corporate trustee for the MBS trust. That disclaimer is in every PSA. Check it out.

  67. Bob G.,

    You read it completely. I didn’t. Quickly scanned it (and said so) but we come to the same conclusion: it doesn’t apply for what MS is tooting about.

  68. KC

    I looked at your Bloomberg citation. You’re not reading this correctly.

    It talks about restrictions on alienation from a grantor to a grantee. This has absolutely nothing to do with a mortgagee foreclosing on a mortgagor. The mortgagor is a grantee from the original real property seller, who was the grantor. Your cite refers to alienation restrictions placed in the deed by the seller of the property to the buyer of the property, and how they are not enforceable.

    I think you’ve been proceeding on erroneous assumptions here. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but cold winds blow through the halls of truth.

  69. Bob,

    I got it in a deposition, from BOA N.A. nothing I say here cannot be
    validated. Call them if you like…are you an expert?

    There are only a handful that have gotten a settlement from BOA…not what I like, but better than zero. Lawyers do not know everything either. If they did they would know they are Billions to made defending borrowers. And they would salvage a very bad reputation.

    As far as I can see, everyone here is following the pack. So be it…the nuances are all different, even though the game IS the same. No one here has won anything at this point. I need not say anymore about that.

    Before Neil wrote about the bonds we did here, the REITS and the holding companies, issues in Maricopa, AZ, the contract issues we put here in 2011- 2012…we have what we need, as someone else said: procedure and lack thereof is a big problem, but you still need to know your case better than anyone and we do!

    All information is to be checked and validated…no matter how silly. MS and the GAAP are correct. It is not an issue of whether you like him or not.

    Following the “leader” is not going to win anything. Grown-ups get to decide how the game ends, win or lose. Opinions are just that, with no winners here, that I have seen. And that is a shame frankly.

    No humility here, boy oh boy…

  70. Glaski Rules. Where’s the Loan (Beef)?

  71. RE: “So far, contract law has trumped every other defense in court, ”

    Yes Christine!! YES!! I sued the defendant under Contract Law!

  72. KC,

    Something else…

    So far, contract law has trumped every other defense in court, for what foreclosure defense is concerned. And yet, MS is remarkably short on that too. Come to think of it, MS is remarkably short on pretty much everything except overinflated ego.

    I wonder why… There is something pathological about it too.

  73. KC,

    Briefly went over what you last posted. What Foulke wrote on page 104 is pretty much what your IL book confirms, re type of trusts and circumstances under which court rule against alienation of property.

    MS is full of it, as usual. Self-serving peddling as an art form… in some circles, it is called “scamming”.

  74. I know Christine, That is why we say hire an Attorney in your State. STATE LAWS VARY …..

  75. KC,

    Please go back to page 104 of that book and review the circumstances under which it applies.

    1) proceedings of BK
    2) execution, legal or equitable, to satisfy SOME decree of court (you’ll need to read the rest to find out which one(s)
    3) eminent domaine.

    Also note that it almost exclusively refers to PA. MS (from CA) is trying to use that to “help” someone from NJ. What was the context under which your attorney was using that? Also, the word “trust” in that book refers to someone very particular.

    I cringe when people use in a sweeping fashion some sources that either do not apply or apply in very limited and restricted cases. There’s been a lot of this on this site and many have paid deatrly for following bad advice.

    You recognize the tree by its fruits. MS has been remarkably lacking in fruit… telltale sign in my book.

  76. Here are the Laws for Illinois…

    Just Google them in your State.

  77. Christine, You and I don’t fight, we are Sisters who agree that we disagree on some issues.

    I’m not defending MS in any way, what I am saying … is that despite what your opinions are, …. that does not make him wrong. I had a Good Attorney ….. Remember?

  78. KC,

    Not looking to start a fight. Got a couple of cases handy?


  80. “Courts will invalidate some restrictions placed on the alienation of land in the grant as a matter of public policy.”


    I don’t believe that this applies in the case of homeowners being foreclosed on by a bank/mortgage servicer. I may be wrong but i believe that this refers to liens and levies by a public agency rather than mortgage contracts. And if, indeed, i am wrong, please give me a couple of cases where what you wrote applies and was ruled upon in accordance your understanding of it.

  81. I’m guessing that Masterservicer’s embedded code turns out to say something like “Drink You Ovaltine.”

    Please keep us posted. If you get anything of value from this guy, I’ll eat crow here

    KC asks… How do you Like your Crow Cooked?

    I second It !!! MS says…….

    Bloomberg Law :

    See the RULE AGAINST RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION Courts will invalidate some restrictions placed on the alienation of land in the grant as a matter of public policy.

    A. Three Types of Restrictions of which two of the three must be
    introduced into court

    2. Forfeiture A grant states that the grantee forfeits the land if he makes a transfer.
    A. Promissory A grant has a covenant forbidding alienation. Remedy is either injunction or damages
    for breach of contract.

    B. Effect of Rule The type of estate that was conveyed influences the
    effect of the rule.

    1. Fee Simple If a fee simple was conveyed, all restrictions are meaningless and unenforceable.
    2. Life Estate Disabling restraints will not be enforced, but others may be enforced.
    3. Leaseholds Forfeiture and promissory restraints are enforceable. Disabling restraints are also likely
    to be enforced by most courts.

    With God as my witness – this is what we are using to prevail and so should you

  82. Java,

    I second Bob G on his motion. Make absolutely sure you do NOT send any money to MS. Don’t give him any bank account number either.


    I don’t agree: MS has conned a few men here too. The difference is that men have an easier time putting a loss of $2,500 on the account of life experience and moving on, whereas women tend to mourn it for ever. On the other hand, that guy is playing with fire… ‘cuz scorned women don’t forget easily. And that “killing him” thing might very well come from that angle.

  83. KC…please elaborate. I don’t understand. What was I wrong about?

  84. Bob G, I Like You Buddy! But You Are Wrong!

    I’m Living Proof! I had a Good Attorney!

  85. Good Afternoon Everyone,
    I only have time to drop in once in awhile, Sorry.

    At a Glance …. I see MS is Sliding into Home!
    Nice Young Man! Nice!

    Keep your Eye Open for a Drone.. Overhead.

  86. Javagold…

    I’m guessing that Masterservicer’s embedded code turns out to say something like “Drink You Ovaltine.”

    Please keep us posted. If you get anything of value from this guy, I’ll eat crow here.

  87. MasterServicer. Yes I do have the HUD 1. Also found sine other interesting titled paperwork.

    Loan doc worksheet

    Funding reconciliation

    Summary sheet of charges and fees paid. (Including investor !!)

    Notice of loan approval

    Hope this helps me.

  88. Christine….RE Killing MS

    I suspect that they will have to take a number and get in line.

  89. MS

    “I guarantee I am right ! …”

    I guess, they’re gonna have to KILL you then…


  90. Masterservicer…

    Why is it that mostly women are falling for your line of BS? I’m starting to think that there might really be something to that Curse of Eve thing.

    I suggest that you go sell crazy somewhere else, because we’re all stocked up here.

    Christine, ya gotta admit that this guy is hilariously amusing. Kinda breaks up the monotony of a Sunday afternoon.

    I’m gonna make some popcorn and open a beer and stay tuned. Hopefully, he’s got at least a couple of more hours of material to deliver. I might even invite some friends over for this.

  91. MasterServicer. I should be able to include HUD 1 in email.

    FYI it’s from original mortgage broker and NOT servicer of 2009 mortgage statements.

  92. Christine typos —your correct . sorry. Thank you for your support however . Peace And send me your statement like you promised

  93. One West claims to be servicer, never received the PAYOFF by the foreclosure…(WHO DID?)

    MS the payoff is a recapture of the value charged off under TARP in 2008. They steal back the home used to support the trust common shares in order to reconstitute value

    Thus, this is not only tax evasion, but also securities fraud.”
    I’m suing them for failure to identify the creditor—FDCPA!!

    WRONG your claims was valid for the time they waited out the term to get an abandonment claim. You abandoned your claim for three years and hence —-forfeiture under GAAP .

    A FDCPA suit is weak …there are better and what I tell you is supported in the mortgage statements (2009) and embedded in the Notice of default Read it

  94. MS,

    “There is a embedded code in your mortgage statement . I may be a dead man by disclosing this…” Again, are you delusional?

    Anyone can search for himself “embedded code in mortgage statements” and get some hits on internet. As far as I can see, no one appears to have died for mentioning it. Aren’t you being a tad overly dramatic? I honestly doubt anyone would fear any “disclosure” you make… you know, credibility and all (or complete lack thereof) and by the way, where are the cases won thanks to you? We’re still impatiently waiting to read them but, after years of your coming here, still not one!

    Incidentally… it’s “prima facie”. Fascia is something completely different. This is surreal.

  95. Hey Christine


  96. MasterServicer – Email coming Monday. With 2009 code.
    @Cafe de Oro

    – do it brother .

    I Look forward to it. Your not a fan nor a personal opponent of mine. Your looking for answers … I believe . If I succeed ….help me convince others here …People need to known the facts and the servicing agent is not who you think yet the cover the A$$ by making an admission that is prima fascia to each case …



  97. Dear MS – How do I move on into arguments that no one has ever heard of to date ? @GreenTea

    MS – Don’t and repeat the same arguments thousands lose using every day . Use that which are likely to be enforced by most courts. I traded receivables for 25 years so just listen and do as I recommend using your own legal counsel to research before they advise . If they won’t, don’t dump them – sue them for willful mal practice .

    I guarantee I am right ! …

    Bloomberg Law :

    See the RULE AGAINST RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION Courts will invalidate some restrictions placed on the alienation of land in the grant as a matter of public policy.

    A. Three Types of Restrictions of which two of the three must be
    introduced into court

    2. Forfeiture A grant states that the grantee forfeits the land if he makes a transfer.
    A. Promissory A grant has a covenant forbidding alienation. Remedy is either injunction or damages
    for breach of contract.

    B. Effect of Rule The type of estate that was conveyed influences the
    effect of the rule.

    1. Fee Simple If a fee simple was conveyed, all restrictions are meaningless and unenforceable.
    2. Life Estate Disabling restraints will not be enforced, but others may be enforced.
    3. Leaseholds Forfeiture and promissory restraints are enforceable. Disabling restraints are also likely
    to be enforced by most courts.

    With God as my witness – this is what we are using to prevail and so should you!

  98. Christine. Email sent. Thanks.

    MasterServicer. Email coming Monday. With 2009 code.

  99. Ray,

    I remember reading your case a couple of years ago and being thoroughly impressed.

    Java is in NJ and NJ has been a real bitch to homeowners. Almost as bad as AZ and RI. No Judge Shack there. Again, I am not bashing Pro se. Most of them, however, have chewed way more than they could swallow and ignoring it is not helping would-be frighters. My opinion anyway.

  100. MS,

    This is absolutely hillarious!

    “I have nothing to do with the land mark case a few link me too.” Of course you don’t! The dismissal of your own tobacco case has been plastered all over the internet, remember? Nothing landmark there…

    Are you sincerely, genuinely delirious or is it an act?

  101. Nevertheless US Bank and GMAC filed Bankruptcy Chapter 11.

    You were a creditor who was protected in the bankruptcy and failed to file your claim . That’s one problem …But its a BK fraud by the tax payer filers ….trust me on this one

  102. Java,

    I believe I may have an answer for you. Someone who went through it in NJ, put herself through law school and is now on a mission. let me get back to you on that. Actually, let’s do better: send me an e-mail.

  103. why did banks need to fake, fabricate, forge, and robo sign mortgage documents? The answer is partially revealed on citing Lynn Symoniak’s settlement in which she received more than $30 million personally for challenging the banks…

    Over $900 Billion has been awarded in tobacco suits (I have nothing to do with the land mark case a few link me too) and $30 million ….show me the Symoniak’s settlement money . pending appeal ….Bull sheist

    Take a reality check and aim at the number of payments made over five years and get a refund while you fight the home .

    The documents are not fake- for Gods sake they were created when the loan originated . FAS 140 nonrecognition allows the documents to rest undisturbed till the time of recognition .

    Buy a GAAP book and read it ….the lack of understanding is costing people their homes month after month

    There is a embedded code in your mortgage statement . I may be a dead man by disclosing this , but few even care . Therein is the prima fascia that keeps this message alive . Read your statement for Gods sake .

  104. Deb,

    I wasn’t bashing. Simply warning that most pro se can’t deal with procedures and end up buried because of it. It’s great you came out on top: it speaks to your ability to navigate that incredibly complicated system. Unfortunately, most aren’t so fortunate.

  105. PRO-SE (Ramon Quiroz vs US Bank, GMAC, Steven J, Baum P.C.) I filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Court of Appeals, Upon due consideration The Court of Appeals Second Circuit CONSTRUED as a motion for summary reversal from the District Court dismissing Ramon Quiroz complaint for Fraud, Nevertheless US Bank and GMAC filed Bankruptcy Chapter 11. WHEREAS, upon consideration of the Motion and the Objection, and it appearing that this Court has jurisdiction to consider the Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334; and it appearing that venue of these Chapter 11 Cases and the Motion in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409; and it appearing that this proceeding on the Motion is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); and sufficient notice of the Motion having been given; and it appearing that no other or further notice need be provided, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT:
    1. The Motion is granted to the extent set forth herein, and the Automatic Stay is lifted for the limited purpose of allowing the Appeal to be adjudicated by the Second Circuit.
    2. If the Movant prevails on the Appeal, the Movant shall be required to seek further relief from the Automatic Stay from this Court to proceed with the Action against the Debtor Defendants in the District Court.
    3. In all other respects, the Automatic Stay shall remain in full force and effect.
    4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation of this order.
    Dated: September 13, 2013
    New York, New York

    _____/s/Martin Glenn_______
    United States Bankruptcy Judge

  106. Yes Deborah I’m going to back to beginning. First the supposed default date is incorrect..and next NOI cure figure was wrong balance. That’s as far back to the beginning as Possible. Wish me luck !!!

    Christine. Don’t want to post all my info ,just in case. But yes in NJ. Yes already foreclosed. In process of appealing and motion to vacate. Lawyer at this point is probably impossible to Trust, find, willing to take on my crazy situation, and finally afford. So fight it pro as I will. I’m not afraid of these lowlife debt collectors.

  107. Love listening to hudes.

  108. Generally you might be right Christine this stuff is fir experienced dedicated attorneys with trial experience,
    I had prior council and ended up pro se with tbe ” salvage” of my very meritous case.
    And i saved “the baby” so please dont bash pro se ers too much you cant possibly know what we have endured its been a long and winding road. Let me say this though. Keep going back to the beginning, thats my tid bit.
    Cant give legal advice im a nurse.

  109. 11/30/2013 Karen Hudes interview. More information coming out although some of it is a repeat of previous interviews.

  110. And Java,

    90% of the problems pro se run into are with procedures. You can have the best defenses in the world but if you do not follow the procedures, you miss deadlines to file certain motions, you fail to file timely motions for leave to amend, you don’t respect the format or you simply try blurting your arguments to the judge in court without having first pleaded them in writing, I’m afraid you don’t have a prayer.

    Judges are held to procedures and none of them will risk an appeal for something as obvious and avoidable. And banks will nail you on it systematically. You need an attorney.

  111. Java,

    Are you in active foreclosure? Has something been filed in court by the servicer? Is NJ judicial or non judicial? Are you still in the house?
    What are you trying to accomplish?

    From what I understand, NJ is a tough state for homeowners. Have you looked into getting an attorney?

  112. Since my defense of broken assignments, robo signing, lost note, mortgage only signed by one spouse house in other spouse name…. Have all gone nowhere, even with all my proof in documents , how about this late in game defense I just stumbled on.

    1. The NOI foreclose figure is $5000 higher than it was supposed to be back when the fight started in 2008. I have proof of the incorrect figure , from their 2008 statements and their 2013 foreclosure paperwork.
    2. They refused sept 2008 payment yet kept the money and started foreclosure as a September default of payment. I finally got the old statements to prove payment made/no default as foreclosure paperwork claims.

    Anyone think this is the way to go in front of judge with (black and white on statements) and forget the other fraud in the paperwork (my opinion it’s fraud, court not seeing it) ???

  113. UKG,

    I thought you already had one. Aren’t you married?

  114. KC , and me (give me a ring that is)

  115. Hello all. KC, any chance you could give me a ring tomorrow?

  116. “As to (servicer letter), One West is wrong. They were obligated to provide the creditor under the TILA 1641 g.
    Creditors do NOT include servicers, and trustees. According to the law, any investor with the largest position in your loan, has to identify itself to you — and, to the IRS…the stated trust, to which One West claims to be servicer, never received the PAYOFF by the foreclosure…(WHO DID?)
    Thus, this is not only tax evasion, but also securities fraud.”

    I’m suing them for failure to identify the creditor—FDCPA!!

  117. yep 🙂

  118. Bob G.,

    “The same law firm has been sending the same letterhead to my judge. Can’t wait to send him a copy of Schack’s decision next week.”

    You’re having way too much fun. This is almost obscene…

    Actually, I hope people will read that Shack decision and understand why, when a judge uses the word “frivolous” to qualify some action, it is definitely not a good thing and it can cost them mucho dinero. Those same people need to see why “vexatious” (rarely used and the judge has to be a special kind of pissed to get there) could as easily land them in jail…

  119. KC….what’s up with the court postings ????
    Please explain.

  120. Good Morning Sunshine ……..

  121. Black Friday Post-Game: 33 Million Shoppers Was Just the Beginning
    by The Associated Press Nov 30th 2013 5:00AM

    An entire country of people with such f**ed up priorities that, if change must come (and it does), it will have to be from the outside. Compare with the following: historically, a revolution will happen with fewer than 10% of a country’s population is truly committed to change. That’s what happened in France, Russia, China. Less than 10% of India was following Gandhi and we know the result: England was kicked out and Pakistan was created.

    Black Friday is the biggest insanity. The idea that people would sleep in tents in front of department stores makes Europe and Asia holler with laughter. When they know that all that junk will end up costing a monthly storage fee, they literally lose it and roll over the floor. Watching those imbeciles go at each other’s throat over a piece of plastic and metal and even kill each other is… well… not even human. Subhuman is more like it.

    Apparently, a little over 10% of the people participated in it. imagine if all those people had chosen to stop paying taxes and empty their bank accounts instead…

  122. E. Tolle…re the Feds: true words, my friend, true words.

    However………..the states have a dog in this fight, too.

    Check and see if your state has a REMIC tax exemption statute. Typically it will say that if an entity is deemed a REMIC for Fed purposes, it gets the state’s REMIC tax exemption as well.

    But here’s where we may have them. A homeowner can always move the state court for a declaratory judgment that the entity fails the Fed REMIC test. The state court would then be the arbiter, and wouldn’t need any input from the Feds. So the state court says that it finds that the entity is not a REMIC for Fed purposes, and thus fails for state purposes. Voila…the entity owes state income and franchise taxes on its state derived interest and foreclosure income.

  123. ET
    Its an invisible rope it a karmic knot
    We may not get to witness the ” hanging” but. Like i said
    Peace all focus on what you can do and where your individual power lies with your individual cases and go for it with all your might. Stay positive.

  124. Btw Judge Shack teminds me of my dad
    Yes he is our hero Bob. Thx for link

  125. “….give em enough rope they will hang themselves….”

    The only problem with that, and it’s a huge one, is that the federal government controls the rope supply and all the lamp posts, and they have shown no desire to stretch the necks of even one of their benefactors….their future employers, their true constituents; anything Wall Street.

    Bob, of course you’re right. MS is either another disgruntled former Wall Street ass-hat who hates that his cash cow got sick and died, or he’s a bad plant from the bank stooges hoping to disrupt conversation here. Either way, who in their right mind would consider hiring someone whose lucidity-card is supposed to rise up higher than the rest of the deck? MS can’t even use quotation marks in his posts, making it impossible to know if he’s deriding another poster, or just really stupid himself.

    I’m not picking sides on other flame wars on this site, but you’d have to be from another planet not to realize that Christine is spot on with her assessment of America, and the last days of the empire. Although she does, at times, come across as arrogant, more often than not, it’s just that the subject matter isn’t easy to swallow for those who still relish the quaint thoughts of apple pie and giving thanks for being “the greatest nation on the planet”, a self-pinned award that makes me cringe when I’m around my international buddies.

    Until we all decide that we are the true owners of the lamp posts throughout the land, and that it’s our sweat and labor that creates all of the rope in the U.S., we’re destined to simply feed at what they toss at our trough. But have you noticed; the trough is more and more crowded and they’re throwing less and less each day? Depopulation?

  126. The whole thing is so messy but what they did an d what they were supposed to do are two different things as i have found. I do not need to be an expert to sign for a morgage becausr i had tbe right ti rely. Just as my patients rely on my expertise just as the corporates rely on their sccountants. I focus on the record THEY created.My fsthers always said ” give em enough rope they will hang themselves”
    Just my two cents.

  127. Judge Arthur Schack…ya gotta love this guy !,33

    The same law firm has been sending the same letterhead to my judge. Can’t wait to send him a copy of Schack’s decision next week.

  128. Poppy…you said”

    “National Associations do not make mortgage loans, per rules of National banks…check it.”

    Where did you get that from?

    Also, MS is a charlatan. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. IRC 1031 doesn’t permit deferred tax exchanges of stocks, bonds, notes or evidences of indebtedness. And the MBS certificates are treated as debt for tax purposes. It’s in every PSA. You check it out.

    Also SEC Reg 1122AB is inapplicable. Why? Because it only applies to those entities that have a duty to report. But the trusts terminate their duty to report requirement shortly after they are formed and have sold their certificates. The reason they do this is because they have less than 300 investors. But they file a formal S-3 Registration Statement with the SEC when they register because at that time they don’t know if they’re going to have more than 300 investors. Contrary to what that village idiot is telling you, their is no private placement and there is no conversion of notes, mortgages, MBS, etc. into common stock.

    You deal with this guy at your peril.

    Now MS, prove me wrong. And do it in plain English so that everyone knows exactly what it is that you’re babbling on about, and can independently check the veracity of your statements.

  129. KC,

    Just sent you my answer. Call me anytime.

  130. I’m just trying to keep the Peace Christine, this Web of Lies & Deceit is Well Woven with Many Paths to Take. I was pretty upset a few years back when my attorney was attacking standing, I wanted to know what standing was … and what in tarnations it had to do with the Missing Money and the Deceased Sellers Trust still Open holding Title to the property we bought years earlier. Standing Is the Repellent! The Despicable Accounting Scheme is the Black Hole.

  131. Hey KC,

    Thanks a whole bunch but you don’t need to put yourself on a limb for me. I go with facts. When somene is stupid enough to write this:

    ‘Poppy, on September 17, 2013 at 12:18 pm said:
    You are not in any court, liar! You are a bully and a fraud! Get a life.”

    And adds:

    “Neil NEEDS to kick you off here…you have no offerings and have been foreclosed on” knowing full well it’s BS while being herself in foreclosure/bankruptcy/preforeclosure forever, you know whom you’re dealing with: someone quite a few cards short of a full deck.

    The idea of asking anyone to be a referee for bad faith, hatred and stupidity is… well… stupid in itself. And one would have to be some kind of special stupid to ask… Bob G., of all people, to be that referee by the way.

    Now, I’d be curious to know whom that “…have a mutual acquaintance for over 4 years” refers to.

    Remember KC: no skin off my bones. The US are in a dire straight. it is an undeniable fact spelled out by hundreds of American brains, day in, day out. Americans are a huge part of the problem by paying taxes and keeping their money with big banks. The entire world knows it and laughs about it. If my saying out loud what 7 billion people say all the time offends some in this country, so be it. It still hasn’t set their butt on fire enough for them to start uniting and taking action. They’d rather go on twitter and… what? (don’t you have a frickin’ job to keep you busy and productive?) and argue some more before a “court of public opinion” insane enough to go kill each other in malls on the day after Thanksgiving, over… stuff to buy that nobody needs.

    How is that for stupid?

    Change is coming. If it ain’t coming from inside, it’s gonna have to come from outside. I’m all for it either way: it’s desperately needed.

    But John Wayne ain’t coming back.

  132. @Java part of your understanding of the Notes not being in possession of Ginnie Mae is wrong, and why it because as in WaMu or IndyMac no one knows that the banks are to be taken over, and once the blank Note would have been on site or by a custodian, they are a part of the seized property and is sold by the FDIC. Now it would be to late once the loan are seized and it would be to late fro the 11711A to take hold because the bank is no longer able to make any decision over the loan or any other bank activity.

    Most important is the fact that their no purchase that occurred with Ginnie Mae. Now what is that you think the bankruptcy is going to do with these blank endorsed Notes with not purchase receipts but real debtors with receipt of monies they are owed and monies shareholders are owed.

    The reason Notes are signed in blank and possession is exchanged at the time on the loan being placed in the pool, is that Ginnie Mae no proof of funds changing hand. There is not after the fact taking possession.

  133. How about a challenge Bob? Take christine’s comments about this country and the personal insults and post them next to mine in response, on Facebook, Twitter, etc…and see the responses. If she has the guts let her post her personal email along with the comments, I’ll be happy to put mine out there and let the results speak for themselves!

    That will tell the entire story…

  134. Excuse me, counselor? I am not the one calling people names and belittling them. What is wrong with you? You think her admonishment and abusive comments are okay. Wow! She has been thrown off here before for the same behavior. Neil NEEDS to monitor this. This is not HER website…

    And FYI: we, christine-enraged and I have a mutual acquaintance for over 4 years, all is not as it seems with her. Kicking ass. yeah here, insulting the Americas, all citizens, bigoted comments…in any other public forum she would have her hands full. She’s smart to keep her comments on a small time venue…

  135. Just because you walk into BOA and sign papers does not mean they did not originate and sell off the mortgage? Think about it. I have a good friend also with BOA, whom they “supposedly” financed with 3 years ago. They are in SC and trying to get a refinance…BOA N.A. will NOT give it to them. Anyone gander a guess why? My opinion only: they did not lend on the loan and cannot – refinance it!

  136. Bob G,

    MS was “prepped” to be an arrogant ass ”’. Old habits are hard to break. Just remind him he needs to recognize his own behavior, … As far as his mathematical and securities knowledge … He knows what he is talking about ….. Not many understand what he is talking about, there are no simple words to explain it, it was designed that way. You have to take the info and do you own studies to understand the language used to Rob us Dummies.


    I enjoy our conservations outside LL. I know you are just as compassionate as the rest of us here. We have our disagreements and we all come across “frigid” at times, but that’s our compassion and anger showing.

    Christine went after them before they came after her. She is fighting with Long Standing Consumer Law. And she is Kicking Ass! You are Wrong about her having been FC and lost her home a long time ago. Get those hormones under control woman! Don’t grab at Straws … And for Heavens sake, Ignore Christine, if you disagree with her…… don’t get distracted from the issues at hand.

    Many Blessings To All!

  137. Also I’m sure my brothers mortgage has BOA NA as original lender on the closing mortgage paperwork….but he did go to BOA directly for his mortgage. ……. So I guess That makes some sense.
    My situation makes no sense to me. …… WF NA showed up in 5years as SERVICER thru corrupt chain of assignment. And now WF NA are the plaintiff that foreclosed on house. ……say they are “lender” and holder of note and mortgage. ……..I keep saying NO to everyone …..but spitting in the wind is a better defense.

  138. All I can offer…I just got a settlement from BOA N.A. (May 2013) very specifically the Defendant, BOA N.A. admitted they “were not” the lender, by virtue of the rules for National Associations, they were the servicer, claimed by the purchase of Countrywide? That’s what I DO know, based on discovery in the case.

  139. 1. A provision in a mortgage contract that exists institutes an automatic entitlement to a demand for payoff. The provision is an undue acceleration clause allows the lender to call the mortgage

    2. The provision is unlawfully enforced in every foreclosure and can be found on the back of the notice of default. This allows for the mortgage to be repaid in full upon a sale or conveyance of partial or full interest in the property that secures the mortgage.

    3. The borrower normally receives a notice of default at or within a year of the Due on Sale clause Mortgages with a due-on-sale clause are not assumable. This clause purportedly helps protect lenders against below-market interest rates. Now it allows the lender to call back a charged off mortgage under the 2008 TARP initiatives passed by the United Sates Congress

    4. A due-on-sale clause helps protect the lender, or the ultimate mortgage holder, from the risk that the mortgage may be transferred to the new owner of a property when the rate on the mortgage is below current market interest rates. This would extend the life of the mortgage.

    5. This was the basis for the charges taken by the member banks under TARP and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. It’s the bond holders who are at risk however for a transferred borrower obligation sold at a 10:1 ratio causing it to emerge a costly below-market-interest-rate mortgage that was paid off in advance of the lenders 20 years call date under the issuance of these purported mortgage-backed securities.

    6. The loans were lost to the wire into a depositors account used to create a revolving 180 days asset-backed security or collateralized debt obligation traded as equity in a 1031 tax deferred exchange

    7. Thus, the banks capitalization of borrower wires that were warehouse lines backed by a below-market-interest-rate mortgage – begged imposing a default on an innocent household borrower in advance of a breach of the notes terms

    8. These terms and conditions are unenforceable while they allow the issuers a favorable early retirement of the lines never paid as agreed at the time of the loans origination

    9. Claims cite where the notes due-on-sale clause is unjust and unenforceable, when the foreclosing attorneys are the party who is selling the subject home that the member bank lost to the wire into settlement will use to transfer the subject mortgage to the reconstituted purchaser and bonds new issuers

    10. The foreclosing parties must use the sale proceeds to pay off you’re the existing loan but instead uses the foreclosure sale to reestablish or recapitalize lost value from the 2008 TARP charges taken by member banks

    11. If anything the foreclosure by enforcement of the due-on-sale clause, is moot due to the charged off wire and lost note due to the issuers discounting the deed of trust for payoff to bond holders in year five

    12. What is also moot is the fact the converted mortgage to bond and 1031 exchange disallow a mortgage from being assumed under any method or means of creating a home purchase that otherwise might be part of homebuyers’ purchasing decisions.

    Under the 1982 Garn-St. Germain Act, lenders cannot enforce the due-on-sale clause in certain situations even though ownership has changed.

    13. This is a reason why the purported servicing agents encourage borrowers to miss two payment s to qualify for a impossible loan modification.

    14. Albeit the mortgage were made by creating tenants in common or joint tenancy among married couples , a divorce or legal separation and ownership between spouses changes (for example, the property was jointly owned and becomes owned by a single spouse), the lender CAN NEVER enforce the due-on-sale clause.

    15. The same is true if the owner transfers the property into a living trust and the borrower is a member bank and the trust’s beneficiary.

  140. But are they allowed to be assigned a mortgage???…. Which then according to courts makes them “lender”… now the plaintiff in foreclosure is Wells Fargo NA, by way of a back dated and robosigned assignment if mortgage…..the foreclosure attorney, says in papers they own and hold note/mortgage, even though for first time in 5 years I receive a paper lost note affidavit from 2002 !!!!! ……never included in any previous stacks of foreclosure paperwork.

    Am I just wasting my time finding all these questionable items or are they real fraud against me/court.

  141. I shivering in my boots …keep up these terrorist threats – FBI is asked to monitor (Los Angeles CA Office – twice reported ).

  142. Poppy,
    I think someone needs to tell that to the N.A.s they are not lenders….. One case I referred to an attorney (no-default, just denied refi). They had title issues … surprise… surprise … BUT….. The MORTGAGE dated in 2007 says the Lender is Wells Fargo N.A. Better yet …. WF in any given capacity was the seller, owner, trustee and Lender for this family.


  143. National Associations do not make mortgage loans, per rules of National banks…check it.

    N.A.’s are not your lender.

  144. Are the N.A. (Wells Fargo NA, BOA NA ,etc…) allowed to own/hold note and mortgage as plaintiff/lender and foreclose ?????

  145. Like begets like. Enlightening. Losers commiserating with each other and complaining to each other of being bullied. Just like in kindergarten. Unreal…

    Such a good sample of why this country is so screwed up. Oh well, it won’t be long anymore. Some people are going to be in for a rude awakening…

  146. Thanks, MS I will check it ASAP…so many nuances, Whew…

    Neil MUST moderate, an absolute. Far too many suffering here to be abused.

  147. Manga Cum Laude graduate of MBA studies 8 years ago, 2 former undergraduate degrees

    therein is an education. Wow! Let their childhood three knuckle experiences” remain the fodder of a psychologist. Its stupidity that must stay clear of your firm beliefs and poignant comments .

    Have pity for the ignorant.

    NG You got to moderate ….

  148. Look at you Notice of default. Somewhere on the back you will find a DUE ON DATE. A Due On sale clause brought by a lender is a restraint on alienation under an illicit backdating scheme .

  149. There Bob G. You have it. I rest my case.

  150. That’s right karate-kid, me…a Manga Cum Laude graduate of MBA studies 8 years ago, 2 former undergraduate degrees, paralegal background…made well over 7 figures, owned and operated 3 businesses over years.

    Numerous accolades for athletic endeavors, Adjunct Professor of Construction Management studies, Management, etc…do I need to continue, loser?

    Neil NEEDS to kick you off here…you have no offerings and have been foreclosed on!

  151. I suspect you are correct MS. It certainly looks that way.

    Where we go from here…asking for SJ and removal of/with Ocwen and have a Tort claim pending with originator. One of the largest issues for me, is the procedural issues. We have traveled well through the court with pleadings and an appeal, but it is gravely difficult to know what to file and when, given the lack of disclosure and understanding of the movement with/of the players…I am certain ours is winnable, but trying to find a lawyer is a nightmare. Been ripped off multiple times. Any suggestions?

  152. Bob G,

    Nothing. I just wanted to get a hold of him.

  153. christine…jan van eck…no, haven’t been in touch with him lately. what’s going on with him and what’s he up to?

  154. Bob G,

    You’re wasting your time. We’ve been asking the peddler for years to cite one case ever won thanks to his testimony. Like the great majority of the losers posting here, right away, you get the attitude right away. Forget it.

    Look who he’s addressing. That should tell you everything you need to know…

    By the way, are you in touch with Jan Van Eck?

  155. Masterservicer….you are a lunatic. Anybody that pays you any money for advice deserves exactly what they get.

  156. Bob Come on – so you have worked for a bank?.

    I just got your email and hey …apology accepted .

    Have a good day

  157. Poppy :

    The loan was converted into common stock and was charged off on October 30th 2008.

    You failed to file the appropriate claim for a release of lien as of October – November 2010

    You probably elected to participated in a modification offer from that date through 2011 -the time required for reconstitution of a charged off asset.

    They are back dating your foreclosure to the date of the loans origination.

  158. No, I do not work for Wells Fargo. Where did you get that one from?

    Let me guess… you pulled that one out of your ass, three knuckles deep, like everything else you post here. I think that maybe your parents might have dropped you on your head as a child (perhaps repeatedly, it would seem).

  159. Bob G You work for Wells Fargo …correct
    Why are you doing this ….

  160. I’m not in default. How about you just answer the questions posed. The questions were based solely on your averments.

  161. Neil ,

    Please consider what I proposed in the prior thread ,, we need exposure , and the Anthony foreclosure would get exactly that ,, plaintiff = Nationstar which is being sued right now ,, looks like Bank of America is current assignee , Nationsbank looks like originator in late 1998 ..

  162. Bob G

    Send it to a securities lawyer. Are you a securities lawyer? Have you ever sold a whole loan into a private placement ? Are you an accountant? Have you ever formed an LP to hold shares in a private placement.

    Look at your notice of default …therein is a coded date used to foreclose on your property

    Look at your loan statement from 2009 and therein is an embedded code.

    Bob G …email these documents…then you will see.

  163. MasterServicer my email scans of 2008-2009 statements will be emailed to you on Monday afternoon. Hope you can help.

    Thanks to everyone else replies. Yes. May be time to get an attorney (although Its probably too late) but I will keep fighting. That’s for sure.

  164. carie: Servicer must prove that all default payments have been paid to the trust on borrower’s behalf. If not, loan has been removed from the trust with collection rights sold/swapped to a third party.

    Hey girl…

    My loan was defaulted on October 01, 2007, long before I had any financial issue, have checks…the point here, someone on their end defaulted the damned thing. Collection rights (maybe) are all that remain as the supposed trust was opened on August 01, 2007 – closed August 31, 2007, from an origination in February 2007…(so, they are saying the loan defaulted in the trust, what?) anyway, I have the goods, the entire paper trail.

    I ask Neil to tell me again the judges don’t know. I can evidence the entire layout and have!

    Numerous QWR’s and ledgers have a zero balance, again What?

    Then we have the grand slam…I am a creditor of the originator, per court documents…Ocwen who is harassing me, says it doesn’t matter what my status is, they are bound to collect for the trust. LOL Okay, so, you as a servicer, third (fourth, fifth and sixth parties to date) party, are suing a creditor for payments with no trust, a default in 2007 (not by me) have no balance due by your own ledger and just what are you suing me for? And the Federal Court doesn’t matter to you guys? It should, cause the way I see it, you could have yourself a boat load of trouble…hopefully, even with a bad judge.

  165. Masterservicer…what the hell are you talking about with all this nonsense? Your rambles sound like you’re channeling “Stripes.” You make no sense whatsoever. None of you statutory or reg or acctg cites have any bearing on what’s going on here in the least. And you don’t even understand that which you cite, and why your cites are inapplicable.

    You’re doing a lot of people here a great disservice.

  166. Claims : 1122 AB . Mail fraud wire tampering , Accounting fraud under a 1031 tax deferred exchange, Restraint on Alienation

    J Behan Long Beach $165,000 settlement
    R Henderson $450,000 settlement (keep home)
    M Lopez $50,000 settlement
    M Lee $3000 Returned home after 1.5 years


    Foreclosures are falsely executed and materially misrepresenting the facts that emerge from a thorough economic analysis. Where the opposition cannot refute nor affirm these facts concerning the banks officers formation of a Member bank Private placement (or non-public offering) the court cannot allow the foreclosure sale to succeed as scheduled. Each loan originates as a prorated share in a subsequent round of  funding Trust Common Shares (“TCS”) as in equity or common stock securities. These securities transfer the banks capital borrowed from the Fed  used to wire the funds disbursed into the subject loan settlement
    Most private placements are offered under the Rules known as Regulation D.[2] Private placements may typically consist of offers of common stock or preferred stock or other forms of membership interests, warrants or promissory notes (including convertible promissory notes), bonds, and purchasers are often institutional investors such as banks, insurance companies or pension funds. The mortgage converts into PRIVATE PLACEMENT SHARES which are sold under an installment sale contract into a depositors account owned by a limited partnership through other than a public offering. The issuer and the depositors are the member banks who are the sponsors. The equity is sold through a private offering, financed by the bank to the bank officers and or a small number of chosen member bank investors.[1] 
    These bank to bank debt offerings are done through the formation of these “Private placements” through non-public offering of shares in a public company (since, of course, any offering of shares in a private company is and can only be a private offering). Also known as private investment in public equity deals, these issuances are one type of private placement. Standby equity distribution agreement is also a form of private placement. Although these placements are subject to the Securities Act of 1933, the securities offered do not have to be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission if the issuance of the securities conforms to an exemption from registrations as set forth in the Securities Act of 1933 and SEC rules promulgated there under. Common exemptions from the Securities Act of 1933allow an unlimited number of accredited investors to purchase securities in an offering. Generally, accredited investors are those with a net worth in excess of $1 million or annual income exceeding $200,000 or $300,000 combined with a spouse. Under these exemptions, no more than 35 non-accredited investors may participate[3] in a private placement. In most cases, all investors must have sufficient financial knowledge and experience to be capable of evaluating the risks and merits of investing in a company.

    References- Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks (March 1990). Private placements: Comptroller’s Handbook. US Department of the Treasury. Retrieved 2009-06-13. (December 1995). Introduction to Private Placements. Retrieved 2012-07-06. Morgan, Thomas; Lewis and Roca LLP (March 6, 2013). “Raising Capital – What You Don’t Know Could Hurt You”. The National Law Review. . March 17, 2013.

  167. Bullshit, Neil! It is corruption and the judges DO know what they’re doing. How can any judge look past multiple void assignments and conflicting copies of notes and not understand? Really? Get real, pal.

  168. @java if you got a copy of the Note and that Note is not full of endrosement and there is space to record the endorse, then that allonge should not be any good, but the bank should be able to back up the allonge with a receipt that monies were paid for the purchase of the debt.

    Where is why I been saying for at least three years that Ginnie Mae is the easier to prove as they all must be process the same as it only goes through one agency and they cannot be sold around from pool to pool because the Notes are not purchase in the first place.

    What actually the most difficult part of exampling situation we find ourselves in, is the fact that these government insured loans wiped clear the debt in the transaction so each and every one of those home were free and clear of the debt once they were submitted to the securities, and each payment paid after the the loan was placed into the securities could not have been collected and should by law be returned to the homeowner. This is the nightmare the federal government got to deal with!

  169. Java,

    In all probability, if you haven’t made the payments yourself, your taxes are paid by an outfit called Corelogic, which appears to be to money what MERS is to paperwork: some monstruosity created by the banks and/or the association of realtors and which handles those crucial payments to protect the banks/servicers from a lien on the property. How that works, I don’t really know except that, when you go into your tax assessor’s website and you look up the payments, they have been made by Corelogic.

    Do you have an attorney?

  170. Javagold
    At this point it would appear about all you can do is charge that there is no “evidence” under the federal rules of evidence to show that party has the right to foreclose. The court should order them to produce.

  171. Needcaselaw
    You mention the ” constitutional rightto defend property ”
    So – a lis pendens is how you do this at the out start of you filing suit.
    Think about that. Any lis pendens – as notice to all that there is a contest as to who is forclosing and their authorised capacity to do so. Ecetera ecetera
    This is whete our right to due process of law becomes paramount. Is there anything in the world more worthy of protection.
    Only my lay opinion not an attorney.

  172. Where is the money the servicer are paying the property taxes for 3,4 or more years coming from ????? Wow !

  173. Where is the money from property taxes for 3,4 or more years coming from ????? Wow !!

  174. “…Banks have disposed of collection rights, or are in the process of doing so. People are really dealing with distressed debt buyers, who are tougher than even the banks. Only goal for them is — profit.”

  175. From Anon:

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

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

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

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

  176. Servicers purchase “default debt” from “trusts” on behalf of another entity…then continue collection on behalf of default debt buyer…current creditor rarely divulged.
    Servicer must prove that all default payments have been paid to the trust on borrower’s behalf. If not, loan has been removed from the trust with collection rights sold/swapped to a third party.

  177. Looks like NJ decided lost note doesn’t matter and they can foreclose.

    What I don’t understand is how Bank B has signed the lost note affidavit in 2002 , yet Bank A didn’t even assign mortgage to Bank B until 2006. ……of course to confuse things even more, it is Bank C , who didn’t show up until 2007 , who is the plaintiff in foreclosure , even though they lent no money and admit they are not current owner of note/mortgage (which is backed by Fannie Mae)……still I find it strange after 5 years of fighting, I just receive the lost note affidavit in the stack of paperwork from lowlife debt foreclosure attorney.

  178. Neil you got to stop with the original loan were funded by whoever as the way has been shown that they lender don’t have proof they own the loan debt and needed to break the law a have forgeries created.

    Neil wants to add to the war another battle that these funds were actual from another source, when Szymoniak got $30 million in hand and in these recent settlement she should be do more as she is a factor in showing the failure of these securities.

    I know as a mortgage loan officer that my bank was providing the fund for the closing because I personally closed the loans the bank as we knew later the loan would be sold to the correspondent bank.

    When I was working for a broker shop we received the wire from the company the loan was being originated for, but let say it was a warehouse line would the broker not need its funds coming from some bank and the broker not a bank in the terms that it does banking where it can itself do wire transfers!

    Now do I believe that they fund come from the investors? To a degree they do but it a floating system to get around long term financing, and to understand that it not all investor money is because there not a 100% draw amount against the securities.

    Szymoniak already shown the way, and she is at least $30 million ahead of the game, so why add another element to have to try and prove when Szymoniak shows how it done?

  179. Deborah and A-Man:

    Thank you both. COSAJAY v. MERS is precisely on point as to one of the issues in my case. The district court just dismissed numerous defendants stating, “The point of the Deed of Trust Act is to protect borrowers [not homeowners] from harsh practices by lenders during non-judicial foreclosures.” (claiming therefore I had no standing to dispute a wrongful foreclosure). This absurd statement ignores the real grounds at issue here: it is not a debate of contract law applied to foreclosure law; the issue is constitutional (both U.S. and State Constitutions):
    “A property owner [has a] constitutional right to defend his property” State v. Vander Houwen, 163 Wn.2d 25 (2008). And, “The right to defend is personal.” State v. Rafay, 167 Wn.2d 644, at ¶ 16 (2008). Here the property owner, and not the borrower, will bear the personal consequences and injury to his property of a wrongful foreclosure.
    Constitutional questions addressing a federal district court usurping State Constitutional property rights in my case was submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, 11/25/2013. See

    Keep up the good fight.

  180. Javagold:
    Quick, check your state’s UCC provision on lost note. Washington does not go along with the federal version – trading in lost or stolen notes is not provided for. 62A.3-309 (may read at )
    Good luck.

  181. Can anyone answer why I would be getting in my foreclosure defense and motion to vacate an affidavit of lost note, for the first time in 5 years (from debt collector attorney)….the lost note is dated on 40 days after the refinance close date, so I find it hard to believe it was lost……also the assignment of mortgage to bank B(who is signing the lost note affidavit in 2002) did not get assignment from Bank A to Bank B until 2006.

    I know there is multiple fraud in this paperwork , I just Don’t know exactly what is most important to show court/judge in less than 10 minutes……..please help with any and all advice.

  182. Amen
    And when there exists evidence that make the recordings – a question of fact- ( and quite possibly a provable felon and court therefore has a duty to prosecute criminally as a matter of public interest and safety)
    ” preponderance of evidence”

  183. Christine. Property taxes are the most regressive tax in the world !

  184. In CA consider this in your case. The trial courts use two case to justify their rulings, Fontenot and Herrera. Fontenot is used to allow judges wide latitude to accept judicial notice of recorded assignments and whatever else seems pertinent as a result, e.g., parties, execution date, property affected. What homeowners seem to miss is buried in the Fontenot decision that refers to the Herrera case and states that Fontenot does not apply to foreclosures, with particular reference to assignments of mortgages (see Poseidon case as basis).

    IANAL – I am not a lawyer, so your mileage will likely vary.

  185. A point I see missed in most cases – under the rules of evidence the recording of an assignment is not evidence of the ownership of a note, which is requisite to assigning a deed of trust – owning the right to foreclose. Simply publishing a notice cannot validate an invalid holding. In Washington it is a felony to knowingly record false instruments in the public record. RCW 40.16.030. If we truly want to stop the fraud, perhaps criminal prosecution first is the answer. Civil recovery might then follow more easily.

  186. Java,

    Actually, i don’t have a problem with real estate tax: contributing toward the place where we live makes sense to me and history clearly shows that, unless forced by a system of levy, people will not voluntarily participate in the maintenance of infrastructures.

    The IRS, on the other hand… Too many black projects, bail-outs for the rich and the banks, wars no one wants, all that financed with my dime. Time to do away with it.

  187. Don’t forget also paying property taxes. Which in most states are already too damn high.

  188. An idea whose time has come… and 3 guys worth looking into.

    Constitutional Amendment Introduced In Congress That Would Abolish IRS, Income Tax
    Written by: Tara Dodrill Politics November 28, 2013 4 Comments

    A trio of Congressmen wants to repeal the 16th Amendment – an amendment that rarely makes headlines but deserves attention, particularly during the Thanksgiving season when we give thanks and look back at America’s history.

    The law pertains to the tax system and perhaps most importantly – the IRS. Adopted in 1913, the amendment gives Congress the power to collect income taxes. For the first 137 years of America’s history, there was no tax on a person’s wages.

    Republican Oklahoma Representative Jim Bridenstine is leading the charge to repeal and replace the 16th Amendment. The primary goal: to abolish the IRS. The GOP lawmaker contends that the Fourth Amendment is essentially negated by the 16th Amendment. The Fourth Amendment “protect the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

    Representative Bridenstine, Florida Congressman Ron DeSantis, and Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie introduced House Joint Resolution 104 and start the process necessary to repeal and replace the 16th Amendment. They face an uphill battle, of course, but they say their cause is right…

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: