More Lawsuits, Still No Real Progress and No Coverage by Media

Jon Stewart committed his entire show to the mortgage crisis last Wednesday night. Go watch it. It wasn’t funny although they added some comedic aspects. The bottom line is the question “why aren’t these people in jail?” And the media was scorched with the fact that despite a constant culture of continuing corruption and absurd “transactions” in which paper goes back and forth, and calling that economic activity with”profit,” and stories of the human tragedy of Foreclosures all based on what are now obviously fraudulent schemes, the media is silent. The number of stories on the illegal Foreclosures, the charges of FRAUD by everyone involved from lenders (investors) to insurers to guarantors to borrowers, the verdicts and judgments decided against the banks, and the analysis that the assets of the banks are fictional, the total is ZERO.

My question is why the displacement of more than 15 million people in a single scheme is not the main question in American discourse, media and politics — especially since the banks have admitted by conduct or expressly their wrongdoing? We already know it was a total fraudulent scheme. The banks are settling their ill gotten gains for pennies on the dollar while the victims absorb most of the loss. We already know that the requirements of Federal law were routinely ignored in disclosing the real terms and lenders to borrowers. And if they had made the disclosure, the deals would not have occurred, because if they were disclosed neither the lenders (investors) nor the borrowers (homeowners) would have done the deal.

One particular story was singled out by Jon Stewart to provide an example of what Gretchen Morgenson called “just another day on Wall Street” was the recent transaction between Blackrock and Corere. Blackrock loaned Corere $100 million. Blackrock purchased a credit default swap worth $15 million if there was any default for any reason. Blackrock made a deal with Corere for Corere to default. So Corere defaulted. Blackrock collected the $15 million on the credit default swap PLUS the full repayment from Corere of $100 million, plus interest. Somehow this is considered legal. I call it FRAUD.

When applied to the mortgage market you can easily see how the agent banks (investment banks or broker dealers) made a fortune by creating deals that failed on paper when in fact the loan was already covered in multiple ways. Only in the mortgage situation the lenders got screwed out of repayment and the borrowers got screwed on their deal by either losing their home or getting a deal where they would be underwater for the rest of their lives. As I have been detailing over the last week, I have a currently pending case in which the “successor” trustee with a new aggressive law firm is pursuing foreclosure and collection of rents on loans that they know have been paid, they admit have been paid, but they say it doesn’t matter. Using this theory, if the payment doesn’t come from the named Payor on the note to the now unnamed payee on exhibit note, anyone can collect multiple times on a single debt. This is crazy.

The bastion of our security — judiciary — is succumbing to expediency over truth and justice. Instead of applying the requirements of law and procedure strictly against the same entities that are repeatedly cited for FRAUD AND NON COMPLIANCE by government and lawsuits from investors, insurers and guarantors, the judiciary is ignoring the requirements or applying liberal standards to allow the foreclosure to proceed. What Judges don’t understand yet is that they can clear their docket more quickly if they demand proof of payment by the party seeking foreclosure and proof of authority to represent the real creditors, who must be identified.

If the party pursuing foreclosure has no skin in the game and doesn’t represent anyone who does, the foreclosure fails jurisdictionally. If we apply any other standard, then the courts are opening the door for uninjured people to sue for a slip and fall that happened to someone else.

These Foreclosures would disappear entirely if judges applied the law with or without a proper presentation by defense counsel. In the old days, Judges carefully reviewed the basic documents. If they found a gap, they refused to apply the most extreme remedy of foreclosure until the the creditor could comply. That is all I ask. Instead most lawyers are told to stop arguing because the Judge is uncomfortable with what he is hearing and most lawyers do not have the guts to say to the judge that the purpose of having a lawyer is to “argue” cases. Is the Judge throwing out the right to be heard altogether? That violation of undue process is something that should be taken to task.

At the end of the day, it will be accepted fact that the mortgages were fraudulent unenforceable devices that never should have been recorded, much less used for foreclosure or collection of rents, the note is a fraudulent unenforceable paper designed to mislead the borrower, the lenders, the insurers, the government guarantors, credit default counterparties, and the courts as to the lender’s identity, and the debt was always between the investors who received no documentation for their investment that was real, and the homeowners who were duped into signing papers that made them unwitting participants in a fraudulent scheme.

In the end the intermediary agent banks got paid but the lenders only get their money if they sue the investment banker because the lenders were denied the right to appear on closing paperwork as the lender or on assignments. In other words, the parties who loaned the money got pennies on the dollar. The Banks got paid multiple times on the same debt by selling it multiple times, insuring it multiple times and getting it guaranteed multiple times, and then foreclosing as if they were the lender.

My final question is this: “if we know the mortgage mess was a fraudulent scheme, why are we allowing its continuation in the courts?”


DOJ plans more MBS fraud cases in New Year

The Department of Justice intends to bring cases against several financial institutions next year for what it says is mortgage-bond fraud, Attorney General Eric Holder told Reuters yesterday.
While Holder said that the DOJ would use JPMorgan’s $13B agreement as a template, he didn’t provide details about which banks are in his crosshairs.
Firms that have acknowledged that they are under investigation include Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C) and Goldman Sachs (GS).

Read more at Seeking Alpha:

Sent from the Seeking Alpha Portfolio app. Get the app.

112 Responses

  1. rhe ny state court had no jurisdiction when the state judge signed the void ab initio judgment many ions ago.

  2. @Poppy
    In California nobody has to produce the note in the non-judicial foreclosure schema.

    The laws assume that all is proper with the recordings of the Notice of Default, the Notice of Sale, any recorded Assignments and any recorded Substitutions of Trustee and the Trustee Deed Upon Sale.

    The only time we get to court is after the Trustee Deed Upon Sale has been recorded and then the Summons and Complaint is served for eviction (Unlawful Detainer action).

    The UD case moves quickly… must answer the summons/complaint in 5 days after being served. The service mus be proper.

    It is difficult to challenge the recordings in the UD court…..nearly impossible.

    One should always consult a competent attorney regarding any of the above matters.

  3. RE: PSA and REMIC rules — was the loan in the MBS?

    check out this ruling of dec 2013 –a demurrer defeat for Deutsche Bank National Trust

  4. JohnGault

    Foley enterprizes is a very necessary part to make this massive ponzi scheme work
    Why would he pay over three billion for a business that he can’t reopen in the UNITED States when Lorraine Browne already worked her way into prison in this established endeavor. A TURNKEY OPERATION WAITING FOR HIM.

  5. JohnGault

    If Attorney General HOLDER WOULD INDICT William P Foley of Fidelity many of us would get our stolen properties back sooner than later.

    William P Foley played a major part in the scam of forged documents and facilitating the movement of these counterfeit papers between Banks, HOMEOWNERS AND County Clerks. .

    You are right a document without jurisdiction is the same as counterfeit money, no value.

    Foley is a confidence man like MADOFF ONLY ON A LARGER SCALE.

  6. And of course it’s hard to combat fraud, like when a criminal endorses a note it’s not entitled to endorse to itself or someone else. I wish Neil or someone capable would discuss the endorsement of a note by an alleged agent (or like that) and what endorsing without identifying the capacity (abc as agent for) in which it signs means. I think it means the person who does that is liable for something in regard to the note for whatever that might be worth. Well, if one is supposed to sign as “an agent for” when one is claiming to be an agent, as I believe one must, at least we could demand the agency be demonstrated. Imo, there is never a reasonable presumption of agency. In other words, no one should ever believe or “presume” so and so is anyone’s agency without evidence of agency, especially courts.
    When / if an assgt of a dot says MERS is the novated nominee for
    ABC and its successor or assigns, i.e., thee ben, then that language about for whom (successors and or assigns) is superfluous (and misleading imo), because MERS is in fact thee ben and remains so until the dot is assigned to someone else. IF MERS is merely an agent, the party for whom MERS purports to be an agent must be identified in the assignment – “as agent for” and the agency demonstrated, at least on demand. An agent, unlike a novated party, doesn’t act in its own right, and its execution of an instrument or a contract must identify its relationship with whom. To me, the presumptions being made about what’s what with the “original lender its successors and or assigns is ” totally insane unless MERS is thee ben by novation, in which case it’s superfluous and willfully misleading.

  7. poppy – not even going to get to that question (did you pay?) until it’s been established there’s a justiciable matter before the court. For there to be a justiciable matter before a court, the court has to first of all have jurisdiction. If the party bringing a complaint is not an injurred party,
    there’s no jurisdiction. imo. I suppose in the cases you’re referring to, the bankster says it has poss of a bearer note or even a specially endorsed note. Imo, neither is evidence of injury and only a specially endorsed note can entitle one to even posit the presumption of transfer of the note exists.( a specially endorsed note, one to a named party, may, probably does, I don’t know, create a – rebuttable – presumption of transfer. see UCC for definition of transfer). If there is a presumption that transfer (see terms of governing document, the note – “one who takes by transfer” becomes the note holder for purposes of enforcement) exists, there may be a presumption, but still a rebuttable one, that the claimant has an injury. (But I don’t believe possession of a bearer note is entitled to a presumption of transfer, which acc to the note is the bomb)
    I can’t enforce my neighbor’s note by my mere possession (it’s endorsed in blank) because I have suffered no injury (and I’m not entitled to paymen)t and a court can’t address nor grant relief for non-injury. I could probably make the maker believe I can enforce, but not in a court which must have jurisdiction to adjudicate / settle a matter. IMO: these note require transfer and a court’s jurisdiction requires injury.
    So right after transfer and jurisdiction are established, a court may get to one’s default. The bankster has to first get in the room to argue what’s in there or not. And, yeah, we know that establishing that is easier said than done, but we’ll lose if we don’t get it done.

  8. Interesting cases, KC. They support the proposition that it’s delivery which makes a deed effective. Whether or not that (the req for delivery to be effective) applies to a deed of trust remains a mystery, but I stand, and have, on what is supported by this statement in one of the cases about a deed:

    “When that was paid the plaintiff had a right to the deed.”,

    meaning that, as applied to a loan, if one has paid for a secured note, one has a right to an assgt of its collateral instrument (as distinct from having it) and delivery of that asst, if not also delivery of the coll instrument itself. If a dot operates the same as a deed, one doesn’t have the dot until there’s been delivery of an assgt. In the case you cited, the deed had been executed to X, the buyer, but delivered to a third party. The only thing necessary there was the delivery from the third party to X (after X completed payment) because the seller had already executed the deed to X. The deed was executed and escrowed and by the original agreement, X’s payment found X with a right to the deed he paid for. (The one case says that if the seller dies before X completes his payment, when X completes his payment, the transfer date will relate back to the date the deed was escrowed. This would preclude the seller’s heirs from trying to nullify the sale, say). But, importantly, his final payment didn’t find him with the deed. Delivery was required to X from the party holding it in escrow. If a note secured by real property is itself transferred to a party, that party has a right to an assignment (and delivery of the assgt), but he doesn’t have it until it’s 1) executed, and imo, 2) until he has delivery of the assgt (and has accepted the assignment). Further, his payment for the note creates a security interest both in the note and in its collateral instrument until such time as the note is transferred and the coll instrument is assigned. That’s why
    AIG couldn’t have rights of subrogation. Well, AIG could, but that right would be junior to the trust’s security interests if the security interests existed first in time.
    And I say in that state neither the note nor dot is enforceable against the maker. The note seller still owns the note, but has no right to enforce because of no right to payments since he was already paid for the note. The buyer can’t enforce because although he paid for the note, he has only security interest in a non-delivered note. His course of action is one to compel delivery of both the note and an assgt of its collateral instrument.* The UCC, to my knowledge, doesn’t provide for enforcement of security interests in an instrument against the note MAKER. Obviously, this is problematic for trusts where strict compliance with regulations is mandated, such as cut-off dates. IF the trusts paid for notes and thus acquired security interests, I doubt that security interest may be changed to ownership of the asset (the note) post-cutoff. But more problematic is that, as far as I know anyway, MBS’s can’t be sold on ‘mere’ security interests. A true sale was required. What might otherwise be seen as equitable, a current transfer to the guy who paid, doesn’t jive with remic laws.
    What happens if a trust, or anyone, takes a note by transfer without notice of its prior sale (as well as without notice of its default)? It’s likely that party could be held to be a hidc entitled to enforce against the maker, leaving the guy who already paid with only an action against the double-crossing, double-dealing seller. To that extent, any agreement which found no one accountable for the transfer of the loans, both the note and dot, is unconscionable, especially if that party is one with limited ability to “act”. Problem for the trusts is they had or could have had representation regarding that agreement and or might be found to be legally sophisticated, even if less so than the mutts on the other end of that agreement.

  9. If I am even coherent on this process let me get a balance check here.

    In non-judicial states right from the beginning you are “assumed” guilty of non-performance of your contract. It goes something like: do you recognize this? they show you a “note”

    Response: Yes…already racking up the evidence against you…

    Then ,are you current on this obligation?

    Response: No

    No, ability to explain away the reason, as you are not in a venue to “evidence” your claims….

    At that point, you are guilty of the breach…10 days in NC to appeal, if not, a judgement is filed against you and here we go!

    A lot of discussion has been had on “deny”…well here’s my opinion only: Denial falls under the Fifth Amendment (as far as I know the Constitution is still in place) “one does not have to bear witness against oneself”…and more, read it. If you acknowledge the debt and non-payment the hearing has procured a guilty state of the borrower, without due process. IMHO a Magistrates hearing is on the face a denial of due process. When facing an accuser, any accuser, it is your right to cross examine and have ample time to review the evidence against you, after all they are taking your home/land?

    The denial serves to move the venue into a actual evidentiary hearing or tort action, due to the contract breach. At that point isn’t that all we are talking about?

    In addition: after perusing the HUD, over and over and the wiring…it occurs to me the attorneys ARE the conduits that move the monies. The cash from the buyer and seller pay all the fees and the balance of actual cash is deposited into the lawyers escrow account. No “actual” funds are dispensed from the lender, originator, broker, trust, etc…they are codes, numbers (there’s the ruse), that stay in the account and are transferred “only” after you sign the paperwork. The lawyer, NEVER sees anything except you and the sellers funds. The note balance moves seemingly through subsequent transfers made electronically, hence no checks, money orders, cash, etc…is ever placed into the closing attorneys hands or account…what a great scam!

    Tell me where I am wrong, cause going over this and over it, it occurs to me the breach of contract is on their end, not yours…given we have 3 elements to any contract, offer, acceptance and consideration. I challenge the “offer” based on misrepresentations and the consideration is lacking…this is not small stuff. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. The subsequent conversation belongs in trial and we should all be able to have one, based on the deception, lack of consideration and fraud! IMHO

    No lawyer, no legal opinion only a viable possibility!

  10. @E.Tolle: I have to agree with you. Negative systems always go down. Please see:

  11. MS,

    “CA State Court of Appeals 2010 Graupner v Wells Fargo Fairbanks SPS Dec. to remand back to Trial Court

    Investors v K Platinum/ 2008 / US District Court San Francisco CA
    Dec in favor of the Defendant

    22 more cases I can list”

    I’ve read the little bit I could find on Graupner v. WF. It is completely IRRELEVANT to homeowners fighting foreclosure, you, confirmed, disingenuous, dangerous moron!

    First of all, if you cite a case, cite the entire caption. Dishonest moron.
    Second of all, if you allege that you had anything to do with that case, prove it.
    Third of all, that case is a BK involving a Silverado Chevy and WF is only remotely, very remotely, involved. So remotely, in fact, that WF doesn’t even frickin’ appear in the caption!!! Moron.

    This is the 3rd case you’ve cited so far in which you allegedly did anything and obtained anything for a homeowner. Not one of them has proved true thus far.

    Eventually, Soliman, people are going to get so fed up with dangerous cons such as yourself that it will become very bloody. Think about that for a minute.

  12. How about WILLIAM P FOLEY OF FIDELITY going to prison for Christmas? What a great present that would be to the people of this country.

  13. More regulation on wall street says Madoff, heheheeee.

  14. Unbeknownst to him, MS clearly points out the problem in his post from below; the massive divide between those of us on Main Street who simply want to raise families and break bread with community, in contrast to he and his friends on Wall Street who believe that they have an inherent right to possess more and dominate all.

    I know a individual who came up through the ranks with me
    He has a home in a prestigious gated community and neighbor
    such as Dell and Microsoft top execs.
    He lives on a world class golf course (hint turn on your TV)
    He spent $25 million renovating his corporate jet
    The jet is a 747 for personal use

    You and your friends are freaks, social aberrations, sociopaths one and all. I look forward to the day when those gated communities are filled with former pseudo-nobility now cowering in their shrubberies in dirty, torn $3K suits, while their gates are ripped out of the soil. There will be nowhere to hide, no one to turn to for help. Prestige is just a concept, one shredded in an instant when the veil is lifted or the guard is down. Fuck you and your fellow pillagers. Your time is near and it won’t be pretty.

  15. Will someone cite the law that allows a BANK to lend their credit in
    complete prohibition to Article One of the US Constitution?

  16. MS

    “First, your promissory Note is destroyed for economic de-recognition (accrual) purposes and therefore is lost to the lenders claims of a breach by the borrower.”

    When the first step is an intentional act to defraud the rest doesn’t matter. You are too deep in this ,, go back to the basics … what you know is nice but you’ve forgotten that it’s all fraud and lies .. read your own statements.

  17. MS

    “By year 20 your home is Abe’s home, free of all liens and encumbrances for your title was seised of the estate at the time you received the loan. ”

    Abe would end up as “salvage” in a roadside ditch being eaten by wild animals … obviously such a theft of title was not part of the agreed deal , definitely a statement that not one real estate attorney that has officiated such a closing would agreed to.

  18. Here is the problem Roger
    – An NOD is filed by the foreclosing agent upon the request of the servicer. There is no servicing allowed in a mortgage backed Private Label Securities offering so …not fake. Your claims are for a materially false instrument recorded against the estate causal to a “slander of Title for purposed of unjust enrichment”..
    – In this analysis are certain factual based findings and verifiable discovery supported by empirical fact whereby estate is affirmed to set unencumbered and free of liens. Therefore, title rests disturbed from adverse claims made by FDCPA agencies seeking to recover abandoned assets in order to reconstitute lost or charged off value. Therefore a question as to the consumers default is answered whereas the consumers payments
    First, your promissory Note is destroyed for economic de-recognition (accrual) purposes and therefore is lost to the lenders claims of a breach by the borrower. Its recognition is by a controversial accounting revision under ASC 310, ASC 320 and ASC 380 using futures derivatives and short title methods, devises and instrumentality. Indeed the note is void whereby the Mortgage “deed” is discounted to create a notional value paid as a futures strike price and securities option Call Date.Next, realize the lenders liens are stripped from title rendering it free of all encumbrances. The estate and its unencumbered equity are used to fund the depositors account.
    Roger, a depositor’s account is held as mark to market consideration transferred into a Delaware LP, “paid in capital account.” The LP Paid in capital account is valued at $250 price per share. Therefore the number of shares is equal to the value of the property appraisal. This allows for the shares to represent title under a purchase and sale agreement for purposes of a 1031 exchange.Now consider where Trust Common Shares are pledged to a Foreign National Central Bank using a 80 -20 formula. Problematic issues arise whereby the 20 percent discount is equal to five years prepaid interest The prepaid interest is paid on demand at the strike price equal to the original notes face value.

  19. CA State Court of Appeals 2010 Graupner v Wells Fargo Fairbanks SPS Dec. to remand back to Trial Court

    Investors v K Platinum/ 2008 / US District Court San Francisco CA
    Dec in favor of the Defendant

    22 more cases I can list

  20. Icelanders Overthrow Government and Rewrite Constitution After Banking Fraud-No Word From US Media
    Added by Rebecca Savastio on December 2, 2013.
    Saved under Rebecca Savastio, World
    Tags: icelanders

    Can you imagine participating in a protest outside the White House and forcing the entire U.S. government to resign? Can you imagine a group of randomly chosen private citizens rewriting the U.S. constitution to include measures banning corporate fraud? It seems incomprehensible in the U.S., but Icelanders did just that. Icelanders forced their entire government to resign after a banking fraud scandal, overthrowing the ruling party and creating a citizen’s group tasked with writing a new constitution that offered a solution to prevent corporate greed from destroying the country. The constitution of Iceland was scrapped and is being rewritten by private citizens; using a crowd-sourcing technique via social media channels such as Facebook and Twitter. These events have been going on since 2008, yet there’s been no word from the U.S. mainstream media about any of them. In fact, all of the events that unfolded were recorded by international journalists, overseas news bureaus, citizen journalists and bloggers. This has created current accusations of an intentional cover up of the story by mainstream U.S. news sources.

    An “iReport” on CNN, written by a private citizen in May 2012, has questioned the reasons why this revolution has not been widely covered in the U.S., suggesting that perhaps the mainstream media is controlled by large corporate interests and thus has been unwilling to report on Iceland’s activities. That report is currently making its way around social media. CNN today placed a statement on its website saying: “We’ve noticed this iReport is being shared widely on Facebook and Twitter. Please note that this article was posted in May 2012. CNN has not yet verified the claims and we’re working to track down the original writer.” It is interesting to note that CNN’s European version, CNN Europe, already covered the story of the protests and the government’s resignation, leading many to question why CNN would now need to “look into” the claims.

    I guess we’re not there yet… I wonder what the hold is. We are sooo overdue!

  21. Thank You .

  22. KC,

    “You want to Go and I want to Stay.” Not quite. I want to win but I am not deadset on what it will look like. If it’s the house, so be it. If it’s not but I win something else, either way it’s still a win.

    What i most wanted was to change the landscape a little. That much, I have. Congratulations on filing. That was the toughest part to decide. It is for most. Going on the offensive really gives you much better chances: the knee jerk reaction from judges works both ways. In their mind, the one who attacks first is the one who was wronged. Right away, it tilts the odds toward the plaintiff. You did the right thing.

  23. Title By Derivative Acquisition. Part 7

    1The transfer of land carries with it all easements appurtenant thereto. Kuhl-man v. Hecht, supra, p. 819. – Ed.

    Coke, J., in

    Tuttle V. Turner

    28 Texas, 759. – 1866.

    A deed takes effect only from the date of its delivery, which may be either actual or constructive. It is essential to the operative force and validity of a deed, if not actually delivered to the grantee or his agent authorized to receive it, to prove notice to him of its execution, and such additional circumstances as will afford a reasonable presumption of his acceptance of it. The presumption that a party will accept a deed because it is beneficial to him, it is said, will never be carried so far as to consider him as having accepted it. 4 Kent Com. § 454; Hulick v. Scovill, 4 Gilm. 159. But possession of a deed by the grantee raises a presumption of its due delivery. Chandler v. Temple, 4 Cush. 285; Trust Co. v. Cole, 4 Fla. 359. This presumption may be rebutted by proof to the contrary.

    The Chancellor in

    Arnold V. Patrick

    6. Paige’s Chancery, 310. – 1837.

    From the facts stated in the answer of Arnold, in connection with those stated in the further answer as having been derived from the information of J. Ricketson subsequent to the assignment of the mortgage, which under the Stipulation in this ease must be taken to be correct, I am inclined to think that there was such a delivery of the deed of August, 1829, as was sufficient at law to pass the legal title to the premises in question; subject, however, in equity, to the payment of the unpaid purchase money. It is evident from the facts stated that it must have been the intention of both parties that if the purchase money was paid the deed should take effect without any new delivery; as the grantee had, under the agreement of 1825 an unquestionable right to a conveyance of the premises upon payment of the amount due. Had this deed been intrusted to the clerk merely as an escrow to be delivered to George upon condition that the purchase money was actually paid to the grantor within a certain prescribed time, but not otherwise, the legal title would still have remained in the grantor, although the deed might have gotten into the hands of the grantee, without a performance of the condition upon which it was to take effect. That does not appear to have been the case here; but the parties acted upon the erroneous supposition that the deed might be delivered to the grantee himself, upon the condition that it should not be proved and recorded if the purchase money was not paid, and that the legal title would not pass by such a delivery. The legal rule, however, is, as was insisted upon by the counsel for Patrick, that a deed or any other sealed instrument cannot be delivered to the grantee or obligee himself as an escrow, to take effect upon a condition not appearing upon the face of such deed or instrument; but that if so delivered it becomes absolute at law. Coke Litt. 36, a; Touchstone, 59; Thoroughgood’s Case, 9 Coke’s Rep. 137, a.

    Price V. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne And Chicago Railroad Co

    34 Illinois, 13. – 1864.

    Breese, J. – The principal point, however, which is made in the case is as to the right of the plaintiffs below to recover at all for use and occupation. Of this we think there can be no doubt. By express agreement, when the plaintiffs purchased the lots of the former owner, under whom the defendant held as tenant by the year, it was agreed and understood, if the plaintiffs consummated the trade by delivering the bonds and mortgages by the fall of 1860, the deeds they had executed on and prior to the first day of May, 1860, and placed in the hands of the attorney and solicitor of the plaintiffs, were to take effect and be in force on the first day of May, 1860. The defendant insists that the delivery of these deeds to the solicitor of the company, was, in effect, the same as a delivery to any third person not connected with the company; that they were delivered to a stranger, and were, therefore, escrows; and being so, the title to the lots remained with the grantors, subject to be transferred on the delivery of the bonds and mortgages. It is generally true, and is the old doctrine of the books, that if a deed is delivered to a stranger to be delivered to the grantee, on the performance by him of certain conditions, and they are fully performed, and the deed delivered, that the deed takes effect from the second delivery, and to be considered the deed of the party from that time.

    This rule, it is said, does not apply where justice requires a resort to fiction. 4 Kent’s Com. 454.

    The instances usually put are when the grantor, after the deposit of the deed as an escrow, dies, or becomes insane, or, if a feme sole, marries before the grantee has performed the conditions. In such cases the law will make the second delivery relate back to the time of the deposit of the escrow. 1 Shep. Touch. 123. What effect the agreement of the parties should have upon the time of the delivery is not there discussed, nor is it said these are the only instances in which there shall be this relation back.

    The case of Lessee of Shirley v. Ayres, 14 Ohio, 307, was an ejectment, where it was held a deed delivered as an escrow should take effect on its first delivery, on the performance of the condition, if it was necessary to protect the grantee or those claiming under him against intervening rights.

    The case of Beekman v. Frost, 18 Johns. 543, in the Court of Errors, holds the same doctrine. A very strong case is to be found in 9 Mass. 307, Hatch et al. v. Hatch et al., where the court held that a writing delivered to a stranger for the use and benefit of the grantee, to have effect after a certain event, or the performance of some condition, may be delivered either as a deed or as an escrow. The distinction, however, the court say, being almost entirely nominal when we consider the rules of decision which have been resorted to for the purpose of effectuating the intentions of the grantor or obligor in some cases of necessity. If delivered as an escrow, and not in name as a deed, it will, nevertheless, be regarded and construed as a deed from the first delivery, as soon as the event happens, or the consideration is performed upon which the effect had been suspended, if this construction should be then necessary in furtherance of the lawful intentions of the parties.

    Read more:

  24. Title By Derivative Acquisition. Part 8

    The case of Hall v. Harris, 5 Ired. Eq. R. 303, is to the same effect

    The question in this case was, whether a deed took effect on the second day of March, the date of its execution, or on the tenth, the day on which full payment for the land was paid. The trade was made on the second of March, on which day part of the price was paid, and the vendor was to make a deed and hand it to one Morgan, to be by him handed to the vendee when he paid the price. On that day the vendor made the deed and handed it to Morgan, Afterwards, on the tenth of March, the vendee paid Morgan the balance due and received the deed. The purpose, the courts say, for which the deed was delivered to a third party instead of being delivered directly to the plaintiff, was merely to secure the payment of the price. When that was paid the plaintiff had a right to the deed. The purpose for which it was put into the hands of a third person being accomplished, the plaintiff then held the deed in the same manner he would have held it if it had been delivered to him in the first instance. This was the intention, and we can see no good reason why the parties should not be allowed to effect their end in this way. Though the plaintiff might have avoided the purchase, his rights cannot be affected by that fact.

    The court remarks if the vendor had died after the delivery to the third person, and before the payment, the vendee, upon making the payment, would have been entitled to the deed, and it must have taken effect from the first delivery, or it could not have taken effect at all. The intention was, it should be the deed of the vendor from the time it was delivered to the third person, provided the condition was complied with. If this intention is bona fide, and not a contrivance to interfere with the right of creditors, the deed must be allowed to take effect. The court conclude by saying, we are satisfied from principle and from a consideration of the authorities, that when a paper is signed and sealed and handed to a third person to be handed to another, upon a condition which is afterwards complied with, the paper becomes a deed by the act of parting with the possession, and takes effect presently, without reference to the precise words used, unless it clearly appears to be the intention that it should not then become a deed.

    In the case before us the proof was that the deeds were delivered, as deeds, to the solicitor of the company, with the understanding, when the bonds and mortgages of the railroad company to be given in payment of the lots, and which had to be executed in a distant state, were returned from there, the deeds were to take effect as of May 1, 1860; and if the bonds were not returned, the deeds were not to take effect at all; that the bonds were not returned until the fall of 1860, and that he, the witness, should not have delivered or recorded the deeds until the bonds came; that the bonds and mortgages are dated and bear interest from May I, 1860, and interest has been paid on them from that date.

    It is a case quite like the case of Hatch v. Hatch, decided by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, and the case in Iredell decided by the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

    In all such cases the intention of the parties is to be considered, and it seems quite manifest these parties intended those deeds should have effect from the day of their execution, if the conditions were performed; and they were fully performed.

    But were these deeds delivered to a stranger, so as to constitute an escrow? The proof is, they were delivered to the solicitor of the company. Now, since a corporation can only act through its officers and agents, a delivery of a deed to one of its officers would be a delivery to the company, and therefore would take effect immediately. Foley v. Cogwill, 5 Blackf. 20; Worrall v. Munn et al., 1 Seld. N. Y. 229.

    The case cited by appellant from 4 Fla. 359, Southern Life Ins. and Trust Co. v. Cole, holds, that a delivery to an officer or servant of a corporation, is delivery to the corporation, with the addition that such delivery is for the use and benefit of the corporation, and with an intent to pass an absolute property or interest in the deed delivered. That court did not think there was such a personal identity between the corporation and its officers, that a deed may not be placed in the hands of the latter as an escrow until the performance of some condition. The court, however, in that case refused to permit the deed to take effect in favor of the company from its date, because it would do wrong and injustice to the rights of other parties.

    The question of intention in the case before us was left to the jury, and they have found the deeds, by agreement of the parties, were to take effect on the first day of May, 1860, and it is not pretended any rights or interests have intervened to be injuriously affected by such an agreement. Justice is done by it, because the plaintiffs have paid the interest on these bonds and mortgages from the first day of May, 1860, at which date, all claim and interest of their vendors ceased, and so ceasing the plaintiffs became entitled to the rents and profits of the tenancy then existing and theretofore created. A suit brought by these vendors, for the rent of these premises, could not, under the facts proved, be maintained. They sold the premises on a condition which has been fully performed with an express agreement, when performed, their deed should take effect on the first day of May. They could not afterwards retract this, nor could any other person, except, perhaps, creditors, gainsay the validity of such an agreement in the absence of fraud. We are inclined to think the delivery of these deeds, under the circumstances, was absolute in the first instance.1

    1The following quotations appear in the argument of counsel at p. 28 of the official report:

    “The fifth thing required in every well-made deed is, that there be a delivery of it. And for this it must be known that the delivery is either actual, i. e., by doing something and saying nothing or else verbal i. e., by saying something or doing nothing, or it may be by both; and either of these may make a good delivery and a perfect deed.

    Read more:

  25. Title By Derivative Acquisition. Part 9

    * * * “And a deed may be delivered by the party himself that doth make it, or by any other by his appointment or authority, precedent, or assent, or agreement subsequent, for omnis ratihabitio mandata equiparatur. And so also a deed may be delivered to the party himself to whom it is made, or to any other by sufficient authority from him; or it may be delivered to any stranger for and in the behalf and to the use of him to whom it is made, without authority. * * *

    “The delivery of a deed as an escrow is said to be when one doth make and seal a deed and deliver it unto a stranger, until certain conditions be performed, and then to be delivered to him to whom the deed is made, to take effect as his deed. But in this case two conditions must be heeded: 1. That the form of words used in the delivery of a deed in this manner be apt and proper. 2. That the deed be delivered to one that is a stranger to it, and not to the party himself to whom it is made.” * * *

    ‘But when the conditions are performed and the deed is delivered over, then the deed shall take as much effect as if it were delivered immediately to the party to whom it is made, and no act of God or man can hinder or prevent this effect then, if the party that doth make it be not at the time of making thereof disabled to make it. He, therefore, that is intrusted with the keeping and delivery of such a writing, ought not to deliver it before the conditions be per formed; and when the conditions be performed he ought not to keep it, but deliver it to the party. For it may be made a question whether the deed be perfect before he hath delivered it over to the party according to the authority given him. Howbeit it seems that the delivery is good, for it is said in this case that if either party to the deed die before the conditions be performed, and the conditions be after performed, that the deed is good; for there was traditio inchoata in the lifetime of the parties; and postea consummata existens by the performance of the conditions it taketh its effect by the first delivery, without any new or second delivery; and the second delivery is but the execution and consummation of the first delivery.” – Ed.

    c. Covenants in conveyances.1

    (1.) Covenants for Title. (a.) Covenant of seisin.

    Mott V. Palmer

    1 New York, 564. – 1848. [Reported herein at p. 286.]

    Mitchell V. Warner

    5 Connecticut, 497. – 1825.

    Hosmer, Ch. J. – The case made by this motion presents two questions for determination.

    The first is, whether the plaintiff, claiming to be the assignee of the covenant of seisin can maintain an action on that covenant.

    This covenant, from its nature, is broken instantaneously on the delivery of the deed, or it is never broken. It runs in the words of the present tense, and asserts, that the grantor is well seised. Now, if he is well seised according to his covenant, the agreement is fulfilled; and if he is not well seised, the covenant is false, and immediately broken. It follows from this, that it is a personal covenant, which, most clearly, never runs with the land, and that the grantee, in whose time the breach existed, can alone sue upon it; for, after a breach the cause of action can never be assigned. It would be the assignment of a chose in action, which the common law will not permit. That the covenant of seisin, if false, is broken as soon as it is made, appears from Shep. Touch. 170; from Bick-ford v. Page, 2 Mass. Rep. 460; from Marston v. Hobbs, 2 Mass. Rep. 437; from Bennett v. Irwin, 3 Johns. Rep. 365: from Abbotts. Allen, 14 Johns. Rep. 253; from Greenby et a/, v. Wilcocks, 2 Johns. Rep. 1; from Pollard et al. v. Dwight et al., 4 Cranch. 430; from 1 Swift’s Dig. 370; and from Mitchell v. Hasen, 4 Conn. Rep. 495. From its nature, it does not run with the land, as none but real covenants do; and these are always suspended on some act posterior to the delivery of the deed. Hence, as I have said before, having been broken, the covenant has become a chose in action, and therefore cannot be assigned. 1 Swift’s Dig. 370. In Bickford v. Page, 2 M Rep, 455, it was said by the court: ” This covenant being broken before the release was, at that time, a mere chose in action, and unassignable.” The court, in the case of Greenby et at. v. Wil-cocks, 2 Johns. Rep. 1, determined that the assignee of a covenant of seisin could not recover. The opinion was delivered by Spencer, J., in which he says: “Choses in action are incapable of assignment at the common law; and what distinguishes these covenants, broken the instant they were made, from an ordinary chose in action? The covenants, it is true, are such as run with the land; but here the substratum fails, for there was no land whereof the defendant was seised, and of a consequence, none that he could alien; the covenants are, therefore, naked ones, uncoupled with a right to the soil.” The same point was adjudged as far back as the reign of Queen Elizabeth, in Lewes v. Ridge, Cro. Eliz. 863; and the case, so far as I can find, has never been overruled. The principle settled in that case, was this; that an assignee shall not have an action upon a breach of covenant before his own time. The same principle was recognized in Marston v. Hobbs, 2 Mass. Rep. 439; in the determination of which case, it was said by Parsons, Ch. J., when delivering the opinion of the court; that “no estate passed, to which these covenants (i. e., of seisin and right to convey) could be annexed, because in fact broken before any assignment could be made, they were choses in action, and not assignable.” In Com. Dig. tit. Covenant, B. 3, it is asserted, that “covenant does not lie by an assignee, for a breach done before his time.” It cannot run with the land; for nothing having been conveyed, what land is there for it to run with? To the same effect is Lucy v. Levington, 2 Lev. 26, s. c. 1 Vent. 175, in which it was decided, that for a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment in the testator’s time, the executor was authorized to recover; and of his opinion was that eminent judge Sir Matthew Hale. Similar doctrine is to be found in the Digest of Baron Comyns, tit. Covenant, B. 1.

    Read more:

  26. Sorry, I didn’t mean to come across with an attitude, no more than you do sometimes.

    What I was saying is that you chose to sue on a Federal Level,
    I filed in Oct and chose to sue at the State Level under Contract Law.

    We are both seeking different outcomes.
    You want to Go and I want to Stay.

  27. “You do to, but you took the long and costly road …”

    Actually, I took the most effective one. And it’s not as costly as you would think. And I haven’t been in court 3 years yet, What’s with the attitude all of a sudden?

  28. And Christine, I don’t need to write the pleadings or argue it orally in court … that is what legal representation is for. Right?

    My case does not apply to all cases!

  29. Now Christine, you got your big girl panties all in a knot again.

    I know a Federal Prosecutor Whom is My Former Attorney who would beg to differ with your choices.

    I don’t condone MSs behavior, but he has it Right!

    You do to, but you took the long and costly road …
    How many years you been in court now?
    Careful.. you may catch up with Anon ….

  30. KC,

    What is the relevance of that to your own case? Better yet… how do you plan on pleading it in writing and argue it orally in a court hearing?

    You do realize that you need to do both, right?


    “I know a individual who came up through the ranks with me… The people who write here are the ones who are insane. You won’t listen to me and will not learn the art of leverage”

    There’s a reason for that. We like to know that we can look at ourselves in a mirror every morning. Have you tried it? One case, give us one case in which your science literally impressed and floored a judge so much that the homeowner won.

  31. A conveyance adapted to the case where a person seised of land in possession, reversion, or vested remainder. proposes to convey it to his wife, child, or kinsman. In its terms it consists of a covenant by him, in consideration of his natural love and affection, to stand seised of the land to the use of the intended transferee

    Title By Derivative Acquisition. Part 10

    1For the old forms of covenants, with short statutory equivalents, see N. Y. R, P, L, § 223. – Ed.

    In relation to principles so well established, one or two modern decisions in Westminster Hall in opposition to them, however they might there be regarded, ought not here to be considered as of any authority. Such decisions have been cited. The first of them is the case of Kingdon exr. v. Nottle, 1 Mau. & Selw. 355. The defendant had conveyed to Richard Kingdon, the testator, certain property, and covenanted that he was seised of it, and had good right to convey. It was averred as a breach, that he was not seised of the premises; and the court adjudged, that the executor could not sue on the covenant, without showing special damage to the testator, but that the heir might. It was said by Lord Ellenborough, that “the covenant, it was true, was broken, but that there was no damage sustained in the testator’s life-time.” To this observation of that learned and able judge I cannot subscribe. The covenant being broken the instant it was made, the damage, most obviously, was the whole consideration paid; and I am at a loss to conceive what other or further damage could arise. In the surrounding States, as well as in our own, it is unquestionably established, that the damage is the consideration paid; and that this is immediate on the delivery of the deed. This, then, is the first objection to the determination, that whatever may be the law of Westminster Hall, the damage, in the case alluded to, is justly considered as not nominal, but real, and indeed all that the party can experience. It is the whole consideration paid. This principle alone shows, that the determination in Kingdon v. Nottle, is inapplicable to us; and it likewise authorizes the assertion that Lord Ellenborough and his associates, had they resided in Connecticut, and there pronounced their opinion, would have decided the case before them differently from what they have. To the determination in Kingdon v. Nottle there is a sound objection. It is opposed to principles, uniformly, and for centuries, established in Westminster Hall. It was said by Lord Ellenborough, in the case alluded to, that “if the executor could recover nominal damages, it would preclude the heir, who is the party actually damnified, from recovering at all!” The force of this reasoning depends entirely on the assertion that the heir is “the party actually damnified;” and if this is an incorrect position, the argument wholly fails. Now, it is not true, that the heir is the party damnified. The damages arise entirely by the breach of the covenant in the lifetime of the testator; and the testator is the only person who receives damage. Thus were all the determinations before the last mentioned decision. To this effect was Lewis v. Ridge, Lucy v. Levington, and the law was laid down in Comyn’s Digest; and not a case or dictum was there to the contrary. Indeed, the admission of Lord Ellenborough, that the covenant was broken in the lifetime of the testator, most conclusively shows that the heir was not damnified. His own damage must result from his title to the land, and not from the covenant broken, to which he was no party. Now, as to the land, the heir never had title; nor had his ancestor. The complaint is, that the grantor was not seised, and had conveyed no title. How, then, is it possible, that the heir should inherit land, to which his ancestor had no title? If, then, he had no title to the estate supposed to be conveyed, and he was no party to the covenant, and the breach happened before his ancestor’s death, what is the ground of his claim? In my opinion, none. On the other hand, as the covenant was broken in the testator’s lifetime, and the damage resulting from the breach was due to him; after his death, his executor, standing in his place, had the right of suit. For the principle is incontrovertible, that where the testator can maintain covenant in his lifetime, on a cause of action then existing, his executor may support the same action after his death. 1 Swift’s Dig. 371; Toll, Ex. 158, 432.

    Another writ of covenant was brought by Kingdon, as devisee, against Nottle (4 Mau. & Selw. 53) upon the covenant of seisin before mentioned, on the ground that the covenant ran with the land, and that the breach happened to the devisee. Consistently with the former determination, the court decided in favor of the plaintiff. It required some ingenuity to sustain an action on a covenant, for a breach happening in the time of the testator, before the devisee (the plaintiff), could have any interest in the covenant; and more especially, as no special damages were laid. For it was not stated in the case, that the plaintiff was, at any time interrupted, or disturbed in the enjoyment of the premises; or that he sustained any damages, by the breach of covenant, in the testator’s lifetime. Accordingly, this point was met, by Lord Ellenborough, who said: “The covenant passes with the land to the devisee, and has been broken in the time of the devisee; for so long as the defendant has not a good title, there is a continuing breach, and it is not like a covenant to do an act of solitary performance, but it is in the nature of a covenant to do a thing toties quoties, as the exigency of the case may require.” From this opinion I am compelled to dissent in omnibus. First, I affirm, that the novel idea attending the breach in the testator’s lifetime, by calling it “a continuing breach,” and therefore a breach to the heir or devisee at a subsequent time, is an ingenious suggestion, but of no substantial import. Every breach of a contract is a continuing breach, until it is in some manner healed; but the great question is, to whom does it continue as a breach? The only answer is, to the person who had title to the contract when it was broken. It remains, as it was, a breach to the same person, who first had a cause of action upon it. If it be anything more, it is not a continuing breach, but a new existence. In the next place, I assert, that it is like a covenant to do an act of solitary performance; and for this plain reason, that it is, in its nature, a covenant for a solitary act, and not a successive one. If the covenant is broken, that is, if the grantor was not seised, it is infracted to the core; and a second supposed breach is as futile as the imaginary unbroken existence of a thing dashed in pieces. It has no analogy to a covenant to do a future act, at different times, which may undergo repeated breaches. It has no futurition; and cannot be partly broken and partly sound; but the grantor is seised or not seised; and therefore, the covenant is inviolate, or violated wholly. Not further to pursue the subject, I remark, that, in my judgment, the case of Kingdon v. Nottle may justly be said to authorize the assignment of a chose in action by devise; a supposition as unfounded as it is novel.

    Continue to:

    Read more:

  32. A must read. I hope Neil Garfield reads this too. Be Strong Neil.\

    Be Strong and Courageous.

    The Judges are Human Beings and should be treated with respect.

  33. <—– Takes a Deep Breath, trying very hard to keep her Mouth from Saying What her Brain is Thinking.

    Please God, Grant Me the Strength .

    Yep! It worked! Thank God!

    But here … my fingers do the talking for my brain. I'm holding up two of them right now. "pause"



  34. Being “seised” of an estate implies that the person “seised” with the estate is in possession of the estate and holds the estate. If the person is “seised” with the estate by law, it means that the person is the holder of the estate but yet to enter the estate. In this case when the borrower is “seised” of the estate, it implies that the estate was in the possession and held by the borrower

    Moron – a freehold is a lease …..moron

  35. bN.Y. RPP. LAW § 253 : NY Code – Section 253: Construction of covenants in grants of freehold interests –

    Being “seised” of an estate implies that the person “seised” with the estate is in possession of the estate and holds the estate. If the person is “seised” with the estate by law, it means that the person is the holder of the estate but yet to enter the estate. In this case when the borrower is “seised” of the estate, it implies that the estate was in the possession and held by the borrower

    2. Quiet enjoyment.– A covenant that the grantee “shall quietly enjoy
    the said premises,” must be construed as meaning that such grantee, his
    heirs, successors and assigns, shall and may, at all times thereafter,
    peaceably and quietly have, hold, use, occupy, possess and enjoy the
    said premises, and every part and parcel thereof, with the
    appurtenances, without any let, suit, trouble, molestation, eviction, or
    disturbance of the grantor, his heirs, successors or assigns, or any
    person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the same.
    3. Freedom from incumbrances.– A covenant “that the said premises are
    free from incumbrances,” must be construed as meaning that such premises
    are free, clear, discharged and unincumbered of and from all former and
    other gifts, grants, titles, charges, estates, judgments, taxes,
    assessments, liens and incumbrances, of what nature or kind soever.
    4. Further assurance.– A covenant that the grantor will “execute or
    procure any further necessary assurance of the title to said premises,”
    must be construed as meaning that the grantor and his heirs, or
    successors, and all and every person or persons whomsoever lawfully or
    equitably deriving any estate, right, title or interest of, in, or to
    the premises conveyed by, from, under, or in trust for him or them,
    shall and will at any time or times thereafter upon the reasonable
    request, and at the proper costs and charges of the grantee, his heirs,
    successors and assigns, make, do, and execute, or cause to be made, done
    and executed, all and every such further and other lawful and reasonable
    acts, conveyances and assurances in the law for the better and more
    effectually vesting and confirming the premises thereby granted or so
    intended to be, in and to the grantee, his heirs, successors or assigns
    forever, as by the grantee, his heirs, successors or assigns, or his or
    their counsel learned in the law, shall be reasonably advised or
    5. Warranty of title.– A covenant that the grantor “will forever
    warrant the title” to the said premises, must be construed as meaning
    that the grantor and his heirs, or successors, the premises granted, and
    every part and parcel thereof, with the appurtenances, unto the grantee,
    his heirs, successors or assigns, against the grantor and his heirs or
    successors, and against all and every person or persons whomsoever
    lawfully claiming or to claim the same shall and will warrant and
    forever defend.
    6. Grantor has not incumbered.– A covenant that the grantor “has not
    done or suffered anything whereby the said premises have been
    incumbered,” must be construed as meaning that the grantor has not made,
    done, committed, executed, or suffered any act or acts, thing or things
    whatsoever, whereby or by means whereof, the above mentioned and
    described premises, or any part or parcel thereof, now are, or at any
    time hereafter shall or may be impeached, charged or incumbered in any
    manner or way whatsoever.

  36. RE: ” The people who write here are the ones who are insane” ….

    That Includes You!

  37. Leave a Reply:

    Able posted 2,000 in his banks depositor account that he borrowed. He took your $100,000 home and leveraged it to 10 times its value of $1 million. Able then took your note and tossed it out the window on the freeway. He discounted your deed of trust or mortgage by the number of payments you make over the next five years. This prepaid the loan making it an AAA rated investment based on a demand for payoff month 60.

    You made payments for five years also and this is applied to the next five years while the gut who buys your home is prepaying years 10 through 15.

    By year 20 your home is Abe’s home, free of all liens and encumbrances for your title was seised of the estate at the time you received the loan.

    And one more thing . . . .the $1.000, 000 made from $2,000….it was all borrowed and paid back by you the mortgagor, you the tax payer and you the LESSOR.

    Where is my proof or discovery ?


  38. The things you find important

    I know a individual who came up through the ranks with me
    He has a home in a prestigious gated community and neighbor
    such as Dell and Microsoft top execs.
    He lives on a world class golf course (hint turn on your TV)
    He spent $25 million renovating his corporate jet
    The jet is a 747 for personal use

    But how he took 350 million before the market implosion is amazing

    For every $100,000 in mortgage these guys take 10 time the amount
    For every $100,000 in mortgage these guys posted $2,000

    That’s $2,000 to make $1.0 million…AND YOU PAY THE FREIGHT

    And you talk A “GRAND” about spell check , trolling the living lies site to get a message out. You talk about Robo the Hobo and Valerie the notary, NG talking about 1122AB years ago and God knows what else

    The people who write here are the ones who are insane. You won’t listen to me and will not learn the art of leverage, multiples, non recognition and basis accounting ….The rich will continue to get richer

  39. defeasance n. an antiquated word for a document which terminates the effect of an existing writing such as a deed, bond, or contract if some event occurs

  40. I give it about 3-4 years? Food, I am betting will the a, if not “thee” BIG breaking point. Between recent years weather and economic market flop and flux soon enough the farmers are going to uproar and THAT is going to start a fire. Bartering it will be! Local, good ol, Bartering. Now, who has rice? I hear China doesn’t want my money? ..oh I am full of it today

  41. Found this on that site under “blog”…On Wednesday, the President spoke about the growing inequality and lack of upward mobility in the United States. “The idea that so many children are born into poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth is heartbreaking enough,” the President said.

    …But the idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care, or a community that views her future as their own, that should offend all of us and it should compel us to action. We are a better country than this….

    ASSHAT president. So much about this statement ticks me off. Take action? … get education?….because that will create jobs I guess……wealthiest nation is in poverty? So it needs school and health? … a health pack….where do they sell those again?… in the power up section?Like in video games……I spent all my money on school though! My job does not pay enough to buy a health pack……I can go into debt for more education but the jobs are not there….heartbreaking.. Moron.

  42. Jamie and Justme,

    Actually, one of the first ones to be posted was about announcing a nationwide foreclosure moratorium pending completion of all promised investigations, prior to the infamous $25 billion settlement, entered into… without investigations, after spelling out a good chunk of the substantial fraud already uncovered at the time in the underlyinng complaint. If I recall, it gathered a lot of signatures compared to others. Wasn’t it right about that time that the requirements changed from 25,000 to 100,000 signatures?

    Anyway, whatever important issue triggered it was thoroughly and purposely occulted. I think NG may be right when he states that the landscape will only change through relentless lawsuits from homeowners, investors, regulators and such. Change can only happen when se refuse to support “leaders” who lead nothing, fight amongst themselves, make a mockery of government, agitate for useless wars, refuse to take stands on anything and the list goes on and on. People are not yet fed up enough to stop filing and paying taxes. So, it will go one for a while longer…

  43. “Gluten-Free Should Mean Gluten-Free” was a petition that I enjoyed seeing. If these could make a difference, SUPER!
    Jamie, what is yours called? I did not know about this site until now, interesting. You’d think if any real action was taken about foreclosures by now it would of been ….oh wait…..we have HAMP!
    lmao ;}

  44. Jaime,

    The White House petition thing came out pretty much as soon as BO was elected. Used to require 25,000 signatures to get some kind of a non-committal, wishy-washy answer not followed by any kind of an action. They jacked up the requirement to 100,000 a couple of years ago. Makes it more difficult to get the same answer not followed by any action but the result is the same.

    I don’t want to discourage you from your effort. In my opinion, this is not where “change you can believe in” will come from…

  45. “Bartering comes to mind.” Bartering is getting traction everywhere. And since you can do it most successfully in your community, with people you know and face to face, communities are getting strengthened by it. One way or the other, the system is collapsing.

  46. No kidding. We did not watch TV per se, we have Netflix. My husband had cable installed a week or so ago – Wo0o0o channels and BULLHOG (and smut and foolishness) all over them. Besides the weather and local programming agenda minutes it’s rather useless. I am guilty of watching a good cartoon now and then 😛
    …I forgot about COMMERCIALS.
    Never had them, not with Netflix. The first bit, every time one came on my kids were looking around trying to figure out who changed the show – they did not know what a commercial was! First reaction – ooooooh my funny funny funny.
    Second reaction – thinking “crap”.
    Needless to say Christmas list’s just went from like 4 or 5 things to EVERYTHING. Thank you commercials.
    They thought the simple breakdown of my demonstrating of some inanimate legos was great. I put some legos and things made out of them in the middle of the floor that looked like the ones in the commercial. I had them sit- and just look at the legos.
    Then replayed the commercial. The glorified legos that looked like they build themselves, the little guys walking around, the cool lights,music. Then watch the boring legos on the floor and the completely inanimate little lego guy…
    They understood. They “got it”.
    That lasted about 20 minutes.
    And SCHOOL? I feel like I am unintentionally, intentionally dooming them in trying to not raise them like the “all the other kids” with cell phones in SECOND grade. Crazy inside the world of little kids nowadays….. I’ve found the question of “WHY” to be most powerful from both sides. As well as, “WHY NOT”.
    “Because it’s just the right thing to do.”
    ~Why is that? Why not do what makes us happy? Mom always says “I’m happy when your happy”. So, that’s not right, then?
    People do not know know what makes them HAPPY anymore.
    Kids are learning – even if we teach them otherwise- money is a form of happy. It does not make me “happy” to have money. But it is Nice- I spose I am “happy” when I have heat, water,food,shelter…..and you just cannot make those things! Mind you, generally not living like an average person, say. Sad little circle that is hard to change. Bartering comes to mind.

  47. Morning Everyone,
    “The White House” has a new idea called “We the People” where you can start a petition and collect 100,000 signatures in 3 weeks time.
    This would be a great forum for all of you to get the word out about stopping foreclosures by having all paperwork completed before it goes to court. This would also be a way to stop any number of these issues. Visit the sight, start a petition or sign mine. I am sure most of you who understand this foreclosure mess better than I do could make a better petition, but I just wanted to get this started. At this time there are only 74 petitions because not many people know about “We the People” It was so easy I was done in less than 15 min., and it is connected to Twitter and Facebook so it is easy to get the word out! good luck and enjoy!

  48. They, the children are being taught well…isn’t TV marketing great?

    And you bet, diligence “must” be exacted or else! I love information…if not verified and used properly you can lose everything. And online, you do not know who you are dealing with, no matter what they tell you!

  49. Right poppy
    All need to take care do your own due digence because you can loose more than your case.

  50. Heres something precious from my 4 yr old. ” mum when we go shopping can i have a toy, ”
    Not today because mum has no money”
    4 yr old
    ” write a cheque”

  51. Posted by Simonee on Oct 24, 2013 in General Public

    BEWARE….Simonee, I will not divulge her name….she is in Delaware BK Court New Century claimant….talking about kick-outs. Not a lawyer, is writing pleadings and Motions for others and getting on phone hearings, misleading the court. Judge Carey has told her multiple times and I was present when one of her “customers’ as she charges for her services, lost, big time when she didn’t know what was in her paperwork, being it was written by Simonee….

    She is also accused of plagiarism of a booklet, charging for a website with self-help…folks she cannot help herself…as I write this I am going to contact my cohort in CA about it and make a second complaint to the bar in Orange County, CA for this…she is fine lending newsworthy information in print, but she is doing far more than that!

    Please be careful…

  52. Very hard not to believe in the end of the petrodollar when, left and right, innovations are being posted almost daily about free energy this or free energy that. Today’s story: free-energy generator powering two houses. It comes from Brazil and the site below contains 3 videos, none of which has been dubbed.or translated. Apparently, the 2 kids did get in trouble but everything in fine now.

    So, morality: BRICS countries really want out of the US Dollar and will do whatever it takes. They are more than halfway there and the US is losing its technological edge in the process, even though it has had the technology and has consistently used it since Roswell… in the exclusive design of controling the world through war, Harp weather manipulation, launching satellites for surveillance and IT control, etc. etc.

    When the motives are destructive, the enterprise will not survive.

    The US is increasingly pushed aside by the rest of the world. By Golly, it it isn’t the first one to disclose, as people like Stephen Bassett, Richard Dolan, Steven Greer and such advocate, this country is done for good and in a very short ttime.

  53. My point was priorities are outta whack. An average 5 year old should be able to properly identify want v. need.
    Do you need this toy, or do you want this toy?
    What is more important = needing ‘food’ to live or to ‘things’ to make you happy.
    UKG I might have something for you to look at, I’ll shoot u an email.

  54. Looking for homeowners here in Cheeseland with loans from HomeSide Lending through Wisconsin Mortgage; allegedly sold to WaMu, serviced by Chase and/or Wisconsin mortgage, GMAC, or anybody else.

    if you were foreclosed, succumbed to a deed in lieu, are an alleged “debtor in possession” or in any stage of alleged default or foreclosure, I would really like to hear from you.
    Homeside/WaMu/WI in the subject line please.


  55. Here is the problem Roger

    – An NOD is filed by the foreclosing agent upon the request of the servicer. There is no servicing allowed in a mortgage backed Private Label Securities offering so …not fake. Your claims are for a materially false instrument recorded against the estate causal to a “slander of Title for purposed of unjust enrichment”..

    – In this analysis are certain factual based findings and verifiable discovery supported by empirical fact whereby estate is affirmed to set unencumbered and free of liens. Therefore, title rests disturbed from adverse claims made by FDCPA agencies seeking to recover abandoned assets in order to reconstitute lost or charged off value. Therefore a question as to the consumers default is answered whereas the consumers payments

    First, your promissory Note is destroyed for economic de-recognition (accrual) purposes and therefore is lost to the lenders claims of a breach by the borrower. Its recognition is by a controversial accounting revision under ASC 310, ASC 320 and ASC 380 using futures derivatives and short title methods, devises and instrumentality. Indeed the note is void whereby the Mortgage “deed” is discounted to create a notional value paid as a futures strike price and securities option Call Date.Next, realize the lenders liens are stripped from title rendering it free of all encumbrances. The estate and its unencumbered equity are used to fund the depositors account.

    Roger, a depositor’s account is held as mark to market consideration transferred into a Delaware LP, “paid in capital account.” The LP Paid in capital account is valued at $250 price per share. Therefore the number of shares is equal to the value of the property appraisal. This allows for the shares to represent title under a purchase and sale agreement for purposes of a 1031 exchange.Now consider where Trust Common Shares are pledged to a Foreign National Central Bank using a 80 -20 formula. Problematic issues arise whereby the 20 percent discount is equal to five years prepaid interest The prepaid interest is paid on demand at the strike price equal to the original notes face value.

  56. Now for something really important:

    Looking for homeowners here in Cheeseland with loans from HomeSide Lending through Wisconsin Mortgage; allegedly sold to WaMu, serviced by Chase and/or Wisconsin mortgage, GMAC, or anybody else.
    If you were foreclosed, succumbed to a deed in lieu, are an alleged “debtor in possession” or in any stage of alleged default or foreclosure, I would really like to hear from you.
    Homeside/WaMu/WI in the subject line please.

    I am not an attorney, and cannot address your issues that are of legal process. I can, however, address your issues of fact.

  57. WOW, SOLLY! GREAT JOB!! YOU HAD YOUR SPELL CHECK ON, TOO! Just one thing, It’s the “originator’s promissory note”.
    That is all correct. I can see it now.
    How much cash have you collected so far trolling the site?
    Anybody putting up numbers?
    I’m out a G-Note to this fuckin’ guy, and what he sent me isn’t as good as what he wrote down below.
    I’m just want to know where the private right of action for the AB1122 is for the homeowner?

  58. And for those still questioning whether it makes sense to get an attorney…

    91% of homeowner claims were DISMISSED at the pleading stage in Federal Courts

    Posted by Simonee on Oct 24, 2013 in General Public

    The Federal Judicial Center has recently released a study about the percentage of claims against the Notorious Five[1] (and others), claiming that an astonishing NINETY ONE (91) percent of claims against the banks were dismissed at the pleading stage. Even more alarming is the finding that while there was no increase in the ratio of dismissal on civil rights and employment discrimination cases, the ratio of dismissal of complaints about mortgage loans TRIPLED during the period of the study.

    On page 40 of the report, the classification of cases shows foreclosure related cases going from 17 to 235 – an incredible increase (but not unexpected or surprising) and primary contained claims for TILA, RESPA and FDPCA claims. The report does not examine the number of complaints filed by pro se’s – which one has to believe that pro se complaints most likely have a higher rate of dismissal than ones filed by attorneys. Is this because Judges do not believe a pro se will pursue the dismissal with a higher court or are pro se’s failing to meet the pleading standards?

    The study was designed to monitor the effect of Iqbal and Twombly which in effect raised the pleading standards for stating a claim. There is a interesting body of law in which pro se’s are to be given greater latitude in their pleadings; while at the same time there is a line draw as to what that latitude is. Most case rulings state (in some form or another) that content is of more importance than form. In my own layman’s opinion, this means that while the form of the complaint may not meet the pleading standards, if the facts are there to support the claim then whatever it is labeled and regardless to the font size or spacing, the pleading is to move forward. Some pro se’s think this means that if they don’t have time to clearly articulate their claims then they are to be allowed to keep amending until they get that time (and those cases tend to be met with a dismissal).

    When first reading this report I was alarmed by the percentage – thinking does this prove there is a bias with judges against homeowners? It is easy to take that from this; but then when you get into the details it really begs the question – Are we failing to plead the claims properly? And are we pleading the right claims?

    I am convinced there is bias in the Courts, across the country. If the Department of Justice, ALL State Attorney Generals, the major governing federal agencies are settling claims of FRAUD – why do the Courts treat these criminals as the keepers of the truth? I am astounded that any of the Notorious Five can walk into any court and make any claim that is met with any amount of credibility.

    But before we can really fight that battle, we must first line up our own ducks and ensure that when we take our claims to court, our claims do not rely on the belief that as a pro se we do not have to make a showing – instead we need to show up with strong, well written pleadings that demonstrate we have a claim, we have been harmed, and we are entitled to restitution.

  59. Christine! Purrfect!

    But I wasn’t talking to you. LOL!
    It would be silly of me to ask you (of all people) that question.

    Right On MS!

  60. It’s a theory from the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget who believed (rightfully) that: “only education is capable of saving our societies from possible collapse, whether violent, or gradual.” He studied early childhood developmnt and established a map of aptitudes chilrens shoould go through as part of the development. Pediatricians in this country use it when they ask parents: “Can your 2 year old feed himelf with a spoon? Can he drink from a cup? Can he unbutton a coat? etc.”

    All that is based on the Piaget theory.

  61. Have you ever heard of the term “Cognitive Development” ?

    Just Curious?

  62. I aver to the above entitled wrongful foreclosure claims in support of a release of lien from 25 years of professional mortgage banking, institutional whole loan trading, and regulated commercial and retail banking experience (FSLIC & FDIC)
    2. Testimony is provided in large part from over 10 years of professional accounting experience as a general ledger accountant, auditor and CFO.
    3. All averment are brought for claims, weighted to the tax payers accounting rules under Generally Accepted Accounting Principals “GAAP” that includes a 1.1031 IRS tax deferred exchange and 2008 charge off of bank collateral and assets under the congressional passage of the Troubled Assets Relief Program; formally the “Toxic Assets Relief Program”;(“TARP”)
    4. Under TARP the foreclosing attorneys act under the FDCPA which is moot to a secured lenders claims
    5. Recovery Programs violate IRC reporting requirements imposed upon the subject tax payer corporation. These violations can be corroborated under the International Accounting Standards Board IASB used by US banks for Federal tax reporting purposes.
    6. The loans licensed originator or regulated lender is differentiated from the tax payer member bank responsible for wiring disbursement funds. The member bank who wired the money to settle the loan is held as the creditor for the lenders obligation and amount wired. By operation of law, the loans owner is lost to any right held by a mortgagee upon its member bank discounting the subject deed of trust by 20 percent of more.
    7. The formation of a five year bond is by the two parties held to the final HUD 1 statement. Indeed, claims are supported by prima fascia found in the Mortgage Loan Purchase and Assumption Agreement “MLP&AA”. Heretofore, the court shall find the bond holder’s pledge to be the illegal enforcement of the homeowner’s anticipated early prepayment.
    8. The scheduled prepayment is unethically enforced prior to the end of the 30 years term. The compelled acceleration is a bonefide breech of trust for void claims for a timed foreclosure triggered on the due date of another party’s obligation. The common stock holder is a member bank who is a private placement co-sponsor, the trust funds issuer and bank holding entity for the depositors pledged into a security collateralized bond obligation. The debt owed to a member bank for the financing arrangement used to finance the wire given the originator in order to settle the loans closing.

    Loan Origination and Settlement

    9. The subject loans settlement or escrow closing, at time of the originations HUD 1 statement date, is suspended under a forward commitment. The foreclosure is compelled to satisfy the transferee creditor’s demand for payment. Conflict and controversy exist under both domestic and foreign securities laws which allow for non recognition of mortgages for purposes of issuing common stock.

    10. A condition precedent is the formation of a private placement and deposit of investment capital used for issuing stock used to transfer whole loans into paid in capital. If not a condition precedent, the household is held to the lenders obligation for the wire into settlement owed to the member bank and pledged to the foreign national central bank that purchased the lenders obligation. Otherwise, the repossession is for the lenders file that is lost to the note that was liquidated for the common stock.
    11. The foreclosing party is barred from recovery if the member banks collateral is transferred into shares held in a depositors account and then pledged to a creditor as a secured return on investment. RESPA, and not Securities laws, make mandatory the need exclude the consumer household from all conflict of law arising amongst real property title claims and enforcement of securities laws. Problematic issues occur in the enforcement of a foreclosure under securities laws.
    12. Conflits of state and federal laws including local recording of liens encumbering real property are heightened under U.S. Federal and international securities laws. Securities laws permit the recognition of dividends prior to the date of the issuer’s declaration to pay the investors the consideration. Real property and mortgage laws prohibit collections of un-recognized or hidden accrual or the de- recognition of cash flow “income” for purposes of servicing dividends paid on the issuer’s common stock.
    13. Claims are brought against the creditors and the debtor for the financing of common stock called Trust Common Shares issued as the collateral for a series of bank to bank debt offering. The registrations published Pooling and Servicing Agreement is irrelevant to a senior breech claim against parties where one merged into the other. The originator member bank merger into a off shore partnership occurs under a non disclosed anticipated mergers and acquisitions scheme for future consolidation. The forward looking consideration is held secured against the value of the subject property for the appraised value of the estate.
    14. The appraisal is therefore held for the prevent value or basis in assets and future value of the discounted securities under recognized and non recognized converted bank held assets. The issuer’s common shares are placed on deposit by the issuers, member bank and broker dealer, who financed the sale of the stock for the banks obligation to Bank of New York Mellon for the benefit of the United Sates Department of Treasury
    15. Claims are for the five year bonds due and payable on demand that is transferred by one to the other are brought against the deals same parties as the common stocks purchasers Common stock issued to the parties is financed by the member bank and its broker dealer as bank obligations due from third party originators
    16. For purposes of issuing common stock and receiving cash flow, the parties held in default are subject to a financing arrangement for the common stock issued into an offshore limited partnership. Herein are the claims made for an investment “pledged” as a transfer from the original “creditor” as “transferor” to transferee , The transferee is a Delaware tax payer entity structured as a tax deferred investment for a 20 year obligation owed it. The obligation is for the wire issued at time of the subject loans funding used to settle the household mortgage origination.
    The aforementioned averments support the household’s claims for injunction in opposition of a wrongful foreclosure. Foreclosure is the result of undue enforcement of acceleration of the contractual agreement held in the subject claims under the originations promissory note. Claims are for an illegal restraint on alienable rights of the household’s occupants. The Lender servicing rules are violated under FAS 140 and codified SFAS 140-3. These claims are for loan servicing violations and void claims made in public filings by imposter entities representing false claims and acting as the mortgage lenders claimant in violation of SEC 1122 AB.

    Not for public dissemination nor permitted in any prior approved publishing . This message is personal intended for the reader . Emails are is not intended as an offer for services and not intended as a legal opinion; No implied or express understanding for professional legal services is asserted or to be construed by the reader – call your state bar for the name and number of an attorney in your region.

  63. …”simply because there has been such a long tradition of trust in the United States, and a steady supply of dollars throughout the world.”…….O0o0 laugh did I ! I know we are not going back to pelts and tee’pees – but it would be all to my delight if we did. Stupid people enlighten me and have surpassed my enthusiasm for well, knowledge, in the most part of important basic skills.
    This is huge. Really huge! 10 years from now I can only imagine! I have confidence in my fellow Americans that are not of the greed pool and keep strong. I have nothing but laughable ignorance for the ones whom created and continue to support this mess. Let US fall. It is time we should. Greedy ass generation of *MOSTLY* lazy kids waiting for the next game on their thingy to come out….developing more than likely more a more voracious appetite for money than what we seen now, just because it is the only way to get what you WANT. Hence the problem- WANT v NEED.
    Most American children cannot reasonably indifferent the two under age 5.
    Things need to change.

  64. Ignore reality at your own peril…

    Yet another massive nail in the dollar’s coffin

    December 4, 2013
    Santiago, Chile

    On the other side of the world today, a couple of gentlemen that few people have ever heard of signed an agreement that has massive consequences for the global financial system.

    It was a Memorandum of Understanding signed by representatives of the Singapore Exchange and Hong Kong Exchange. Their aim– to combine their forces in rolling out more financial products denominated in Chinese renminbi.

    This is huge.

    Hong Kong and Singapore are THE two dominant financial centers in Asia. For years they’ve been locked in competition with one another, much like New York and London. So their public partnership is a very big deal… indicative of the clear objective they have in front of them.

    Bottom line– finance executives in Asia see the writing on the wall. They can see that the dollar is in a period of terminal decline, and it’s clear that the Chinese renminbi is going to take tremendous market share away from the dollar. They want a big piece of the action.

    The renminbi has already surpassed the euro to become the #2 most-used currency in the world when it comes to trade settlement, according to a report released yesterday by the Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT).

    Right now the renminbi has about an 8.6% share of the global market for trade settlement. Granted, the dollar has the lion’s share of trade settlement at more than 80%.

    But just look at how quickly the renminbi has grown; in January 2012, its share of the global market was just 1.9%. So it’s grown by nearly a factor of 5x in less than two years.

    With today’s agreement between Hong Kong’s and Singapore’s financial exchanges, that growth will likely accelerate.

    As we’ve discussed before, the dollar is in a unique position simply because it is the world’s dominant reserve currency.

    This means that when a rice distributor in Vietnam does business with a Brazilian merchant, they’ll close the deal by trading US dollars with each other… even though neither nation actually uses the dollar.

    It’s been this way since World War II, simply because there has been such a long tradition of trust in the United States, and a steady supply of dollars throughout the world.

    But this confidence is fading rapidly as merchants and banks around the world have been seeking alternatives, primarily the Chinese renminbi.

    As the dollar’s market share in international trade decreases, it will mean the end of US financial privilege. No longer will the US be able to print money without repercussions.

    And as so many other nations have learned the hard way, when you print money with wanton abandon and indebt your nation to the hilt, there are severe consequences to pay.

    Today’s move between Hong Kong and Singapore gives us a glimpse into this future.

    We’ll soon see more financial products– oil, gold, Fortune 500 corporate bonds, etc. denominated in renminbi and traded in Asia.

    And as trade in these renminbi products grows, the dollar will be closer and closer to its reckoning day.

    Years from now when this has played out, it’s going to seem so obvious.

    Just like the post-Lehman crash in 2008, people will scratch their heads and wonder– ‘why didn’t I see that coming? Why didn’t I recognize that it was a bad idea to loan millions of dollars to unemployed / dead people?’

    Duh. Same thing. People will look back in the future and wonder why they didn’t see the dollar collapse coming… why they didn’t recognize that it was a bad idea for the greatest debtor nation in the history of the world to simultaneously control the global reserve currency…

    The warning signs are all in front of us. And today’s agreement between Hong Kong and Singapore is one of the strongest signs yet.

  65. Has anyone found anything on the barcode info on loan doc’s??

  66. default law: the best I’ve got so far:

    “In legal theory, a default rule is a rule of law that can be overridden by a contract, trust, will, or other legally effective agreement. Contract law, for example, can be divided into two kinds of rules: default rules and mandatory rules. Whereas the default rules can be modified by agreement of the parties, mandatory rules will be enforced, even if the parties to a contract attempt to override or modify them. One of the most important debates in contract theory concerns the proper role or purpose of default rules.

    The idea of a default rule in contract law is sometimes connected to the notion of a complete contract. In contract theory, a complete contract fully specifies the rights and duties of the parties to the contract for all possible future states of the world. An incomplete contract, therefore, contains gaps. Most contract theorists find that default rules fill in the gaps in what would otherwise be incomplete contracts. This is often stated pragmatically as whether a court will imply terms so as to save a contract from uncertainty.”

    If you try to say someone may sell opium out of your rental in a contract, it can’t be enforced because it’s illegal. The provision violates a mandatory rule against illicit drug-selling. If there is no law against painting a house purple, an agreement in a contract not to paint a house purple is enforceable because there is no law against agreeing not to paint a house purple. As long as an agreement in a contract is not illicit, the agreement will be enforced. The UCC is default law and is looked at in the absence of express provisions in an agreement; it’s to settle the uncertain since it’s mere mortals who craft agreements. The note clearly spells out who may enforce a note against its maker (and I call it a warranty to the borrower, one which imo it’s not unreasonable to demand evidence it’s being complied with): one who has taken by transfer and is entitled to payment. Imo the only, or at least first, reference to the UCC necessary is for the definition of “transfer” since it isn’t spelled out in the note. Before looking at “entitled to payments”, it’s necessary to determine that the note were taken by transfer. The UCC 3-203 (a) defines transfer (as applicable):

    ” (a) An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument. ”

    The maker / borrower is the ‘issuer’. To me, the note makes a distinction about who may enforce, and it cuts out a thief or one in mere possession by its express referencer to ‘transfer’, which might be at odds with other article III provisions (the agreement rules). So there has to be a test to determine if one took the note by transfer, is a custodian for another, or found it under a desk. People don’t generally give away live notes, so maybe payment, or an agreement for payment, acknowledged by the transferor, would be the standard in determining ‘transfer’. (If the transferor’s agreement weren’t required to be evidenced, I could just write up something which says I’ll give you 100k for a 500k note and say lookie here). You wouldn’t give me your note “for the purpose of giving me the right to enforce” (in my own right) without adequate consideration. IF I’m your agent, and that’s why you give it to me, to enforce for you, then I’m not the real party in interest, at least not until the agency is established with admissable evidence, if then. An agency doesn’t give me the right to enforce the instrument in my OWN right, so giving me the note to enforce for YOU is not a transfer as defined in 3-203(a).imo. For more on 3-203:

    These are strictly lay opinions for discussion. Ask a lawyer well-versed in the UCC and its application to these secured notes.

  67. Return to Grantor ……
    Trustee Unknown …..
    No such address, no such loan.

    Return to Grantor …. Beneficiary Known!

  68. “Tick” “Talk” …. The Rat Ran Down the Clock.

  69. From FNMA’s Announcement, which won’t d/l:

    “This Announcement serves as written notice of pricing increases that may be required by the terms of a lender’s Master Agreement, and further serves to document the pricing change effective April 1, 2012, whether or not an amendment to any existing Master Agreement or
    MBS contract is executed. In the event there is any conflict between these provisions and any terms contained in a lender’s Master Agreement or other contract with Fannie Mae, the terms of this Announcement will control.”

    Can read the whole announcement by clicking link in here:

  70. Bloomberg, August 31, 2012:

    “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S.-owned mortgage-finance companies, will raise by an average of 10 basis points the fees they charge lenders to guarantee loans, the Federal Housing Finance Agency said in a statement…………..

    The fee increase will begin Nov. 1 for loans sold for cash and Dec. 1 for loans exchanged for mortgage-backed securities, FHFA said.”

  71. The plot thickens. I just learned that servicers remit payments on loans to fnma and fhlmc who then apparently pay the trusts or at least the certificate holders (still working on this particular money trail). And this, which answer the question of how and why the GSE’s guarantee payments:

    Investopedia explains ‘Guarantee Fees’

    “Commonly known in the industry as “g-fees”, this small deduction (the average is 15-25 basis points in relation to the stated coupon rate) allows the corporations selling the MBS to make a profit, while benefiting both mortgage lenders and borrowers by making groups of mortgages more marketable and liquid. This helps bring investor capital into the business, allowing all participants to lower their risk exposure and enabling them to offer mortgages to borrowers of lower credit quality (damn). The coupon rate on an MBS (also known as the pass-through rate) is the average rate on the underlying mortgages minus the guarantee fees.”

    A borrower gets a six percent loan. The servicer eats .25 to .625 (servicing amt depends on whether loan is fixed rate or some heinous can-change-every-month-rate,etc) and then the GSE eats .15 to .25, apparently for its guarantee and administration. I guess that solves the mystery (for me) of why the GSE’s guarantee payment: for profit (how’d that work?) and to enhance the sale of MBS’s. Unlike FHA mtg insurance which is added to the note rate and paid by the borrower, the fnma guarantee is deducted from the note rate when fnma makes its monthly remittances on its bonds.

    Also this (at Investopedia):

    “Definition of Guarantee Fees

    Fees charged by mortgage-backed securities (MBS) providers, such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae……. The main component of the guarantee fee is charged to protect against credit-related losses in the mortgage portfolio (think of it like MBS insurance)…….”

    fwiw, if a note rate is 6% and the servicer gets .375 and FNMA takes .20, the net yield is 5.425%. We haven’t done the secn trustee yet, and even when we do, it won’t be what the investors are paid. imo.

  72. Banks are going down. With their creators. The whole system is going down. Actually, Keshe has a lot to do with it… And Tesla before him but Keshe went back to the original drawings and got the whole thing patented, developed and donated for free… worldwide, unbeknownst to the banks and despite being “outlawed” by the US. In 2011, a presidential decree from Obama didn’t weigh much anymore already…

    The same Keshe whose technology Iran is developing and Syria had to get rid off under UN threats of inflicting the pains and penalties of another Iraq blood bath. Syria caved in. Iran… not so much. Not yet. And Iran has the BRICS countries behind it.

    They call it “weapons of mass destruction”. You bet: weapons of coal-oil-banks mass destruction. Anyone can see why it doesn’t sit too well with the US military and the US bank-bought government: it’s their bread and butter flying off the window. Oil gone, petrobuck gone.

    And darn it! American people are doing their own thing based on magnetic energy, also based on Tesla and Keshe technology. And posting on Youtube!!! The traitors!

    The end of secrecy is so near, I can feel it.

    Youtube: the greatest thing since… well, fill in the blank. And nothing can stop it. Not martial law, not false flags, not TV stupid reality crap, nothing! If the feds wants to censor it, all other countries will still be watching, learning and reproducing.

  73. Loans where a Mortgage and DOT exist at the same time


  74. You can not warrant and convey something unless you own it.


  75. What does the note say about the warrantor/surety?
    What/Who is the warrantor/surety?

    Grantors Warrants & Conveys Irrevocably (Title to Estate),…
    only two ways out….

    Reversed aka Ass Backwards!

    Lighten Up Christine …

  76. eggsistence – it does matter what the note says and it matters more than what the default law UCC says. The note is the agreement which defines who may enforce, not the UCC: one who took the note by transfer (and as I’ve said before, it’s here that one must look to the UCC for the definition of transfer since it isn’t spelled out in the note) and is entitled to payment. A guy who is in mere possession of a bearer note didn’t necessarily take the note by transfer. Under the UCC (only and not under the terms of the note) he may be entitled to enforce, so I guess that is entitlement to payment, although arguments may well exist that he isn’t, not even under the UCC. But at any rate, if a guy can’t get past the first hurdle, that he took the note by transfer, the note, the governing document, says he’s nobody. As far as I’m concerned, these two things were warranties made to the borrower, that only a party who passed muster on both could enforce his note.

  77. FNMA ANNOUNCEMENT SVC 2010-04 March 3, 2010

    “…Servicers are reminded that a mortgage loan that is part of a regular servicing option MBS pool or part of a shared-risk special servicing option MBS pool for which the servicer’s shared risk liability has not expired must not modify the mortgage loan while it remains in the MBS pool.
    The servicer must purchase the mortgage loan from the MBS pool upon completion of the trial period provided the mortgage loan has been in a continuous state of delinquency for at least four consecutive monthly payment due dates* (or at least eight consecutive payment due dates in the case of a biweekly mortgage loan) without a full cure of the delinquency during that period.
    Regular servicing option MBS pool mortgage loans and such shared-risk special servicing option MBS pool mortgage loans that have been purchased from an MBS pool for purposes of modification are not eligible for redelivery to Fannie Mae.
    Performing MBS mortgage loans (and those that do not meet the delinquency criteria described above) are ineligible for repurchase for the purpose of modifying the mortgage loan.

    Expedited Reimbursement of Servicer Advances for Reclassified MBS
    Mortgage Loans
    Servicing Guide, Part VI, Section 304: Reimbursement of Servicer’s Advances
    As a follow-up to recent Fannie Mae News Releases (on
    February 10, 2010 and on March 1, 2010), Fannie Mae will expedite its reimbursement to servicers of delinquency advances and
    unpaid principal balances for loans reclassified out of MBS pools. Servicers will receive Fannie Mae reimbursements one business day prior to the draft date of scheduled remittances for the month in which the reclassification takes place. This expedited reimbursement will assist servicers by eliminating the need for advances related to reclassified MBS loans.”

    *the servicer must advance payments for four months before repurchase is required because, unlike the borrower’s payments which should have been seasoned prior to the loan being eligible for securitization, the borrower’s default must be seasoned to trigger the repurchase obligation.

  78. Darline,

    “The ultimate goal is not to crash the banking system but for individuals to have the chance to keep their homes and be reimbursed for their financial losses.”

    Many of us here know that there won’t be any relief until the banking system has been crashed and reimbursing everyone who suffered a loss will accomlish just that. Banks made a terrible mistake: they became greedy (or played in the hands of those who did. Makes no difference: guilty by association) and completely destabilized society.

    Had they kept greed under control and allowed people to go on with their lives, keep their job, have enough spare money to take a vacation and indulge in a few things, that would have been no problem and they could have run their racket forever. People are not that ambitious and most only look for some balance between work, a semblance of future security and some pleasure while accomplishing both. Work went out the window first and we got severely hit by unemployment. Then, security flew out the window with retirement disappearing and Congress, bought by the banks, agitating to put its hands on SS as it had put its hands on the post office. And it just happens that owning a home provided that last future security for anyone who had worked through the bone for 50 years and knew SS wouldn’t be enough to survive on: banks couldn’t keep their hands off that either.

    Sorry Darline, it’s about killing the banks. Unfortunately, that means killing the dollar too. Damn shame!

    Make no mistake, Darline (and as a BofA WB, you know it), it may take a little longer than we would like to but banks will not survive. And in the meantime, your advice is not bad: fight. Document, document, document and… fight.

  79. N, it is a forgery extravaganza. Everything is forged. It is unbelievable. I was trying to figure out today that if you are an atty and you hire someone to forge something, doesn’t that mean you are committing a crime as well?

  80. I suspect d/t the amount of money and fraud that has taken place it is wise to collect penalties and fines first thus preventing an economic collapse. Once they have the administrative and financial penalties established and paid then I suspect criminal charges will take place. You can’t have the carriage before the horse or you will get no where. Take note finally with this first case, JP Morgan had admitted to guilt with large penalties the rest will follow. Once administrative hearings come to an agreement and shed the light and they financially secure the funds, no one will be able to run off with the assets. Then individual criminal and civil cases will surface and have less of a chance of squirming out of the charges. The victims will have something to refer to instead of just “hear say”. The “Banks will be more willing to disclose documents if they know additional fee’s won’t be taken from the establishment even if it means admitting to guilt. I believe individual civil and criminal cases will involve direct banking managers,Attorney’s and trustee’s and the major trust holders of the bank will be willing to give up their CEO’s especially if they know their position is secure.
    I feel everyone’s pain. It requires a lot of patients and persistence. Even if the case does not look good get it on record ASAP and fight foreclosure but agree to nothing until this is resolved. I am not an attorney nor do I work in the legal arena but I have great intuition and research to back up my claims. It will turn around in the next 6 months. If it was me I would challenge any foreclosure proceedings until they are able to show me original docs indicating rightful ownership of deed or lean. Chain of Custody is key! Any implication of forged documents will give the grounds to sue. I truly believe multiple entities will surface or none at all depending on the legal system and upcoming legal cases. The ultimate goal is not to crash the banking system but for individuals to have the chance to keep their homes and be reimbursed for their financial losses. For those that have already lost their homes I would seeking restitution from the settles that are soon to come. Just my opinion! Ironically I don’t have a home to fight for but I have other reasons for getting into this fight for justice.:))

  81. Thank God people all over the world are looking for solutions. ‘Cuz it ain’t gonna come form here… and seriously, the mighty buck is moribund. The longer its agony and the more casualties we’ll see in this country, before, during and after its collapse.

    By the way… John Wayne ain’t coming back either.

  82. When Neil says this:
    “Using this theory, if the payment doesn’t come from the named Payor on the note to the now unnamed payee on exhibit note, anyone can collect multiple times on a single debt. This is crazy.”

    I think of this:
    “In other words, it doesn’t matter what the note actually says, it only matters that someone who could fog a mirror signed it at some point and the courts will say that mirror-fogger is on the hook no matter what the bank does or doesn’t do.”

  83. NG, you said: “As I have been detailing over the last week, I have a currently pending case in which the “successor” trustee with a new aggressive law firm is pursuing foreclosure and collection of rents on loans that they know have been paid, they admit have been paid, but they say it doesn’t matter. Using this theory, if the payment doesn’t come from the named Payor on the note to the now unnamed payee on exhibit note, anyone can collect multiple times on a single debt. This is crazy.”

    Well, it does matter, of course – if your bankster is not a hidc, and among other things, it’s not a hidc to the extent they haven’t paid for the note or if they took it with notice of dishonor. But if they can demonstrate they paid for it (which imo they must), and not merely made a promise to pay, without notice of dishonor (or the prior payment, I think, by yet another someone else or even by the maker), the prior payment is not a defense to the note; it’s certainly a defense against them if the prior payment were to them. Prior payment to a former note holder (a personal defense) is only good against a holder, not a hidc. Since they acknowledge the note has been paid, I guess the crux is WHEN they knew the note had been paid. If it’s been paid, hard to believe they didn’t know. Who is alleged to have owned it when it was paid – someone else, must be. I’d sure as heck be demanding evidence they’re a hidc who took the note without notice of prior payment or the borrower’s default.
    The bad news is It’s really only crazy if they don’t have 1) hidc status 2) of a Negotiable Instrument. A borrower would probably have a cause of action against the guy who got paid again when he sold a paid note, but that’s a drag. The good news is that the defense of prior payment (I think only) is an absolute defense against a mere holder.
    lay opinions as always

  84. @justme re: holder v hidc. I don’t recall any finite answer without looking, but think I remember correctly that under any circumstances where one otherwise qualifies as a holder in due course, one is only a holder in due course to the extent of his payment. If I agree to pay you 500k for a note, but I’ve only paid you 100k, I’m only a hidc as to the 100k, and just a holder on the other 400k. If I promise to pay you 500k and have paid you nothing, I’m a hidc on nada. I’m just a holder subject to all affirmative defenses. Imo this fact forms the basis for a more definitive statement out of the claimant – how is the claimant claiming? As a holder or a hidc (which hopefully would lead to evidence of payment to support any hidc status). When a bankster presents an alleged note and says pay me, one really can’t tell the basis of that demand, which position is being claimed, and it’s important to know so one may frame his defenses, if any, properly. imo. I don’t know how such a strategic motion for the more definitive statement couldn’t be granted. But I’ve said this five times and I don’t see it being utilized. Got me why except that most often the time to do a thing in litigation comes and then it’s gone. If someone is in the middle of litigation, I don’t know how one could ask for the clarification.
    I think it’s a good way to try to “follow the money” or back-track it, anyway. Alternatively, the current assignments of the notes in the assignments of the collateral instruments are imo prima facie evidence of the attempted transfer of an (allegedly) defaulted note (which 86’s hidc status – taking a note in default), but there’s no evidence the assignee is aware of the default, which it must be to 86 the hidc status). Well, actually, if MERS, who only executes (as if) assignments when there is a borrower default, is the agent of the assignee, then its knowledge its imputed to its principal, so that in turn could find a reasonable presumption that the assignee is not a hidc, having taken the note with notice of its dishonor by the maker.
    I also don’t know why no one asks for (demands) evidence that MERS is the agent for the last noteowner, which agency status is the basis for MERS alleged authority to assign the dot. This is from DSNEWS (a website for the other side) from 7/27/2011. Don’t know about anyone else, but it cracks me up:

    “Before a lender or investor starts a foreclosure or files a bankruptcy motion, they must execute an assignment of the security instrument from MERS to themselves as the mortgagee and record the transfer with the applicable county clerk or public land records office, MERS said.”

  85. Neil , welcome to the party pal! don’t complain to us ,, we know what’s going on but we can’t do anything ,, You need to start filing complaints.

    KC , Same here ,, allonge (per deposed bank expert) couldn’t have been attached as they couldn’t scan it then (scan shows no tape , glue , staples) … the same bank produced expert also stated allonge executed at same time as closing by title company (no sale having taken place , no wire , no check) ,, although that means that the note is completely invalid as it clearly doesn’t name the true parties and clearly puts the title person , broker and all others except me as felons. ( but even that is a lie , the undated allonge to masterservicer was not in existance a year ago per the LPS document system , it appeared out of nowhere a few months ago… when the plaintiffs liar discovered they needed one)

  86. You are not even allowed to do that, in Grand Theft Auto……….Lol

  87. Retake… #2

    This post is to my Dear Friend Lis, do you remember our first conversation when we first met 7yrs ago ….? I said …. The Rich can Pay their out of any Crime! Here we are 7yrs later and you are with the Federal Prosecutors Office ….

    Prove Me Wrong Yet?

    Wishing You and Your Family a Safe and Wonderful Holiday My Friend with a Conflict of Interest. Someday soon … It will be over.

    Prove Me Wrong Soon .. Please!!

    Eye Spy the Watching I

  88. We shall see whether the DOJ actually prosecutes any these SOB’s for fraud or much of anything else. People have to go to jail for this BS to stop.

  89. Deb,

    “I dont mind paying taxes if it is used for the right things and the irs rules are the same and equal for all under the laws…”

    Of course you don’t. Nor do I. Just for the hell of it, though, when was the last time they were equally assessed and enforced and they were really used for “the right thing”? I don’t call war in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else “the right thing”. And i don’t call bailing out banks “the right thing”. As I keep saying, if someone is going to mismanage my money, might as well be me and might as well be in doing something that makes me happy!

  90. Thanx KC I was about to post it.

  91. It looks as if the Justice Department in Jan is taking out the attorney from suing these banks in a JPMorgan type of settlements. While the attorney around the country have found it so hard to actually understand that yes homeowner did have a home that was free and clear of these debt claimed, because the Notes were relinquished and no purchase occurred, which make a Note no longer a Note.

    However instead of taking what there, the attorneys are trying to prove if the bank got outside funding to fund the loans. Szymoniak is getting rich because she understood that the pool and bank could not product a single bit of evidence of purchase.

    Let me see, if I ask the judge how is Wells Fargo a party in this matter where the have no financial interest, as they cannot be the Plaintiff in any case where they not purchase the debt!

  92. Obama said re Nelson Mandela after his passing
    ” a man who took history in his hands and bent the arc of the moral universe toward justice”
    I dare you Obama to follow his example.
    But then again- it depends what you perceive as just,

  93. Big Banks Mortgage Fraud

    Is the Justice Department Putting on a Show?

  94. I just heard on the news major media outlet that the city or county of Los angeles is suing the banks for predatory lending to minorities.

    Be Strong and Courageous

  95. Sweetheart deal aside gordon

  96. good article today. I believe that one West is not being mentioned because that principals stockholder is a big Obama supporter. I think his name is for us feel are less can’t be sure what is a big financier .I believe that in the Mac is as bad as any of them

    Sent from my HTC

  97. I dont mind paying taxes if it is used for the right things and the irs rules are the same and equal for all under thelaws that govern but to bail criminal enterprise and allow claims that defy logic aka ” the wallstreet way” snd the double standard hypocrisy then i agree christine. As i stand right now i simply am asserting my rights to infirmation and want my questions answered by irs so i can figure my tax return. I will not concede to the issuance of a 1099a from a debt collector claiming lender status, i have no 1099c and believe me a whole lotta CF inbetween to question who the fig is who.

  98. Why would any head roll? Everything and everyone is for sale in this country and everything and everyone is bought, sold and paid for… albeit on credit. Get rid of the credit and you’ll see where people’s loyalties go.

    And Deb, of course the Chinese are laughing. And why do you think Russia gave asylum to Snowden? And the 23 countries holding 60% of the world GNP are now transacting outside of the dollar?

    As long as people pay taxes to support this system, nothing will change. And as long as the grossly uneducated majority gets its thinking from the media, nothing will change. Are you surprised?

    Tell former Senator Blanche Lincoln: Stop lobbying for Monsanto.

    Monsanto – one of the most influential corporations among members of Congress – has hired former U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln’s lobbying firm, the Lincoln Policy Group, to do its bidding in Washington, D.C.

    Cashing in on her public service by helping massive corporations like Monsanto gut food safety, public health and transparency laws is just wrong. That’s why I started my own campaign on, which allows activists to start their own petitions. My petition, which is to former Senator Blanche Lincoln, says the following:

    Cashing in on public service by lobbying for unethical corporations is offensive to the American people. Senator Lincoln: Stop lobbying for Monsanto.

    Tell former Senator Blanche Lincoln: Stop doing Monsanto’s bidding in Washington, D.C.

    Earlier this month, Monsanto helped defeat an initiative that would have required genetically modified foods sold in my home state of Washington to be labeled. The company dumped millions of dollars into misleading TV ads to confuse Washington state residents and keep us in the dark about what we’re eating.

    Lincoln’s lobbying firm has also hired her former staffer Robert Holifield — who served as her staff director on the Senate Agriculture Committee when she was the committee chair — as a partner at her lobbying firm. This shows that Lincoln is going beyond using her own connections she developed as a senator to cash in – she’s actively recruiting former congressional staff to boost her efforts to influence leaders on Capitol Hill.

    Monsanto is clearly already far too influential in the halls of Congress, as evidenced by the “Monsanto Protection Act.” This legislation, which was anonymously added to a must-pass budget bill in March, allowed Monsanto to ignore food safety laws and disregard court opinions.

    Lincoln has also done lobbying work for telecommunications company Nokia and major credit reporting bureau Experian — and she’s continuing to seek new clients as she grows her firm. By shining a public spotlight on Lincoln’s lobbying for Monsanto we can damage her firm’s reputation with other potential clients and send a strong message to elected officials that cashing in on public service by lobbying for unethical corporations is unacceptable.

    Will you join me and add your name to my petition to former Senator Blanche Lincoln to demand that she stops lobbying on behalf on Monsanto?

    Thank you for your support.

    Bill Moyer

  99. Ill be convinced when matt tiabbi gets his own show at prime time.

  100. Although I do not watch TV. I think it’s a positive sign, that Daily Show covered mortgage fraud for an entire show.

  101. A few of you know im a brit
    But i embraced the american culture since i arrived as a sponsored nurse in 1999 and i have never worked so hard in my life i earned everything i HAD ( past tense you know the rest) i talk to my felow europeans and freinds in uk
    Tbey are stunned and shocked that no heads have rolled as we say, the chinese make jokes the other nations must be doing the same. So why cant the people here get it together, i understand that the regulators are captured I use the word regulators broadly, but the people must sonehow get off their rusty dustys.
    Thing is majority believe the TV
    I talked to my neigbor and she cited something and i asked hoe did she know she said ” it was on Tv”

  102. Neil – you are right on. One way to bring this to light if attorneys like yourself start filing complaints about these judges and foreclosure attorneys. If a flood of complaints came through from attorneys then the media couldn’t ignore it, could they (I would send a copy to the media outlets). One other thing is the fact that many newspapers are public companies and rely on wall street so it would be a big no no to criticize the banks.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: