Those VA Loans and Ginny Mae Loans Were ALso Securitized

Probably the most misunderstood aspect of the securitization process is that the banks are able to claim there was no securitization when in fact there was. This is especially true in GSE’s like Fannie, Freddie, Ginny and the VA. When you are researching loans you hit a brick wall when you get to the GSE. And there are terms thrown around like smoke and mirrors that this was or this is a Fannie loan and that therefore the loan was not securitized. This is wrong.

None of the GSE’s are lenders. They don’t loan money to anyone. So if the allegation is made that this was a Fannie or Freddie or VA loan from the start, then the originator was not the lender and neither was Fannie or Freddie or any other GSE. These are strictly guarantee agencies who don’t part with a nickle until the loan is foreclosed and the home is sold. THEN they guarantee up a certain amount and pay it out, drawing from the US Treasury as necessary.

All the loans that were considered GSE loans from the start constitute an admission that the loan was securitized or subjected to claims of securitization. Fannie and Freddie for example have a Master Trustee agreement in which they do nothing but they serve as the Master Trustee for asset-backed pools that have a regular trustee (who also does nothing). These pools are REMIC trusts.

As you can see from the attached files,if you will read them carefully, you will see that the custom and practice of the GSE was, if it guaranteed the loan, to serve as either the conduit or the Master trustee for an asset backed pool where the trust beneficiaries funded the origination or acquisition of the loan. This is a factor that did not get adequately covered in Shack’s excellent opinion recently in New York where he chastised Chase and others for playing with the ownership of the loan to suit the need for foreclosure instead of presenting facts that would protect the people who are actually taking a loss.

see Pooled_Loans_and_Securitizations_032309 and VA-FinancialPolicyVolumeVIChapter06


69 Responses

  1. Its Just Horrific to see what is going on in Non Judicial States.

    Invoke your right of redemption ….. See where that leaves you.

    Paying the wrong party?
    Multiple Breaks in Chain of Title?

  2. If I brought a lawsuit against you (with fraud docs) and it caused you damages, would you sue me?

  3. I know Charles … I know!

    Lack of Standing kept me on the Sidelines.
    Standing is the equivalent of Liability.

    Like you said … when the Oldies from days gone by screwed it up, they cant come back to fix it. And when SOL expires to procure a proper judicial fc ….. its dust in the wind here.

  4. Who has subrogation rights/salvage rights?

    The Warrantor?

    The Warrantor is the Household Estate

    (community property subject to sate laws)

  5. KC I don’t know were you get the two wires but as in this case in NY you don’t need to go into all this other stuff as the judge cut it off at do you have “Standing” there was no way to prove “Standing” because Wells Fargo was not listed on the Note and there is no paper trial of a purchase!

    The bank was seized on Sept 25, 2008 and what the WaMu did or did not do does not matter if there is no documentation addressing those other issues, so what in front of us is that Wells Fargo, Ginnie Mae or MERS is listed on the title and don’t possess a receipt of cash changing hands!

  6. NO!
    The loans were Charged Off in 2008.
    In 2010 the benefit was to the Household Estate.

    Two … Wires

  7. justme there only one original Note and that the one you signed at closing, nobody signed two Notes to the same loan twice. However what I do see as the way that some are going to get around this mess, is that the lenders became “issuer” and servicer and custodian of records but the Note physically is handed over to the GSE, and somehow the rescind the pools, looks like what they are doing now. However if the loan was originated by another as with WaMu or IndyMac and there was a blank endorsement they are done because the world knows when those banks were seized.

    WaMu is different because I have pointed out the transferring of servicing back in 2006, other wise the borrowers would have simply assumed that Wells Fargo purchase those loan.

  8. JG, yes, i was going too deep.
    The point is, paid is paid so there is unjust enrichment to get paid, get insurance, get bailed out, anything from derivatives of the transaction, anything from reselling it to others without letting them know you’ve taken the asset back of the market, getting the home, selling the home, and getting paid some more from people who think they got a good deal from a cheap home that was stolen from someone else.

    Trespass Unwanted

  9. TU said:
    “I thought about that statement and people here and on the internet have repeated over and over that the banks were paid for these assets when they were bailed out, so that would make the Department of Treasure the real party in interest.”

    I know you addressed that comment to someone else, but I want to weigh in. It doesn’t necessarily make the DOTreasury the rpii. That would be a contractual provision.I think. If a third party, any third party, pays off a note, in the absence of a contractual provision between the note holder (owner to me) and that third party, it’s more likely if not definitely that the note is paid off. A voluntary payment to my knowledge doesn’t create any rights to the note, so even if it could be found that TARP funds paid the note, the appropriate legal starting point imo is that the note is paid. A party to tarp (gov) could introduce evidence (contract, say) of some rights created by that payment, sure, like subrogation rights, it’s really a sale, what not. Otherwise, it’s a payoff imo. (but I don’t know and don’t claim TARP paid off notes, which it may have)

  10. subset of the definition from etymonline
    erupt (portion retrieved from etymonline)
    1650s, of diseases, etc., from Latin eruptus “to break out, burst”
    rupture (portion retrieved from etymonline)
    late 14c., originally medical, from Latin ruptura “the breaking”

    In my opinion, bankruptcy is to break the bank – as in bank-break-cy

    Trespass Unwanted

  11. masterservicer, on December 11, 2013 at 5:59 am said:

    Ask yourself ….

    1. Can an foreclosure advocate attorney win a case if the real party in interest is the Department of Treasury?

    I thought about that statement and people here and on the internet have repeated over and over that the banks were paid for these assets when they were bailed out, so that would make the Department of Treasure the real party in interest.

    If the right claim is made in the public, and I’m assuming that won’t happen at the county or state level because those judges allow fraud in their courts on anything on paper presented by the people in the same organization they are in. (BAR) So at a Federal level if the right claim was made it would expose it, or maybe even in a probate court, you think? Someone claiming an asset of a deceased even though it was ‘stolen’, would it make someone in probate seek the documentation of proof of ownership from the one that has it, by going through the paperwork to see if the real party filed the case?

    Remedy is not in bankruptcy.
    Seems to me, (so it’s an opinion) bankruptcy is a way to liquidate someone’s estate (while they are alive) and causes all kinds of problems later like job loss (no money in the estate) and when they retire (social security checks they can barely live off of) because they liquidated their estate and that means anything tied to that social security number when they entered bankruptcy was up for grabs…of course I’ve never done a bankruptcy and never will as I’m not a bank so that’s my first clue to avoid anything that can e-rupt or rupt-ure with a bank-rupt-see.

    The question has serious serious criminal and possibly treasonous implications, in my opinion. If the United States treasury owned the asset, and it was confiscated in fraud only to be resold and the United States Treasury paid out again for the same asset it paid out for in the bail out.

    I may be going down the wrong track with this, but it sure doesn’t sound right, not right at all. No one can pretend they didn’t know who owned the asset once it was paid for, even if they stuck it under MERS they can’t pretend.

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

  12. Right. My servicer is the obligated party to any ‘debt’ they clam I owe. They claim (in writing) they pooled the mortgage – with no assignment of mortgage NOR any note endorsement – until I filed a purrrty little brief in regard to where my “loan” “payable” IS and if the note was not endorsed it would seem my servicer has committed the classic “pooling notes multiple times and keeping the collateral for themselves” bailout……..Well,well they come to court with the ‘real original’ WITH a blank endorsement on it, not the ‘other original’ they have filed as true without the endorsement.
    So – Charles- (yes- note and debt separated) and all, ….NOW they claim it is no longer is any pool. Oh, no, no, has not been in a pool for along time, they say. WHAT do they need to do when a loan has been removed from a pool- GNMA requires the note endorsed in blank….but no mortgage assignment to show WHERE it was assigned…if the mortgage was only “equitably assigned” and there is no proof it indeed entered or left a pool….no assignments to a trustee, trust…in or out…they whipped up some “original note” that is a farce- I’d love to have that puppy tested, LITERALLY test the papers age, etc…..Charles you speak much of the note & mortgage separated….Sure, they did that, they said so, but now they said it’s back together. What happens to the note when it’s been removed? OR- say LIQUIDATED like a man at Ginnie told me it was… A paid off stamp….?….

  13. MS,

    Insult away. You still haven’t come up with anything proving that you serve any purpose other than flaunt your pathology and a simple research on internet does show that your forte is to con people. It is there for anyone to see.
    End of discussion.

  14. Ask yourself ….

    1. Can an foreclosure advocate attorney win a case if the real party in interest is the Department of Treasury?
    2. Can you breach the pooling and servicing agreement if the asset was charged off in 2008?
    3. Can you enforce a mortgage if the wire into settlement was placed into an offshore account?
    4. If the Beneficiary is the Obligor to the member bank and the bank transfers its asset to an isolated and remote entity held 100 percent by the Sponsor who is the same member bank….wheres the breach?
    5. Where this is all documented in a Private Placement Memorandum that is an argument never raised here or in court !
    6. Where the mortgage is by held liquidated into the depositors account and pledged under a five year obligation to a foreign national bank.

    The household is clearly a guarantor for title transferred by its nominee for obligations owed by the lender as an obligor

  15. Christine

    Please read – I want to help you help yourself .

    Although few studies have been made on the topic, people with severe mental illness, such as schizophrenia, were found to be up to three times more likely to be violent in one study. But a more comprehensive study found that just 3 to 5 percent of violent crimes are committed by people with severe mental illness.

    Mental health advocates say laws that would require all mental health facilities to report people like Christine who might be dangerous to themselves or others might keep patients from getting help.

    “We already know it’s hard enough to get people with mental disorders to get help, and in many cases, it’s going to be one more obstacle,” said Dr. Paul S. Applebaum, of Columbia University. “It creates a fear that rightly or wrongly their name will be turned over to the state, law enforcement officials and be used for who knows what purpose.”

    Advocates for the mentally ill say patients like Christine already are worried about the confidentiality of their treatment. Some pay for medicine or treatment out of pocket so there’s no insurance company record, he said. And going without treatment could lead to some bad consequences.

  16. christine, on December 10, 2013 at 3:14 pm said:
    It was bound to happen: we’ve been buying, buying, buying from China without manufacturing anything to sell in return

    Wow and economic retard …WTF

  17. More ‘disconcerting’ from NG’s link, which is this:

    aka www. hunton dot com

    Hunton & Williams
    “Pooled Sales and Securitizations
    Financial Industry Recovery Center

    Pooled Loan Sales and Securitizations Involving
    the Government and Private Parties”

    www. hunton. com

    “Served as issuer’s or underwriter’s counsel on hundreds of
    transactions involving the securitization of Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac certificates.” Securitized certificates (not loans)? Is this just poor wording by people claiming to have major smarts? That’s hard to believe.

    In support of servicer advances reimbursed by FNMA:

    “Represented issuers and investors in securities based on and backed
    by servicers’ rights to receive reimbursement for P&I advances,
    corporate advances and escrow advances.” Don’t know off hand what a ‘corporate advance’ is. And what are “securities based on servicers’ rights to receive reimbursement”? More poor drafting?

    Charles, no! That’s not my battle. How bout you look at it and tell us anything else the court said? And, anyway, if MERS as a novated party is thee ben, as I believe, it could assign the dot to anyone, including the man in the moon, and all that would mean is that the assignee has the same worthless piece of paper MERS had without the note and that the note and dot are still bifurcated, just by a new party, the dot assignee, being in the dot as thee ben.

  18. johngault look at the Wells Fargo v. Viecco and what the NY Supreme Court said. I believe today is the being of the end, because as I been saying all along is that every single one of the Washington Mutual Bank loans that being serviced by Wells Fargo and was foreclosed was done so illegally because they have no financial interest and MERS could not assign the assignment to Wells! Stick a Supreme fork in them, because they are done!

  19. mike – see wikipedia for definition of “galley proof” and if you do, maybe you will explain what was meant on 12/6 for the rest of us.

  20. NG said:
    “None of the GSE’s are lenders. They don’t loan money to anyone. So if the allegation is made that this was a Fannie or Freddie or VA loan from the start, then the originator was not the lender and neither was Fannie or Freddie or any other GSE. These are strictly guarantee agencies who don’t part with a nickle until the loan is foreclosed and the home is sold. THEN they guarantee up a certain amount and pay it out, drawing from the US Treasury as necessary.”

    It’s disconcerting, that you, Neil, said what you did, at least this:

    “These are strictly guarantee agencies who don’t part with a nickle until the loan is foreclosed and the home is sold.”

    That’s just not true, say I. F & F actually buy the loans from the aggregator (aka bigger guys) in blocks of millions. They then securitize them or have issuers do it for them or sell to the Issuers. FNMA certainly does ‘part with a nickle prior to foreclosure and the home being sold’, in fact, lots of nickels. They reimburse the servicer for p & i advances (on demand by the servicers for reimbursement) pursuant to their guarantee. After the first four payments, when to discontinue fnma’s monthly guarantee, the loan must be “repurchased”, I don’t know who has to provide the “repurchase” funds nor if “repurchase” is being done at all…seems like contractually the servicer must and then fnma pays out even more (beyond the four payments) for any (alleged) loss when the dollar amt is known after the resale of the property. In other words, FNMA is good for four payments until the loss is taken by the servicer, who becomes the new’ lender’ by its loan-repurchase, and the dollar amt of the loss is known, far as I can tell.
    If the servicer repurchases as it’s supposed to, since at the time the loss is incurred on the resale (a 1099 has a corresponding loss on someone’s books, at least as far as I know – like ‘love and marriage’ – youngsters probably never heard that one – ‘can’t have one without the other’), it would be the proper party to issue a 1099 for debt forgiveness.** But then saying that the trust was the creditor, as carie was told, is a lie. Why the lie? If the servicer has to repurchase and does, it becomes the proper party for a 1099 relevant to its loss. Why not leave it at that? Damn. I just thought I knew why and lost it, but at any rate, the GSE’s fork over moolah long before foreclosure and resale. Also at any rate, if the loans weren’t delivered and all that the trust has is security interests (because the trust paid for the loans but didn’t get delivery or assignments), that’s all a purchaser may get from a trust with little exception. On the other hand, if the PSA identifies the loans with particularity and qualifies as an article 9 purchase and sale agreement, then imo the banksters had and retained no insurable interest even though they took some insurance and got paid. I’d bet that the UCC (and if not equity) would ordinarily find that any insurance proceeds on a note encumbered with security interests should belong to the secured party.

  21. Thing is those chinese Production line factory workers depend on us to feed their family- its not their fault either.
    We loose jobs and our ability to buy the chit they darn well may starve.
    Do we ever see it from another

  22. As my focus has been Ginnie Mae for the last for years, and knowing how they set up their pools because they are not lenders and they cannot originate, buy or sell a mortgage home loan. So all the Notes were transfer and separated the Notes and debts in every case, and the more information on Fannie & Freddie it seem as if they conducted themselves in the same manner and they don’t have proof to show that cash exchanged hands.

    So it appears if the lender are buying back the securities it is reversing the securities which means they never happen in a sense. Now because these Note in many cases never actually changed hands physically and if the securities are rescinded is the only way to undo this mess of what currently in the pools. Now they got a problem with foreclosed loans in WaMu, IndyMac & Countrywide or other companies that are no longer around because action was already taken under a false pretense.

  23. Indeed poppy
    We need to dtop buying their chit
    Tell that to people with bad taste.😁

  24. I mean no disrespect here, but who cares if people buy up properties in Detroit and wait for appreciation?

    They have been buying in CA overvalued properties, cash!

    Our government has created debt with China in trade imbalance, currency manipulation and lending. Much more of a problem than Detroit land…we have no need to import anything from China, we have 100% of everything we need to manufacture right here. A whole load of bullshit all of it, brought to you by the boob-tube

    Simple solution to China, WE need to quit buying the shit.

    As for the Thailand’s police, good luck seeing that here anytime soon! While, a great news story, our police are killing their own people every day with impunity…particularly in Detroit. Puppets most of them, on the payroll. Again, who is challenging them? No one.

    While a great fantasy all the folks stop paying taxes, and testing the system, it ain’t gonna happen just yet. But keep an eye on the “immigration” bill, where Obama has hired legal eagles to tip the scales for amnesty. Watch the ball on the Affordable Care Act, that is no care…when you incorporate the high deductibles, monthly payments out of pocket expenses, before you get any coverage. Then ALL of those cancellations, Hospitals refusing to take the ACA, doctors refusing the insurance…

    As this touches people personally, in every gender, demographic and community, I believe you will get reactions…it’s cooking.

    And MS is a scoundrel, no question, but extensive research yielded the wiring, de-recognition (allowing the faux funds to move and categorize them) and GAAP information is correct. Now, why he acts poorly is anyone’s guess, but the message he is sending is correct. To diminish his credibility and his character, we get it! Caveat emptor…people. IN every lie, there are truths, seek them out, we all should know enough at this point!

    If christine wants to call Maher out, then tell the entire story…my legal cohort in another state knows his story well and it doesn’t change the fact(s) he is presenting. One does not have to have a stellar background to expel information.

  25. Kc
    The sol does not start tolling until fraud discoverd so has it tolled ? We are still discovering.
    (Just lay opiniOn. Please do your own research or hire legal council )

  26. The Paper Chase: Securitization, Foreclosure, and the
    Uncertainty of Mortgage Title
    The mortgage foreclosure crisis raises legal questions as important as its economic impact. Questions that were straightforward and uncontroversial a generation ago today threaten the stability of a $13 trillion mortgage market: Who has standing to foreclose? If a foreclosure was done improperly, what is the effect? And what is the proper legal method for transferring mortgages?
    These questions implicate the clarity of title for property nationwide and pose a too-big-to-fail problem for the courts.
    (Title companies are forging documents to cover-up the tainted titles.)

  27. We’re more than six years past the issuance of most mortgage-backed securities, which means time has just about run out on even state-law fraud claims

  28. It was bound to happen: we’ve been buying, buying, buying from China without manufacturing anything to sell in return. Of course there was going to be a point where we owed so much to China that we would belong to it… Still, how come they can buy real estate properties for $39.00 and entire families kicked in the streets are not allowed to hold on to their house for $400 or $500 a month?

    Could Detroit Bring Down The Chinese Economy?
    By Steve Dibert December 10, 2013 

    Wealthy Chinese Are Fleeing China For Places Like Detroit

    “So much wealth and so much power, Armstrong thought, yet with a little luck, we can bring you down like Humpty-Dumpty…” -James Clavell, Noble House

    For those of you who missed it, Gordon Chang at Forbes wrote a great piece today about Chinese real estate speculators buying property like crazy in Detroit and how they are encouraging other rich Chinese to park their money in Detroit.

    Chinese shoppers can’t resist a bargain. Where else can you buy a two-story home in the U.S. for $39? China Central Television, the state broadcaster, in March reported that two houses in Detroit cost the same as a pair of leather shoes. No wonder a poster on Sina Weibo, the Twitter-like service, asked, “Seven-hundred thousand people, quiet, clean air, no pollution, democracy — what are you waiting for?”

    Who says the Chinese are waiting? Dongdu International Group of Shanghai bought, sight unseen, two downtown icons, the David Stott building for $4.2 million and the Detroit Free Press building for $9.4 million, both at auction this September.

    Moreover, Chinese purchasers are making bulk purchases of “inexpensive properties” — those selling for $25,000 or less — in the rings surrounding the city center. “They’re banking on the downtown resurgence spiraling out into those rings,” explains Kelly Sweeney of Coldwell Banker Weir Manuel. Mainland parties often buy at tax and foreclosure sales, hold their property, and patiently wait for appreciation.

  29. Thats is what i
    Talking about christine

  30. HUD does not allow FHA to insure negotiable instruments.

    The Estate was Stripped of Title BEFORE default.

  31. American can have a cold heart at time, but when Americans see that other America are clearly screwed over and not given what they were promise, you got a problem. I know for a fact that MERS created forgeries in my case as I have copies of the forgeries and the admission from Wells Fargo Bank that they were not the lender they claimed in the forgeries.

    If the Federal Government had handle this situation fairly and admitted their mistake, by taking some of the TARP fixing Ginnie Mae fatal Glitch the crisis would not be as deep and still hanging around.

    Deborah says it best that the crap going to hit the fan. You cannot settle Szymoniak v. Ace and putting Lorraine Brown in jail who has admitted to her staff creating 1 million forgeries and there the claim in the complaint of MERS doing the same as DocX!

  32. Yesterday, Thailand’s cops removed their helmets and joined the ranks of the protesting crowds. Today, it is the Italian police. People are fed up worldwide. I predicted that, at some point in the near future, no one would be left untouched by bank and government abuses and, when that happened, government could no longer count on police and the military.

    It seems to be happening. According to Karen Hudes, the US will be the last country to wake up but it will. I believe it. Just a question of time.

    “Remarkable video shows cops in display of solidarity with fellow countrymen
    A remarkable video shows Italian riot police removing their helmets in solidarity with anti-EU demonstrators in Turin who are protesting against the state of the economy, the single currency and fuel prices.

  33. And just in case they think we “cant handle the truth” in my job ive heard more veteran stories of what they saw and went thru Even survivors of pearl harbor, miracles happened for sure. and i know that not if but when the proverbial hits the fan the backbone of the people will come into play because it must it is in all good hearted humans. Stay positive we are at an important juncture in human consciousness i see signs of it everyday. Keep your third eye open. Ha! Heres my only hat tip to stripes- this is a spiritual war.

  34. They did it not us Aman
    They wanted MERS it was never run by us what it would mean to US and US ( usa)
    Slander of title clouding title unmarketable title uninsurable title
    In reality. Thing is are we going to live in actual REALITy. Truth only truth shall set us free. We all know in our heart of hearts the truth, nothing can chsnge that.

  35. Remember the term Renters backed assets.
    Also worthless. The system is rigged.

  36. All we need to be concerned about is “Clouded Title” Once they broke the chain of title. What they do after that is there problem. Our contract is void and the lien is void.

  37. Amen Charles Reed
    I doubt ill need the cusip

  38. justme I get you that these things are not being applied, and I feel your pain, but I believe this is a learning process not only for us but for the Judges and Attorney. I been writing about this very subject on Ginnie Mae and Ginnie Mae only because it hit home, and this BS is to wide to tackle it all.

    It Dec 2013 and I started telling the OCC in Nov 2010 this exact set of facts and been adding comments here for over a year on exactly Ginnie Mae and its securities.

    I believe what we also have along with forgeries, sell of stolen good and false insurance claims, but I think there is another crime in counterfeiting because these Notes are bank notes and the assignment are extension of that currency (Home Note is exchange for cash at sale) and are illegally obtaining the title to exchange it for cash.

    Just as Neil seem to be putting together what I been saying and anyone here knows this is my thing, but because it did not happen to them and there not other federal insured homeowner who even knew what hit them, this has been slow moving. I did not want to file first because you only get one bite at the apple, and judges were not up to the task yet!

  39. E. ToLLe,

    It’s coming down and it’s coming down hard and fast. If, as you say, 99% of the people in this country don’t get it (and as the eternal optimist, I like to give myself that 10% leeway that causes real change…), it’s because they still believe that they have more to lose than to gain from taking action.

    At some point, they won’t be given the choice. It is right now hanging at their nose; they can still pull away and change course. When it grabs, it will be too late. And, in the (very short) meantime many will still trust con men, whether it be government or leeches the likes of MS. Same education, same schooling, same crooks. Same pigeons.

    If you’re right, you leave 1% with some brain. Not enough to act. If I’m right, it leaves us with 10% triggering change the likes of which we’ve never seen. Either way, your 99% or my 90% are in for a rollercoaster ride they never knew existed. It’s coming. They won’t like it. We did what we could.

  40. Maher Soliman, cont.

  41. MS, cont.

  42. Word to the wise and to the unwise:

    Anyone stupid enough to read, listen to or follow MS (Maher Soliman) is suicidal. For years, serious people have asked him to come up with cases in which:

    1) he testified in a case related to foreclosure;
    2) his testimony made any difference in the homeowner’s case.

    So far, and under extreme pressure from LL bloggers looking for the truth, MS has come up with 3 cases. Not one of them has panned out.

    Here is the most self-serving demonstration of what con men will do to get your money. Check every case cited: they either don’t exist or he never was involved in them. Nye Lavalle (who is supposed to have given him his stamp of approval… MS knows whom he is dealing with) only endorsed the comments that MS is a fraud. MS used the comments to his advantage. It’s called fraud.

    If you don’t know what a con artist is, check the site and check it very carefully: the comments on the right side tell you everything you need to know. Research every case. Draw your conclusions.

    If, after that, you still follow MS, you either don’t have a case and you only visit LL for kicks, you are not prepared to deal with the real world of litigation, you are a con yourself and support the unacceptable or you belong in the same asylum.

    Maher Soliman: I hereby challenge you to sue me on what i wrote.
    You sued the tobacco industry and lost; it was pathetic. Homeowners are suffering and you prey on them: it’s despicable! You are a leech, a parasite. Sue me. You won’t have the gutts!

  43. For what seems like decades now, Christine has been calling for a removal of our consent when it comes to 1) paying taxes, and 2) banking with criminals. But it just goes on and on. And while I’m 99% sure that everyone on LL is acutely aware of her call for this, for some strange reason, 99% of Americans haven’t gotten the memo. They have no clue. Just like cattle entering the killing chute. Lemmings enjoying the seascape view from on high.

    Yesterday, NG posted about Jon Stewart’s Wednesday evening episode where he handed the banks their combined asses. I’ve seen it, it was a good take on the problems. Its crescendo was the $13 billion dollar settlement with JPMC, which we all know was the largest fine ever levied against a corporate entity. Ouch. They’ll have to sell a few more days worth of worthless MBS to recoup that fine.

    For those like myself who tossed the TV out years ago, preferring the sound of nature to the dribble of paid hacks telling us all what to think and when to think it, there’s the internet feed, which is how I watched that particular episode of the Daily Show on a streaming feed. The kicker, and it’s a very revealing kicker….is that after all that “screw the banks”…”they’re all evil”….”you’ve got to be kidding me” schtick that Stewart’s so good at, the entire Wednesday night internet episode was brought to us by:


    And that folks, is the problem. The MSM pretends to occasionally tow the line when it comes to issues like this, but they’d still sell you poisoned baby food formula if the price point was slightly higher than the next vendor.

    Make no mistake….this is going to take an immense amount of individual labor at educating everyone in your family, each and everyone you work with, and every single person you happen across each day. Tell them to boycott these assholes. Write the Daily Show and tell them how disingenuous it is for them to sell out to Chase on such important issues. Seize the moment. Make waves. Sharpen slingblades.

    These banker perps need to be removed from their ivory towers and from the Hill. And, wouldn’t that be sweet justice after so many of us have been removed from Main Street?

    REV 2.0

  44. There no doubt loans were made and monies were owed, however to who the debt was owed to is of the utmost important because not anyone can call the loan due. We got a contract in a Note that can only be between a borrower and a registered regulated approve home loan lender.

    I keep hearing about trust having power but unless the trust is a lender who has purchase the debt and has a lend in place or a endorsed Note assigned to them plus proof of purchase, foreclosing is not an options. Now we got loan the were originated of purchase by WaMu that the custodian another party in Ginnie Mae is in physical possession of these blank Note, but as Ginnie Mae cannot approach the court as the lien holder the surrogate surely cannot act as the lien holder.

    The custodian is employed by a party to act as an extension of the company itself and cannot have greater powers of the Note holder. And the reason UCC 9 make it the burden of proof on the party claiming ownership in a receipt of purchase is because in the event of something like WaMu, not anybody could claim ownership. Thia is a fatal Glitch by Ginnie Mae in the set up of the securities!

  45. Ahhh I didn’t include the “not advise” thinger? ….Here we go folks…do not adhere to my words they all Bull shit. Good?

  46. I don’t get it. This is old, interesting, but old. Of course no one has claim to the note. whattf is a note? The legal tender for all debts, public and private.? Sure,
    FUCKED UP part is…
    if I take this “ONE HUNDRED DOLLAR NOTE” I have and decide to rip it up and burn it…….it no longer exists.
    But “these” ones do.
    ownership. things. forms. stuff. codes. Fawk THAT.
    I hate to be so ignorant – but FUCK THAT.

    why, why, why, why and more freeking why is it SOOOO hard to see beyond the elementary basics. Stoooooooooooooopid people.

    I have developed a passion in one form or another for “law” and ” rules”
    but I cannot properly apply it when LAW allows FRAUD, THEFT etc.X’s HUNDREDS.

    THINK. Really, think. Sure. Notes, UCC, blah blah FUCKING USELESS when it is not upheld. useless.
    Right? Tell me I am wrong – LAWS are in place to uphold- THE LAW. what is RIGHT. Take “baby farming” ….shit I need not even go on. All this talk is useless when it is NOT HEARD. Silenced by the court. NATTA. ZIP. This thread is GOOD. It actually has much great substance which is absent normally. People will google, dig and learn.
    Just…how do you use the law when it is void – by the law …… don’t unless you piss someone off. So get to it.

  47. Masterservicer here the problem for the Wells Fargo & Ginnie Mae situation and that is neither claims that they have a financial interest in the Note as I have letters from both. When Wells Fargo was confronted with if they purchase the debt, they backed down and said no (because the is no receipt of purchase) and per Ginnie Mae regulation and facts (no receipt) they also wrote that they have no financial interest in the loan.

    That why I said that Ginnie Mae is the low laying fruit because the process is regulated and the Federal Government prevents Ginnie for purchasing as they cannot take on this obligation for the taxpayers.

    I hoping that with the 100,000 loans the Federal Government has sued Wells for the falsifying FHA insurance just my be this situation or is leading up to this situation, because Wells is challenging the suit saying that the Gov knew they were doing this. I can only see this being a lawsuit only if Wells has collected the insurance already.

    I sure with my whistle-blower claim that they know there a huge problem with at the least Wells Fargo and WaMu.

  48. either way it transferred and assigned to Wells Fargo as interest in assets or rights to claim for seasoned whole loan assets aged beyond 180 days (which is impossible)

  49. I have the CUSIP number for the allege pool the WaMu loan were suppose to be in but there no record of the pool anywhere as the number is out of order given the date the pool was created

    No liquidated and extinguished as part of the M&A that was planned all along – or held in transferred and assigned assets held as WAMU inventory to account as substitute and deleted loans surplus (to manage prepayment speed risk ) .

    I have more info if you like ….MS

  50. correct – in support of what A man is saying

  51. A man

    You got it ..But IRS disagrees .

    I am with you . but this is where the argument is – in a tax payers argument aginst what your saying …..FAS 140 and securites valuations cannot cross over into real property laws

  52. Eggs
    Please tell me why you need the cusip number ?

    Because the value of the mortgage was transferred into equity and used to capitalize an investors paid in capital account . The paid in capital is used to issue shares at $250 a unit and are registered (CUSIP) in a private placement for domestic and off shore exchange (see DTC)

    Keep your eye on DW – she won’t quit and will fight this to the end !

  53. Once the chain of title is broken? Who gives a Sh##t what they are doing? It is none of my business. My business is that once the chain of title is broken the lien is invalid. Void canceled Kapoot.

    FAS 140 ETC…… is inconsequential. Regarding

    They broke the chain of title on purpose with or without MERS. Any Judge that doesnt buy this arguement is allowing the Sale of the Brooklyn Bridge (another word for Unjust Enrichment).


  54. The notes are lost to FAS 140 derecognition of assets under a call provision or triggering at a bond holder Due on Sale date

  55. C Reed Yes Bingo – your dead on subject matter in support of all belief for claims.

    The following is interpretive analysis (not guidance) in reference to claims that may be brought by household occupants contesting recovery by designated law firms.

    Herein a question of claims arises where the mortgage loan fails to be principally secured by an interest in real property. A burden is placed upon the Servicer, who shall differentiate each Mortgage Loan file from Whole Loan receivable status to eligible or qualified mortgages.

    This includes certain Mortgage Loans to which the related Mortgaged Property has been acquired into Trust by deed or comparable conversion.

    Claims are heightened in instances upon which the subject property has been acquired, either by earlier formation of Trust, by deed or comparable conversion for a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
    Under IRS Code , the Internal Revenue Service (the “Service”) WILL NOT dispute a mortgage loan held by a real estate mortgage investment conduit (a “REMIC”) as OTHER THAN A “QUALIFIED MORTGAGE” on the grounds that the mortgage loan FAILS TO BE PRINCIPALLY SECURED BY AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY.

    The Internal Revenue Code and § 1.860G-2(a)(8) of the Income Tax IRC Regulations following a release of a lien on an interest in real property that secures the mortgage loan.

    The REMICS Liens are held in a “commerical” shareholders UCC filing and not a valid recording against the title. The equity held on the corporate tax payers inventory was transferred is not enforceable under state law. (more to the argument of course )

    The IRS disagrees and here the litigants need to form a G/L to dispute claims made by a rouge recovery agent and their counsel

    Your comments (please)

  56. This strictly about what type of loan is this! These loans became unsecured once they were placed into the pools because the Notes are relinquish. In the case of WaMu there is no possible sale as the bank was seized and the Note were in the custody of Wells Fargo Bank as the custodian of records!

  57. Masterservicer the argument is not about were the money goes or is, but about is there in the states a valid lien, which there is not and without a valid lien it does not matter what a lender or GSE is talking about. The problem is they must show ownership is the bottom line as there is no over lap of titling issues with Federal law because Fed does not have home titling system of laws governing it!

    Problem the state have is they should have always required that a copy of the Note be recorded and each time a transaction occurred the Note on file should have been updated with a copy of the Note with the endorsement!

  58. Probably the most misunderstood aspect of the securitization process is that the banks are able to claim there was no securitization when in fact there was.

    The mortgage wire value was rerouted into an offshore account This stripped the estate of its encumbrance and unfortunately the title. Upon having the title siesed it was released of all liens and encumbrances allowing the household equity to transfer into a depositors account. The shares held as a REMIC’s paid in capital was then pledge to a foreign national interest as a pledge. The value of the shares were sold at a discount of 20 percent . This enabled the issuers to sell the 30 year mortgage as a zero coupon that matured in 20 years with a due date of 5 years to allow these sponsors to trade swaps in 30 day commercial paper under a waterfall of 10:1

    Your talking bar room gibberish talking about GSE’s like Fannie, Freddie, Ginny and the VA. When you are researching loans you hit a brick wall when you get to the GSE.

    These loans were liquidated in the first 180 days under a REMIC using a tax deferred 1031 exchange .

    The whole strategy was to get the loans off the GSE books for Gods sake.


  59. I have the CUSIP number for the allege pool the WaMu loan were suppose to be in but there no record of the pool anywhere as the number is out of order given the date the pool was created. What I believe they done with the WaMu loans was to give it a fake CUSIP under Wells Fargo to make it look to the average people that Wells created the pool!

  60. Eggs
    Please tell me why you need the cusip number ?

  61. Crazy is HUD could have solved this matter in a way that was less embarrassing to it, but that time seem to have passed as the entire scheme is unraveling. Look at the tea leaves in the most recent Wells Fargo case were they are fighting back against the 100,000 loan they falsified document to insure those loans, admitting it but saying that the Federal Government knew they were doing it, I don’t see how the bank going to be willing to take the fall alone with the WaMu loans that there is no way Ginnie Mae not understanding that forgeries were needed and Szymoniak v. Ace explains that.

    This is a done deal that these loans that were foreclosed have to be made whole because Wells Fargo nor Ginnie Mae have a single receipt that they paid for these loans, and it blows the top off the other lenders ownership of loan placed into the pools. The made the Notes no longer Notes because they have no debt attached to it by the holder of the Notes!

  62. GLASKI…the CA APPELLATE COURT DOCKET reflects GALLEY PROOF filed 12/6/13. Can anyone explain?

  63. Remember most government insured loans are Ginnie Mae pooled (95%) and the form your looking for is GMM211B INQUIRY POOL/LPN, which will give you document submission date, pool issue date, certification date and other date of the processing of the pool.

  64. Indeed, the GSEs ARE securitized. Fannie (my own personal adversary) has tons of documents describing how they securitize the loans, place them in pools, etc. I got the name of my Fannie Mae trust/pool by suing them. But even then, it was something I had to look deep into the documents for. It was included in the initial discovery disclosures I got, some 700 pages. But there it was. From there, I was able to use that number to find the CUSIP number for that trust/pool.

  65. I will write more on this issue at a later time but please, if you know you have a Fannie, Freddie or Ginnie loan by way of their web site, please note that they have an acquired date.

    Please send a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to either of these as they relate to your loan and ask for the Date that they acquired your loan and the name of the Trust that the loan is in. This is very important.

    If you need assistance in writing this request, please respond to me by way of my email.


  66. Here what actually happens as I have been saying to the SEC, OCC and HUD is that the VA is a loan product just as the other two have loan products that lenders underwrite the loan too. The loan have to meet those requirements to be considered a VA or FHA or other named loan, or the loans cannot be insured as a government insured loan, where only the back 20% of the LTV is covered for insurance claim. If you look and VA and FHA insurance payouts in the 2009-2010 where only about 10% of the loan value was paid in claims.

    What happens is that the lender originates the loans and funds then, and right away the loan is pooled in Ginnie Mae Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) and the lender must relinquish the Note in blank endorse form to Ginnie Mae, so that lender are not running out and selling the assets. The lender who does so with out a purchase, separates the Note from the debt which create a Note that is without a debt and bot Note and debt are actually no longer a Note or debt because neither exist without the other.

    This was the fatal mistake of this process, where the lender becomes the issuer and Ginnie Mae the insurer to the investors who purchase the MBS. The lenders turned issuers draw against the MBS pulling out funds, so that there no question the lenders put up the front monies or you would be suggesting the not only someone else put up the loan funding and lender are in addition drawing more monies in a draw on a $100,000 initial home purchase. So Neil I know mistakenly think that this $100,000 is from somewhere else and then the lender is also drawing another $80,000 are the sale of the MBS.

    However the tracks are covered a little bit better, as lenders have enough monies to cover the loan closing funds, as they are partially reimbursed in short fashion (within 30 days). Understand the the investors who in most cases with Ginnie Mae MBS is the Federal Reserve Bank who not in the business of making home mortgage loans, but is in the business of no risk, and the 100% guaranty of principal investment return is what they are buying.

    So how the Government and Lenders have manage to get away with the crime is that the Note where never actually out of the hands of the original big lenders and or already assigned to corresponding lenders, and they all acted as the custodian of the Notes for Ginnie Mae. Understand that as Ginnie Mae is not a home mortgage lender yet in possession of the blank Notes these payment from hoe owners can never be collected. The payment is now part of a pass through system as those payments go to pay the investors and cannot paid down the actual loan balance.

    Best example of a program gone wrong is Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu)who was allowed to enter into an agreement with Wells Fargo Bank to service the 1.3 million government insured loan being service out of Milwaukee in with Wells purchase the home loan operation building housing the loans, and there was a physical relinquishing of the blank Notes. I believe that the Federal Government knew WaMu was so nutty that they needed to get the Notes out of their possession that they allowed the servicing arrangement to take place to keep out of the hands of the bankruptcy court in the event the bank failed.

    Now what occurred is that the bank did fail, and Ginnie and Wells called on to MERS to create forgeries to grant Wells as the holder in due course and make it appear that Wells purchase these loans. What this has done is open up who really owned any of these loan because of the handling of Notes, and how can a pass through payment pay both the borrowers principal when the monies are pass through and as WaMu is a defunct bank, the payment are not applied but pass through and paid the principal balance on the draws taking by the issuers/lender from the investors.

    The taken the lack of knowledge by the local county land recorder and administratively foreclosed on these properties acting as the “holder in due course” because if the Note was required than they would all still be blank because Ginnie Mae is not on the face of the Notes and does not purchase the loans as they are not a lender and cannot re-endorse the Notes at a later time!

    Ginnie Mae got problems as they allowed these False Claims to take place, because there are no legal lien against these properties!

    Please forever my bad writing!

  67. What about seconds and line of credit? Nobody really addresses those issues

  68. I assume GSE stands for “Government Sponsored Enterprise”:

    Great writing as always, and dense as usual. I’m pretty sure it takes me longer to read these articles than it takes to write them.

  69. They are like a cancer that has spread out to all parts of our financial bodies. It is alot worse that we can explain. Starting with inflated rents and leases that no business or person can sustain. So they went from taking are title with aleged predatory lending. Now it is predatory leasing.


Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: