New Bank Strategy: There was no securitization — IRS AMNESTY FOR REMICs

Reported figures on the financial statements of the “13 banks” that Simon Johnson talks about, make it clear that around 96% of all loans originated between 1999 and 2009 are subject to claims of securitization because that is what the investment banks told the investors who advanced money for the purchase of what turned out to bogus mortgage bonds. So the odds are that no matter what the appearance is, the loan went through the hands of an investment banker who sold “bonds” to investors in order to originate or acquire mortgages. This includes Fannie, Freddie, Ginny, and VA.

The problem the investment banks have is that they never funded the trusts and never lived up to the bargain — they gave title to the loan to someone other than the investors and then they insured their false claims of ownership with AIG, AMBAC, using credit default swaps and even guarantees from government or quasi government agencies. Besides writing extensively in prior posts, I have now heard that the IRS has granted AMNESTY on the REMIC trusts because none of them actually performed as required by law. So we can assume that the money from the lender-investors went through the investment banks acting as conduits instead of through the trusts acting as Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits.

This leads to some odd results. If you foreclose in the name of the servicer, then the authority of the servicer is derived from the PSA. But if the trust was not used, then the PSA is irrelevant. If you foreclose in the name of the trustee, using a fabricated, robo-signed, forged assignment backdated or non dated as is the endorsement, you get dangerously close to exposing the fact that the investment banks took a chunk out of the money the investors gave them and booked it as trading profit. One of the big problems here is basic contract law — the lenders and the borrowers were not presented with and therefore could not have agreed to the same terms. Obviously the borrower was agreeing to pay the actual amount of the loan and was not agreeing to pay the overage taken by the investment bank. The lender was not agreeing to let the investment bank short change the investment and increase the risk in order to make up the difference with loans paying higher rates of interest.

When we started this whole process 7 years ago, the narrative from the foreclosing entities and their lawyers was that there was no securitization. Their case was based upon them being the holder of the note. Toward that end they then tried lawsuits and non-judicial foreclosures using MERS, the servicer, the originator, and even foreclosure servicer entities. They encountered problem because none of those entities had an interest in the loan, and there was no consideration for the transfer of the loan. Since they were filing in their own name and not in a representative capacity there were effectively defrauding the actual creditor and having themselves designated as the creditor who could buy the property at foreclosure auction without money using a “credit bid.”

Then we saw the banks change strategy and start filing by “Trustee” for the beneficiaries of an asset backed (securitized) trust. But there they had a problem because the Pooling and Servicing Agreement only gives the servicer the right to enforce, foreclose, or collect for the “investor” which is the trust or the beneficiaries of the asset-backed trust. And now we see that the trust was in fact never used which is why the investment banks were sued by nearly everyone for fraud. They diverted the money and the ownership of the loans to their own use before “returning” it to the investors after defaults.

Now we are seeing a return to the original strategy coupled with a denial that the loan was securitized. One such case I am litigating CURRENTLY shows CitiMortgage as the Plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure action in Florida. The odd thing is that my client went to the trouble of printing out the docket periodically as the case progressed before I got involved. The first Docket printed out showed CPCA Trust 1 as the Plaintiff clearly indicating that securitization was involved. Then about a year later, the client printed out the docket again and this time it showed ABN AMRO as trustee for CPCA Trust-1. Now the docket simply shows CitiMortgage which opposing counsel says is right. We are checking the Court file now, but the idea advanced by opposing counsel that this was a clerical error does not seem likely in view of that the fact that it happened twice in the same file and we never saw anything like it before — but maybe some of you out there have seen this, and could write to us at

Our title and securitization research shows that ACCESS Mortgage was the originator but that it assigned the loan to First National which then merged with CitiCorp., whom opposing counsel says owns the loan. The argument is that CitiMortgage has the status of holder and therefore is not suing in a representative capacity despite the admission that CitiMortgage doesn’t have a nickel in the deal, and that there has been no financial transaction underlying the paperwork purportedly transferring the loan.

Our research identifies Access as a securitization player, whose loan bundles were probably underwritten by CitiCorp’s investment banking subsidiary. The same holds true for First National and CPCA Trust-1 and ABN AMRO. Further we show that ABN AMRO acquired LaSalle Bank in a reverse merger, as I have previously mentioned in other posts. Citi has reported in sworn documents with the SEC that it merged with ABN AMRO. So the docket entries would be corroborated as to ABN AMRO being the trustee for CPCA Trust 1. But Citi says ABN AMRO has nothing to do with the subject loan. And the fight now is what will be allowed in discovery. CitiMortgage says that their answer of “NO” to questions about securitization should end the inquiry. I obviously take the position that in discovery, I should be able to inquire about the circumstances under which CitiMortgage makes its claim as holder besides the fact that they physically possess the note, if indeed they do.

Some of this might be revealed when the actual court file is reviewed and when the clerk’s office is asked why the docket entries were different from the current lawsuit. Was there an initial filing, summons or complaint or cover sheet identifying CPCA Trust 1? What caused the clerk to change it to ABN AMRO? How did it get changed to CitiMortgage?

86 Responses

  1. Need IRS to look BOA vs Cano or BONY vs Cano Wi total REMIC frude

  2. For Todd W. So did you ever get a response from the IRS re REMIC amnesty? Please respond to the email address below. Thanx.

    Bob G.

  3. Todd, go get ’em. Should be interesting if you get a response. Pls post when you do!

  4. Re- IRS Amnesty for REMICS—Wanted to find out directly from horses mouth (or ass) if this “rumor” is true. The “kinder, friendlier” IRS is there to serve the people so we’ll see if these public servants admit or deny a very simple question. Here is body of letter that went in mail on 16 Jan 2014. Feel free to recycle.

    Commissioner John Koskinen
    Internal Revenue Service
    1111 Constitution Ave. NW
    Washington, DC 20224

    16 January 2014

    Mr. Koskinen,

    I have now heard that the IRS has granted AMNESTY to the REMIC trusts because none of them actually performed as required by law, including but not limited to 26 U.S.C. § 860 et seq.

    Will you please investigate and either simply admit or deny that statement.

    Direct all reply correspondence to Todd Wetzelberger c/o PO Box 24702 Baltimore, Maryland 21220.

    Thank you.


    Todd Wetzelberger,

    I _________________________________ hereby certify that copies of the foregoing document(s) were served upon the following recipients via USPS first class mail in a sealed envelope on or about this ___ day of _____________________________, 2014:

    Commissioner John Koskinen
    Internal Revenue Service
    1111 Constitution Ave. NW
    Washington, DC 20224

    I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

    Executed this ___ day of _________________2014, at _________________County, Maryland.

    Todd Wetzelberger

  5. US Bank and SN Servicing has submitted Forged documents in our federal bankruptcy case too and we will never stop perusing them in court for damages. We are also asking our Federal judge to prosecute their current attorney out of Jacksonville Florida who continued to defend this case knowing that forged document are before a federal court. All the offending parties at SN Servicing and their attorneys are committing a serious crime against our country. We have filed a formal complaint with the FBI and the US attorney general and many great Judges all across this nation are finally stopping them from this kind of fraud on American families. US Bank and SN servicing and their attorneys are also violating a serious consent order that was to protect the people from these crimes but they could care less. Please feel free to have your clients join a class action suit so that we can end their behavior with a multi billion dollar punitive damage suit. Join us, call Ray Shelton in Florida at 352 274 8467

  6. jellybeans – link won’t open… another route? know the venue? thanks

  7. 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

  8. Madoff is a small fish compared to how Foley destroyed the values of this country and yet he hasn’t orchestrated buying every good American.

  9. Patience is a virtue. Holder even now understands that. So many CROOKS and scams it took a long time. As time pases it is more obvious this was not an accidental happening but a carefully orchestrated plan and i think by William p Foley of Fidelity who is known for his sick and greedy mind and his inferority complex of never having enough. ir shows in his smile.

  10. Irony.
    Tres-pass Un-wanted seems to get attention from a xxx-ine

    It makes no sense to raise an argument with someone who has stated, ‘they know nothing’.
    It makes no sense to even critique the writings and blabberings of someone who said they do not know legal things.

    But someone feels powerful in going after the obvious.
    What wise man would argue with a fool?

    Shall we not know that some things are revealed by actions alone.
    I just sit here and things just happen.

    Words of wisdom as stated at one-heaven in sacred texts.
    Regardless of how this is worded, it rings true and exposes many for what they are, see, and do be do. (Last I remember One pushed OPPT – but forget the lessons of community and togetherness in the messages they leave for their brethren on the same journey with different experiences)

    Where evil begets evil that a world becomes blinded.
    Take care against judgment that you be not judged.
    For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged.
    And with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.
    And consider not the splinter in your brothers eye that blinds him,
    But first remove the planks from your own eyes.
    Take care not to give what is sacred to men who behave as dogs,
    Nor cast these pearls from heaven before swine,
    Lest they trample them under their feet,
    And then turn upon you and tear you to pieces.

    On a final note: To win was not the win I sought. I learned the Deed of Trust carried no trust, the court of Justice carried no justice, a court of law did not abide by any law (it’s more a court of rules), I learned why the words woe be to ye lawyers and judges is a term most know or repeat in some form or fashion and I learned things I would have never learned had removing me from my shelter had not opened my eyes.

    The property will always be mine. I don’t have to fight for it.
    It’s a given it’s mine. No one can wash the title or hide the grant nor change who funded the loan (the true Creditor – the seal/signature of the Creator)

    One does not argue with Oneself unless they feel there is something to lose. I’ve lost no thing. I know no thing. With no thing, there is no thing to lose so no reason to argue.

    Many will face their own Creator. Even the all men are endowed by ‘their’ Creator gives some semblance of meeting one’s maker.

    As for contributing to the discussions here, I refuse to give legal advice, that world requires a license to play, and the words are copyrighted and allowed to be used by those who have permission to use it.

    I know that without having to know legal things.

    Theft is theft. There is no statute of limitation on fraud, and greed is a powerful thing, it’s so powerful it turns on itself and consumes itself until there is nothing left.

    News now is fewer homes entered foreclosure in Nov, and foreclosures dropped by 15% within this day alone.

    Earl Gross, the former President and Chief Executive Officer of U.S. Mortgage, a loan servicing company, was sentenced to serve 18 months in prison for his role in an $8 million scheme to defraud Wells Fargo Bank.

    All the news about sheriffs, judges, lawyers, police, mayors, people in positions of trust being arrested, tried, etc, is the snake eating it’s tail. DoJ states they will expand their prosecutions next year, stock market will take a hit, Fed will stop padding the system with money because the Creator’s signature is no longer theirs to use unconscionably to create destruction (now there’s an oxymoron).

    Patience is a virtue.

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

  11. I’m back from the Christmas Concert at the School … My Favorite song the kids sang was Happy Birthday Jesus. It just melts Grandmas Heart …… Awe….

    MS …. Early Christmas Gift?
    Good Boy!

    Many Blessings to All and to All a Safe Holiday Season

  12. December 12, 2013


    Analysts who are securities and accounting specialists affirm that title companies believed back in 1992 that this economic disaster plan in the making , to take title from homeowners and saddle them with the banks guarantee for bank to bank debt sold offshore, would fail the moment the household discovered they were guarantors and creditors and not debtors.

    The claims I make in court cases which I am testifying in are supported by all operation of law clearly target the time and place a gratuitous surety is held to entitlement to any and all subordinated foreclosure rights subject to subrogation and / or your denied entitlement to salvage rights. If denied the right of fulfilling claims , the household is free to reclaim the equity seised of the estate at time of the origination.

    – The equity in the home is encumbered by a lien.
    – The mortgage reads the property is free of liens and encumbrances

    Common stock is equity …come on Tolle and Christine , cut me some slack here ! If the collateral is encumbered by mortgage debt and the debt is stripped from title, the title is seised of estate, leaving the sponsor with the conversion of debt into equity held in a depositors account. This is how Tolle lost his 60 lb. testicle . The deposit is converted to common stock and the shares are pledged to foreign national central banks at a 20 % or greater discount prepaying the mortgage out five years. This is the cause for the formation of the indenture or what you guys call trusts. Its debenture financing and the argument would bore a wall street second year analyst is who would say “So what”. The problems are Christine’s hygiene and case to be made that real property laws held under the state do not cross over into article 8 and UCC filing for the issuance of common stock held by the notes holder.

    The argument is valid and to what i testify to in a court of law. The claim the borrower owes the money fails – unless lenders can defend dual consideration and dual tracking counterclaims for issuing a zero coupon bond and five year demand deposit that rolls every five years while enforcing an unsatisfied lien of record left over from the loan ordinations HUD 1 statement .


  13. Tolle

    LOL but Dick Cheney….that hurts .!


  14. Better yet I can get an audience with the Chief Justice of the Civil Division here .. you want to prove yourself ,, here’s the chance.

    Please yes , call me at 213 239 4661

  15. If I V.D. how long do I have to come back and refile?
    How many times can I refile before I get it right?
    Should I refile and say I lied about being the note holder/owner and mortgagee of record in 2008?

    If I die, must not my successor do this for me? hahahaha

  16. JG, that’s what lawyers are for, you know that.

    But I would like to add to your statement to Patrick.

    If I file a lawsuit against you, can I drag it out indefinatly (even after I die) or am I limited an amount of time to prove up and prosecute?

  17. kc, you said:
    “The Endorsements on the Note MUST match up with the Chain of Title.” Yeah, one would think. But would you care to support this?

  18. Patrick – those seem like valid points. But what if anything is your suggestion when mid-stream the bankster comes up with a specially endorsed note, where imo the requisite ‘transfer’ might be a presumption (which presumption of ‘transfer’ doesn’t exist as to an end. in blank, also imo)? The only thing I know is to have a mtn for sj or an answer filed, because each precludes vol dismissal (for the purpose of rising another day with the specially endorsed note), and which vol dismissal think it was Weidner got slammed with about a year ago. The ‘presumption’ of transfer, to me, means a court will/may/can presume a note was given to a party with the intent of giving that party the right to enforce in its OWN right (as opposed to someone else’s right and must have that OWN right or must join rpii under FRCP’s). I’ve suggested a req for a more definitive statement – is the claimant claiming as a holder or a hidc? To be a hidc, had to take without notice of dishonor (not in default by the maker) and as I recall (only these days), one is only a hidc to the extent of the dollar amt of payment actually made, not promised. So far, the only thing I can find that good for – the argument for need to know clearance – though, is that one has all affirmative defenses against a ‘mere’ holder, whereas defenses are limited against a hidc (possibly excluding the defenses proferred by some here which are Greek to most of us). But what one is after by requesting the more definitive statement, of course, is evidence of payment. I don’t know if a request for a more definitive stmt qualifies as a “responsive pleading”, such that it would trigger use-them-or-lose-them-affirmative defenses (which must be raised in the first responsive pleading). Or maybe if it does, one may expressly preserve the affirmative defenses in the request for a more definitive stmt.

  19. If I had 10 cookies and you took half,
    do you know what you would have?

    That’s Right, …. a Black Eye and a Broken Hand.


  20. E.Tolle: Certain countries in the world already consider Rumsfeld, Cheney & Bush as war criminals. I forget which ones, but those infamous three cannot travel there or risk arrest.

  21. What a Crock ! .To Hell with the Law .. To Hell with Morals …

    Lets All Go Make ourselves TBTF .. Make ourselves Billionaires .. . and if we get caught, no problem …
    We and ONLY WE can buy “Get Out of Jail” FREE passes.

    Bah Humbug!!

  22. The Endorsements on the Note MUST match up with the Chain of Title.

  23. You just pull the chair right out from under them and leave them without standing don’t you Patrick? I Like Musical Chairs!

    I Like You! Show Me the Title!

  24. Neil,

    I’m presuming the note in question is endorsed to blank. The question that needs to be answered is who accelerated the loan? Who had the capacity as “lender” to accelerate the loan receivables at its option as defined in the mortgage covenants?

    Only the note holder (the lender) is the proper party with authority to exercise this option. Citimortgage should be able to defend the notice of acceleration and default as being authentic. The notice is hearsay but the business records exception to hearsay rule allows it to be admitted if the plaintiff lays the proper foundation – underlying transactions, chain of title ect…

    So what if Citi says they can enforce the note at inception. The notice is typically sent before filing suit and If the witness cannot state the required notice is xyz’s record and xyz had the requisite capacity to send such a notice at the time of mailing because it was the note holder (the lender), the notice can never be admitted into evidence because it can’t be shown to be sent by the proper party. My 2 cents.

  25. When the Fraud is on the Face of the Instrument, …..

    The instrument is VOID! The assets stay with ……… ?

    The Note is unsecured debt and can not be held against the Household Estate.

  26. Who has subrogation rights/salvage rights?

    The Warrantor?

    The Warrantor is the Household Estate

    (community property subject to state laws)

  27. Louise, I’ve actually withdrawn Cheney from that list. I have another role for him to play, that of a war crimes perp on the run until captured and placed in Gitmo, where he’s relentlessly water-boarded and occasionally takes a blow to the face from a 12 gauge. Should make for some riveting entertainment for the whole family.

    Donald Rumsfeld co-stars.

  28. Mistake!! After 2008 Charge Off! Sorry!

  29. Look, Neil has been saying …. 0-30% balance.

    Balance after 2010 charge off plus tax and ins paid by corelodgic.

    KC has Overpaid ….. Yep! Yep! Sumbuddy got caught with their hand in KCs Cookie Jar.

    KC … Taking a Bite Out of Crime by taking back One Cookie Crumb at a Time.

  30. E.Tolle: My personal favorite for the part of MS is: wait for it….Dick Cheney.

  31. What type of loan is the issue? Is this a non-secured loan or secured and as the City of Richmond is taking the Quiet Title approach is great because they can seize these property and it just make the home owners position stronger because they don’t have the money to fight these trillion dollar asset bank. But this get off in the open for ever city across the Nation in a inexpensive way for the city under eminent domain to right some wrong.

    I bet with the first seizure under this method it send a panic in the mortgage industry, because it cut and dry that are you the proper party on title and has nothing to actual due with the alleged monies due. This thing is coming to a head!

    Attorney in all their lack of this or that are going to miss out on these big payday because they been waiting to long, and I believe have been caught up in feeling that homeowners should not have received a home for free, not considering that past amount paid out under the contracts and the non interest by the parties claiming a debt the are not owed!

  32. Better even yet, get MS an audience with Eric Holder. I understand he can minimize even the harshest effects of wrongdoing if one is in a position of granting him serious boons upon his retirement from “public service”.

    Sorry, I threw up in my mouth writing that public service part.

  33. Candidates for playing MS on the big screen:

    1. Jerry Springer

    2. Fred Thompson

    3. Robert Wagner

    4. Baghdad Bob

    5. Kevin Trudeau

    6. The late Kim Jong-il

    7. The too early Kim Jong-un

    8. Ebenezer Scrooge

    9. Dick Cheney

    10. Moe, Larry, Curly, or Miley

  34. Better yet I can get an audience with the Chief Justice of the Civil Division here .. you want to prove yourself ,, here’s the chance.

  35. Masterservicer ,

    Agree with 90% of what you’re saying but here’s the facts ..

    the allonge (and I call it that because that’s what it’s called at the top of the form) was not part of the original loan package per the title company and the fact that it was never imaged until this year… I guarantee it was fabricated by plaintiffs counsel or LPS.

    Option One did not send any forms to HQ in Cali , per the branch manager of the Orlando Office that is a personal friend of the wife ,, scan and electronic transmission only , FedEx was just too much $$$

    I’m pointing to BAC because it contradicts plaintiffs storyline and it is irrefutable … BAC proved ownership , money changed hands.

    You want to be a hero? You want to redeem yourself… You want to be a household name ,, the name that’s remembered from movies about this episode when they come out in 10 years… you come to Florida and you put this one together so that even a simpleton judge can “get it” ,,, judges want the truth laid out on a silver platter ,,, but most of all they want a paycheck and they are refusing discovery to help the plaintiffs..

    If you can put it together I can put you in touch with an attorney that is already well known and you can both be the good guys in Touchstones portrayal of the story.

    You have my e:mail brian_tracy AT

    You have my lawyers e:mail in prior e:mails from me…

    Take a nice Florida vacation and spend a day teaching my lawyer.. then take a cruise…

  36. Leave a Reply-I may remember correctly that a prom note is not a contract.

    A purchase and Sale is a definitive contract . The borrowers contract where the member bank is the obligor, the Fed is the Creditor and household is a Guarantor..

    The Creditor is enforcing the Households Guaranty for the borrowers default . . .the borrower here is the member bank

  37. Leave a Reply- I’ve already weighed in numerous times on the distinction imo of a party claiming holder status under article III

    See Article 8 – Article 2 & 3 are subordinate to 8

  38. Skin in the game …
    Look , Lender pays the 5 percent haircut and Lender owes the 20 percent HELOC. The 75% balance was CHARGED OFF , got it

    Look Mow Ok, try this …..Member bank wires funds to close the transaction (HUD 1 ) Bank sold the transaction to Foreign national Banks at 80 percent

    EXAMPLE: 100 percent advances

    GSE exposure / Old Style
    75% Loan + 20 % MI = 5% GSE

    Private Label / NO Exposure
    5.% Haircut + 20 % HELOC = 75% Charged Off Loan

    No Skin in the Game ….You all do not get it ! .
    New idea for a web site – Do it yourself brain surgery

  39. Household got a mortgage and the Lender makes the home-loan while the FDIC Banks makes the wire

    The Bank is the Depository and commercial loans beneficiary as well as co-issuer and common stock Sponsors. The shares are held as the ownership of a off shore LC that was capitalized from the HUD 1 Wire. Hence the wire went off shore, concealed as a bankrupt and remote , isolated entity. Securities Investors are the shareholders and the shares holders are the depository – the member banks who are the wires obligor for 10 years or carrying the liens of record, from one bank to another under an elaborate nominee and Treasury reg 1.1031 tax deferred exchange managed by MersCorp

    . .. .Bank A transferred its obligations to Bank B by converting debt into equity and Bank B transferred its obligations to Bank C by converting debt into equity etc etc…. The Bank to bank debt was sold away to offshore financiers swapping out Libor for 30 days commercial paper and to domestic institutional investors as FV accrual annuity fund products . It all was made possible from the wire into settlement shown on the HUD 1 and that were never paid at settlement . . . as shown on the HUD 1

    The Creditor is the Fed and Dept of Treasury for Bank to Bank lender sale carry back for the liens of record, bank obligations borrowed over the counter and for maintaining bank Tier 1 capital requirements.

    Do I know what I am talking about – Oh yes
    Do you ……ask a judge !

  40. Neil, I’ve already weighed in numerous times on the distinction imo of a party claiming holder status under article III and what the note says (transfer and entitled to payments). But disregarding that (which I wouldn’t), under what theory would one in (alleged) poss of a note with no skin in the game be entitled to a credit bid, as surely is your bankster’s intention? Exactly what credit? I don’t see one. Maybe your bankster bought the loan from a trust pursuant to its contractual agreement with fnma (say) to foreclose, in which case it shouldn’t have any trouble demonstrating its purchase. Bet they’re not alleging breach of contract in the complaint.
    I may remember correctly that a prom note is not a contract.

  41. Livinglinks – Reported figures on the financial statements of the “13 banks” that Simon Johnson talks about, make it clear that around 96% of all loans originated between 1999 and 2009 are subject to claims of securitization

    MS – Shadow Banking is not securitazation. NAREIT refuses to recognize these entities as REMICS

    Livingloins – because that is what the investment banks told the investors who advanced money for the purchase of what turned out to bogus mortgage bonds

    MS – They bought the demand for payoff that allowed them to mitigate prepayment speed risk and profit by selling the FV of the beneficiary demand at a present value to Foreign National Banks

    Comments – Keep guessing – what a waste it has been trying to reveal the truth and facts in this matter of bank to bank debt floated through off shore private placements while shifting the GSE over to the consumer household under a reverse repurchase or A.K.A. installment sale contract.

    Your off – so far off that even the judges can’t take it .

  42. MasterServicer for trust is WF according to PSA

    PSA is void after October 2008 – God your wasting the court and lenders time here – while you slowly loose you r home

    Wells Fargo is the beneficiary for the prior liens of record that were never paid and that your being stuck with , The wire into settlement when into a a BK remote and isolated off shore account in the Cayman’s. This account was levered to a foreign central banks at 80 percent of the wires value . Your being held to a five and 10 year bond holders call date

    F%^& the Pooling and Servicing agreement -Dan Edstrom started this bull shit after he paid me to save his home . Once he read the P&S he got horned up quit his job and joined NG for ….etc etc

    My clients go into court with the Private Placement Memorandum and use it to get the home discounted by 80 percent or to receive back $165,000 or to get back the home afteer a year and a half

    Bring it on – attack me… all of you if you want —-what your all taking about here is insanity and wrong. I did this for 25 years and still you geniuses are trying to find new careers


  43. Neidermeyer

    Judge does not want to hear your attorneys Bullshit

    Neidermeyer: Assignment is undated & unsigned

    MS – The assignement your looking at is from the time and date of the loans funding
    Wells Fargo is the bank wiring the funds into closing for the benefit of “lender” Option One

    Neidermeyer: and goes from Option One to WF

    MS – Option One shipped the live promissory Note, blank assignment and blank endorsement “allonge”

    Neidermeyer: according to bank rep we depo’d this is common with Option One notes and the assignment/allonge

    MS- Yes I bought paper from Option One also and the blank assignments and endorsement (you call allonges)
    were transferred over to my firm

    to me that is proof that the note is a sham and should be VOID ,

    MS _ No no no, bullshit . The fact is thiose instruments are void after 180 days
    Wrong again – the note is valid buit the instruments are void and unenforcable

    “WF as Trustee” is named plaintiff ..

    MS- Wells is the Plainitff by assignment of Option One assets. Not true and this is the argument

    Your way off the right arguments – your winging it. For Gods sake your winging it !Let this case be an example of how clueless so many of you are when walking into court

    (this guys lost his house and never should have ,,,,sad ! Stubborn fool …Sad …fool

  44. @ Charles Reed ,

    Assignment is undated , unsigned and goes from Option One to WF according to bank rep we depo’d this is common with Option One notes and the assignment/allonge is executed by the title company rep .. to me that is proof that the note is a sham and should be VOID , if they can include an assignment with the note they just printed they could damn well have just printed the note with the right parties ,,, OH ,, and we have the wire data ,, nothing from Option One (supposed lender) .. like that’s a surprise….

    “WF as Trustee” is named plaintiff ..

    Bank of America was actual owner and was paid by AIG 100% so there is no debating that the ownership trail as defined by plaintiff is incomplete at best .. in actuality as the “allonge” (assignment) is undated and was not in the servicers imaged document system (per bank rep’s testimony at deposition) at time of suit filing ,, came into the imaging system just last summer ,, bank rep could not give an explanation although it is certain that data in the imaging system would reveal it’s origin and creation date. Oh and the “allonge” was never attached to the note AT ALL.. just a loose sheet of paper…

    Problem is that trial judge is blocking all discovery by allowing plaintiff to answer all requests with “NO” .

  45. neidermeyer what does the Note look like and what type of loan did you have. What sound strange is while WF is foreclosing that they selling the loan to Ocwen?

    There needs to be an signed endorsement from Option One to WF to Ocwen and if that chain of ownership is not on the Note they got nothing. I don’t see how without the new party in Ocwen would seem to have to start the notification of default so the borrower has the change to bring the Note out of default.

    Does the Note have the endorsement on it? The blank assignment is a issue because it must have have been signed a dated the day of the sale, because after the sale Option One does not have the ability to transfer the title. which is very important. It not that WF could not have purchase it but without the assignment done on the same day is the last time Option One has the legal ability to transfer there power, as the day after they have no legal control over the title because the debt is sold. That debt is an unsecured debt at that point and they cannot foreclose on that property!

  46. What does a party named as “TRUSTEE” owe both parties as regards information and service? ,,, they’re supposed to be an impartial referee of sorts…

    Can one even be a trustee to a trust that failed and was paid off by insurance (AIG) ,, didn’t all the trust assets go into Maiden Lane 2 ?? What is left of the original trust? I can see the database listing the individual notes information in CTS-Link and that data is still linked to/referenced by the original Option One trust name…

    But WHAT is it?? Bank of America was paid off 100% , you can’t get paid off by insurance and retain what you claimed so the assets went to Maiden Lane … AIG has “no recourse” ,, What did Maiden Lane 2 sell? Notes are paid in full… BAC has no claim because they were satisfied with payoff , AIG has no claim due to “no recourse” language….

    In the latest JPM Chase settlement JPM shows up in a table on page 154/155 as being “not lead” for “underwriter status” on my Option One trust ,, AFAIK they had no role originally… maybe they’re referring to Maiden Lane ??

    Is JPM my plaintiff? Thoughts please people..

  47. @ Charles Reed ,

    Option One is on the note , MasterServicer for trust is WF according to PSA (and verified by me in CTS-Link) , no assignments of any kind until 3 months ago , then a “magic” undated no signature assignment from Option One to WF showed up.. Plaintiff is claiming WF is MS , Trustee and Owner ??? Plaintiff is crazy.. can’t be trustee and MS at same time can you?? due to conflicts of interest…

    Plaintiff doesn’t realize I have money trail showing BAC was lender in fact (with Option One as pretender/broker) and of course my trust was the famous one that broke AIG and was in all the news stories … WF as MasterServicer had to declare the trust as insolvent and an insurance loss so to have them listed as “trustee” now is absurd , surely WF would know that just 5 years ago they declared Bank of America as the owner and they received a 100% payout … they should have been smart enough to craft a series of assignments to show BAC ownership if indeed it is WF as plaintiff…

    OCWEN took over case around the time the mystery assignment showed up ….

  48. “Trespass wrote: “in my opinion (which is not a statement of fact, thus it’s an opinion), they sound more like an unsecured debt collector telling you lies (that aren’t in writing), than they are a mortgage servicer or creditor”.


    Amazing. “In my opinion” (explained ad nauseam as though people didn’t know what an opinion is)… “they sound more like…(again, an opinion with no fact. Emotions without substance)”

    And the consecration of all that wishy-washy I-don’t-have-a-real-clue-but-I-have-opinions-I-want-to-express is…


    And people wonder why so many pro se lose? It’s right there, in writing: “It is not a statement of fact… it’s an opinion”. Duh! No fact, no caselaw, no logic, no demonstration, nothing judges can even hang their hat on or sink their teeth in, even if they wanted to. Pure emotion and opinions without substance. Judges’ hands have been tied by homeowners’ cluelessness from the get go. Allen Bloom: you got a lot of flack in 1988. You were so right!

    Lots of words and they have no clue what they are actually conveying, in writing: absolute impotence for want of reasoning ability.

    Insanity as an art form. If it is not the result of a failed education system, I don’t know what is.

  49. It is contract fruad ! I am still here and still in my house….
    Those bastard who own their congressional puppets can bite the big one !

  50. Trespass wrote: “in my opinion (which is not a statement of fact, thus it’s an opinion), they sound more like an unsecured debt collector telling you lies (that aren’t in writing), than they are a mortgage servicer or creditor”.


  51. N, I sued WFB in my breach of contract suit because Ocwen breached my court ordered settlement and they are the masterservicer as well. I served them through the sheriffs off, and they did not answer at all. I will try to get a default against them, but it is a krap shoot.

  52. That, KC, is why lawyers and money-makers have had such a bad rap for so many centuries. If I recall, they were right up there, with tax collectors… 🙂

  53. They are the Plaintiff vs deceased husband and wife estate, their son as Trustee of their Trust dated 1993, and their daughter and et al unknown heirs.

  54. Hey Neil, How does this case sound?


  55. neidermeyer you need to fight your fight and that is who on the Note is the only one that can bring action against you. A law firm works for the lender and is not the lender, so it should be straight forward. If Ocwen is not on the Note as being endorsed the Note address this with the court, however if Ocwen is endorsed the Note or was the originator that a different story.

    However if you had a FHA, VA or USDA and you know it was placed into a Ginnie Mae pool then there no legal way for the loan to be re-endorsed after relinquishing the to Ginnie Mae which is mandatory. But what I think is being done in these cases if the company is still in business to act as if the loan was never in a pool and was not actually relinquished and you cannot prove without dates and signatures a transfer.

  56. Does anyone have this situation in an “Option One” trust where the plaintiff is proclaiming that the trust was never funded or received the notes/properties etc. ??


  57. Most Judges own some property. how does one go about checking on the history of the judge and their family’s banks and history of their Title companys and any connection to Fidelity Title a major player in the fraudulent foreclosure frauds?

  58. LDTX
    I believe when we bring up the Securitized Mortgages, the Trust, the Note and New York Trust Law Bank of America shovels it under the rest of their crap and feels it does not hold water. I received a letter from Recontrust telling me how they became the Trustee for my loan and it just about floored me. America’s Wholesale Lender assigned to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems As Nominee MERS is authorized to take any action required of the Lender (what?) America’s Wholesale Lender (oh OK I believe you now) which includes assigning all beneficial interest to another entity, The Bank of New York Mellon FKA the Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of the CWABS Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates Series 2007-2 and initiating the Foreclosure Process. Therefore, The Bank of New York appointed Recontrust Company, N.A. as the New Trustee. Oh go blow smoke up someone else’s tailpipe. So sick of the lies and the people who work for the banks need to go down with them. I can honestly say, I would never help my employer commit fraud. I would be just as much of a scumbag as they are. Don’t need to be like everybody else. Oh and by the way, when they send you up river, you are replaceable.

  59. Neil (or anyone)

    I am fighting WF as Trustee for xxx , I know WF is actually the masterservicer , I also highly suspect that WF has no knowledge of the suit because when we asked for a bank rep (with the most knowledge) to depose we didn’t get anyone from WF , we got a “know nothing” from OCWEN who just knew how to read LPS desktop screens and we flat out asked him if WF had knowledge of the suit …his answer was “I don’t know” and plaintiff lawyer refused to help him…

    I know that WF as Trustee and as M-Servicer , is a conflict as WF as the M-Servicer triggered the fully documented AIG insurance payout ,, I “know” the real plaintiff is OCWEN … not one document came from WF , not one piece of testimony came from WF , and as I had CTSLink (WF’s in-house reporting system) access I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that whoever the Plaintiff is in reality it isn’t WF because the reported default dates differ by 7 months and $15,000 , a mistake WF wouldn’t make.

    What action can I take to force disclosure of the REAL PLAINTIFF ,, this is infuriating ,, Can I file something with the court? Will WF answer a query about if they’re involved in the case?

  60. Dale, you said it Best!

    ” Let me start with the premise given that we all understand: That there is
    domestically a vertical integrated Bk conspiracy to defraud the American
    homeowner of his value via rigged foreclosure – which goes to issues of
    equity, life, liberty not to mention property – etc etc. – that famous
    bundle of rights we call property rights “

  61. KAC, in my opinion (which is not a statement of fact, thus it’s an opinion), they sound more like an unsecured debt collector telling you lies (that aren’t in writing), than they are a mortgage servicer or creditor.

    Many people can sign a promissory note, even to purchase a car, but there are other things that would put the car up as collateral for the debt.

    If they are missing the part where ‘real property’ is put up as collateral than they have no case.

    I do believe they put in ‘affidavits’ to state their claim and a notarized affidavit (has the seal of a notary) has the ‘public trust’ as I heard recently.

    I don’t give legal advice, but there is nothing like a notarized affidavit of truth that indicates whether you had dealings with them, whether there is anything the public as of that date that ties you to them and whether you feel they are using duress and coercion to force you into a contract against your free will. As always when having someone place their seal on your documents, there are some people who find it is best to have some status / standing with your signature, so that you aren’t presumed to be a ‘person’ in their statutes, and man or woman or child still defines as person in Black’s Law Dictionary, so recognize and place your status that does not get defined as a ‘person’. Kind of hard to make the People a ‘person’, but you get the idea. If you notice I always sign with a status. You won’t be able to pretend I am anything other than who I indicate I AM.

    In court a judge would sign as presiding judge, and the attorney would sign in some capacity indicating he’s the counsel ‘representing the person’, and not the person.

    Maybe that would have to be accepted in the court, or allowed to be read onto the record.

    Will they have an affidavit of truth to rebut yours?

    I think if the word ‘fact’ or ‘truth’ is missing in an affidavit, they try to act like it’s an opinion. Using words like ‘admit’ and ‘admission’ have underlying meaning that are defined as facts or truth.
    Admit/Admission – Admit is same as Admission/Admissions.
    Take Admission. long definition in Black’s law so I’ll give only the first few sentences since I’m not giving legal advice.

    Admission. Confessions, concessions or voluntary acknowledgments made by a party of the existence of certain facts. More accurately regarded, they are statements by a party, or some one identified with him in legal interest, of the existence of a fact which is revelent to the cause of his adversary.

    A voluntary acknowledgement made by a party of the existence of truth of certain facts which are inconsistent with his claims in an action. Vockie V. General Motors Corp, Chevrolet Divison. D.C.PA., 66 F.R.D. 57, 60

    I admit, I know nothing, and if I think I know something I know nothing. I also admit, I do not give legal advice because I do not know legal things.

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

  62. Neil:


    I read you a good bit but I believe that this is my first time to respond
    – – – –

    Your brilliance is simply blinding – – – and I am just damned envious of
    the intellectual and analytic elegance of it all.

    However, I suggest, respectfully, that your obvious extensive experience
    clouds that brilliance in that sometimes you are too focused on the trees
    to see the forest with which we all are trying to cope. In example:

    Let me start with the premise given that we all understand: That there is
    domestically a vertical integrated Bk conspiracy to defraud the American
    homeowner of his value via rigged foreclosure – which goes to issues of
    equity, life, liberty not to mention property – etc etc. – that famous
    bundle of rights we call property rights – – – –

    Given the premise, I suggest that for the Bks to rearrange the pieces in
    this ongoing fraud cannot unring the bell anymore that a bank can unrob
    the bank in the case of a robbery benefiting the Bank that has been
    prearranged to occur at the bank.

    Discovery of the fraud (ie: no securitization?) at this late date would
    seem to insure discovery which is and remains one very hard commodity to
    acquire to begin with — this remains as a huge obstacle in the ordinary

    And then there is the vertical integration of this fraud from the get-go
    which has been played out over many years and millions of foreclosures.
    The point here is that we all are going about this most often one
    foreclosure case at a time when in fact the point you so elegantly observe
    today has defrauded many thousands over many years. Recent
    revelation/discovery of the specific fraud and realization of the cause of
    action prompts the resurrection opportunity of many otherwise dead cases
    anew. Again, the point here is to proffer a class action solution to
    acquire and give substance and sustainability to effective litigation
    against the Bank (or Banks) yielding a class action settlement – and
    perhaps a ExRel intervention by the AUSA al la Lynn Szymoniac’s case
    recently unsealed in SC – was it $118 mil jury award?


    Regards – – – with a considerable admiration and a large dose of envy – – –

    Dale Robertson
    P.O. Box 724 – Pinehurst, Texas 77362
    Tel: 281-744-0143

  63. Louise I agree with you back to basics Trust but verify.
    The judges should be easy picking. They are too arrogant.

    We must help the judges by making them aware that we are not going away

  64. Do not over look the fact that the court reporters and the clerks are in on the scam in the courts as well as the judges. Frequently, the judges have ex parte meetings with the bank’s counsel which is a big no no, but they do it anyway. Have to go to the courthouse and get the full file (paper) and carefully look through it to find the smoking gun.

  65. In 2010 BOA filed for a __________ on the 1003s (loan apps).

    Sorry I said 1031 in my last post , and meant 1003.
    Not that the 1031 is any less important.

  66. ******* 1031 ****** s

  67. Christine, … YEP!
    D.U. “SPLAT”

  68. Former Countrywide bank employee coming forward with a hell of an affidavit denying (rightfully) that he NEVER signed 4 docs produced in court by the banks.

    What do they call it again? The days of reckoning? People and employees have been a disposable commodity for too long… It was one thing to allege robosigning and for judges to ignore it. it is another cimpletely to obtain from the employees in a former managerial position to come forward and openly shit a brick over it. I can’t see too many judge poopoo’ing this kind of turn of event without seriously risking to be overturned on appeal. And God knows they don’t like it!

  69. This could example the real need for the Fed to make in secret the $16 trillion in ,5% to zero % loan to the big banks as they are not built to make all those long term mortgage loans as it ties up to much capital for a 30yrs period. Yet think if the unemployment would have kept increasing and defaulting loan increased it would have collapsed the banking system as depositors who not have been able to receive their money.

  70. Why you need to do your homework and find out if these judges or family have any financial interests with the banksters. This Attorney is definitely in a hostile environment.


  71. Deb,

    I couldn’t agree more. And when you compute the expense and the time, you’re in for real damages. Which is the meat of my own case.

  72. I so far prevailed by expecting the unexpected.
    send by mail, file by hand at court stamp your copies, affidavit stuf where it makes sense to do so,, be well inside your timelines incase of a “technical hitch” so you have time to fix it. tracking number and weight is on the postal receipt, keep copies,(obvious) save extra hard copy with a trusted friend or scan and store on usb flashdrive. plenty of things you can do to protect the integrity of the record. all selse you have no control over,
    save copies download from the actual docket periodically- yes its costly

    not an attorney just pro se..

  73. Back to basics and stay focused. Trust and Verify

  74. look Jamie JP morgan says they were stupid and made mistakes, if a surgeon makes a mistake and removes the wrong leg, then boy there is going to be consequences.

  75. my answer was “void” that word applies to so many wrongful things done, cancel delete erase, but unless the law applies equally to all men we will have a problem. the great forefathers who developed the magna carta must be spinning in their graves these past few years

  76. christine that would be the case in a perfect world but this is Miami Florida. The reality here is quite another, whole files go missing forever and there are no cameras to look at anything

  77. Guys I have pretty much a photographic memory
    my first nerve wracking day in court in front of a fed judge (I prevailed but almost passed out) I was in the court elevator and the opposing council said 2 things ex parte- 1. there will be fees you know, and 2. its contract law. but oh its so much more as we all know and are still discovering. onward. onward.

  78. Understand the the only way the lenders and GSEs going forward is to rescind all securities because of all the existing loan still in them. What damage was done is that property that no one could prove it owned is now foreclosed and resold to a new homeowner. As in the Wells Fargo, Washington Mutual (WaMu) debacle, there no hiding the fact that WaMu is not longer as of Sept 25, 2008, when the shot heard around the world OTS and FDIC seizing of the banks, which was the largest in United States history.

    First were Ginnie Mae has one way in and no way out, and that is to relinquish the blank endorse Note at the time the loan is placed in the pool, and not a day in the rest of time on earth can that ex-Note be made a Note again because it is without a debt, as Ginnie Mae did not and could not purchase it as I been saying the first day I commented here.

    Part of this mess is done at this very moment with the NY Supreme Court ruing in Wells Fargo Bank v. Viecco! As Wells Fargo got no proof when they even became in physical possession of something that not dated and is blank!

  79. well then I should win my case.

  80. Mario,

    Everything is computerized nowadays. Every court (or pretty much every court) uses e-mail filing. Whatever you file, including motions and supporting docs, is scanned and placed into an e-file you can access, provided that you know which court you’re in. Some counties make you pay to access their site and your file. Others don’t. Also, judges’ calendars are posted as well and you have the case calendar posted into your e-file somewhere. You need to get on top of it by going into your e-file at least once a week to check if anything changed.

    Don’t rely on snail mail. If you monitor the action in both your court case and your county rcorder’s file, you shouldn’t have any surprise. Clerks’ power is quite limited.

  81. I have long seen that the clerk changes the contents of the docket and adds or deletes entries, the clerk also loses the file all together I have seen this too. How can a clerk do this and this should not be allowed, does the changes in a docket leave history? does the clerk have to sign in to the system to make changes to a docket? can a litigant do a discovery on a clerk, to find out how and why the docket was changed?

  82. KAC,

    I have an SLS somewhere in my paperwork that showed up out of the blue. I QWR’ed the hell out of everyone and everything named anywhere, including SLS. Funny how fast they backed down. They’re gone…

  83. “Besides writing extensively in prior posts, I have now heard that the IRS has granted AMNESTY on the REMIC trusts because none of them actually performed as required by law.”

    Although a bit short on corroboration, this statement is probably true: IRS keeps forgiving tax fraud from everyone except those like us who really don’t have to pay taxes (trading our time for money necessary for us to stay alive does not qualify as Income. IRS knows it but will bully anyone willing to be bullied).

    You want to change that situation? You know what to do. Pain is coming no matter what. might as well be while you’re taking a stand for something…

  84. When you are personally involved It is surprisingly easy to call the clerk’s office and say there was an error that needs to be fixed, and they fix it. They don’r know they were really NOT fixing something. They just think they are fixing an error.

  85. I have a countrywide loan ca 2007 that never had the mortgage recorded, BoA is now trying to sue me to force me to re-sign the mortgage. They’re suing in BoA’s name (first saying they were successor to CW, then saying because they are the servicer for the trust) despite the fact that CW’s 8k from July 2007 clearly states the loan was sold by CW to CWABS Inc, then to CWABS ABS 2007-9 all on the same day. BoA is in court saying they can sue because they have the note endorsed in blank by a CW employee–I have stressed that the endorsement proves it never went into the trust as it should have since it is clearly not endorsed properly, thus it is in contravention to NY Trust law and is void. Now they state, “oh it was not ever in the trust” while all trust documentation clearly show’s my loan number, both on the CW Sec filings and in Bank of NY Bony’s trust docs sent to investors each month, therefore indicating it was supposed to be in the trust. Can’t have it both ways boys…oh and in the midst of litigation, BoA sold the mortgage servicing rights to SLS!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: