When I first got into this mortgage mess I called counsel for Aurora on a foreclosure case pending in California. I asked him how the currently self-designated entity pursuing foreclosure could justify its actions. His answer was “we are the holder.” So I asked him again why a company that has no financial stake in the outcome and who clearly does not meet the definition of a creditor of this borrower could initiate a foreclosure proceeding. And he answered again “we are the holder.” So I asked him does this mean the entity that he is alleging is the holder is acting for or against the interest of the actual creditor? And he answered again “we are the holder.” So I asked him, whether he was asserting that the entity pursuing foreclosure was a holder in due course. And he answered again “we are the holder.” By the way, this was not some foreclosure mill newbie. This was the main guy in Chicago who had been the architect of the legal plan for foreclosures.

In the months after that I received a quick lesson. Everything I knew about bills and notes (commercial paper, negotiable instruments etc.) was going to be put to the test. And it became apparent that notwithstanding clear law to the contrary, the holder was going to be treated as a holder in due course regardless of the actual facts. The justification for this practice rested squarely on two assumptions that were considered to be axiomatically true:

(1) It was assumed that the borrower and received the loan and failed to pay it “back”
(2) It was inevitable that despite any technical defenses a borrower could raise, that the outcome would be foreclosure — which led to a disastrous public policy of rubber stamping millions of foreclosures without any requirement that the forecloser and its paperwork be subject to any scrutiny at all.

The millions of foreclosures had placed an impossible burden on the court system. Based upon the  above assumptions, the remedy was clear — get the cases pushed through to to the foreclosure auction as quickly as possible and thus clear the docket. The idea of retaining existing practices where a Judge would scrutinize the documents and allegations with or without the homeowner present, was set aside despite the fact that every state has declared that forfeiture is an extreme remedy.

Instead in non-judicial states, a trustee was installed and merely had to receive instructions from the beneficiary of a deed of trust. Anyone could and would do that. Some entity not on the loan and having no relationship with the originator of the loan would state that it was the beneficiary and was now executing a substitution of trustee under the powers vested in the beneficiary, and the new “trustee” was a controlled or contract entity that was created for the express purpose of foreclosing on the property — minding only the instructions of the new beneficiary — without any verification that the claimed beneficiary had any interest in the loan, the debt, the note or the deed of trust.

In judicial states Judges routinely ignored meritorious defenses treating these fictitious entities as though they were holders in due course and thus excluding nearly every potential defense. The same logic applied — since it was inevitable that the foreclosure would happen anyway, why hold it up? The idea that this was part of a vast scheme of financial fraud and that the perpetrators were being being rewarded with houses when they had already stolen the money that paid for the loans was mere poppycock, conspiracy theory. Even when the lawsuits and charges from investors, administrative agencies, law enforcement, insurers, guarantors and co-obligors stated that the basis of these transactions was rooted in financial fraud, Judges continued to rule based upon the public policy of clearing the docket of inevitable foreclosure sales.

But now, it appears as though some cases of mine are being transferred out of the foreclosure docket and into general litigation or even complex litigation where the old rules apply. Judges in the foreclosure docket are commenting about the shell game played where the servicers are suddenly changed right before trial, and where the elements of their cause of action don’t appear to be present. Judgments are being entered in favor of the borrower that are reciting that the Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof — still coming up short on the statement that this was part of a fraudulent scheme and that the perpetrators of such a scheme should not be allowed to profit from it.

So now that we are heading back into the territory where the rules of law, the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure apply again, it is important that you understand the essential nature of bills and notes (negotiable instruments). And we start with the proposition that there has been a legislative and judicial determination that negotiable cash equivalent instruments should be allowed to exist. This means that if you receive a negotiable instrument as a holder in due course, it is yours to use anyway you want the same as cash or to collect from the original maker, regardless of anything that happened between the original maker of the note and whoever he or she or they were dealing with at the time the negotiable instrument was created.

The first point is that a negotiable instrument can ONLY be a promise to pay that is NOT conditioned on anything. The maker is agreeing to pay regardless of any other dealings he has had with any other party at any time. A promissory note can be an unconditional promise to pay. A mortgage is not an unconditional promise to pay (there are not two notes for the same transaction). The mortgage is a collateral agreement for protection of the creditor in the event that the collection on the note does not satisfy the full debt. The mortgage is not a negotiable instrument. But in some jurisdictions it is treated as an attachment to the note such that the endorsement (“indorsement”) of the note also transfers ownership of the rights under the collateral mortgage or deed of trust. Those are called “mortgage follows the note jurisdictions.” In other jurisdictions the assignment of the mortgage gives rise to an implied assignment of the note. Those are called “note follows the mortgage” jurisdictions. Note that a mortgage cannot be endorsed — it is a legal agreement that requires assignment. And there are jurisdictions that do both.

The aim here under public policy that is centuries old, is to promote the free flow of commerce and leave disputes to the people involved in the dispute and not present a danger to an innocent third party who takes an apparently negotiable instrument as an unconditional promise to pay only to be confronted with the maker’s defenses of fraud in the original or subsequent transactions. This is an over-riding public doctrine. It is the reason why I have warned from the beginning that failure to dot an “i” or cross a “t” is going to get you nowhere in terms of winning your case. But if you can prove that the current “holder” is part of the fraud you can knock them down from their pedestal of being a holder in due course and thus just a holder or even less a possessor (bailment) holding no rights to enforce under any conditions. This is why the actual transaction documents and methods of payment at each stage of the “assignments”or “endorsements” of the instruments must be carefully examined starting with the origination. By actual transactions I mean — “SHOW ME THE MONEY.” The UCC says “for value” and so if someone claims to have received ownership of the note then in order for them to aspire to holder in due course status they must show they paid for it.

When you see a loan closing followed some hours later by an assignment followed a few minutes later by another assignment, you can assume that something was not disclosed to the borrower and that the actual lender was probably not stated on the loan papers, which means the basics of contract law apply — the borrower’s act of executing the loan papers, including the note (that would have otherwise been a negotiable instrument) was not counterbalanced by the named payee making the loan. Thus the contract is unexecuted and unenforceable unless the Payee and mortgagee can establish disclosure and an actual relationship with the true source of the loan, such that the Payee was the borrower in a transaction in which a third party actually made the loan.

But just because you have it and just because you claim to be a holder in due course doesn’t make it true. You might not have it, you might have forged or fabricated the original, and you might have actually known about problems and defenses of the maker when you took it, or the maker might not have known the true nature of the transaction and you did. In all those cases you are not a holder in due course and every action or defense that could be brought in a breach of contract action would apply to you as a holder (if you really have it) or mere possessor. AND THE KEY ELEMENT BEFORE ALL OTHER INQUIRIES IS WHETHER YOU RECEIVED THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT FOR VALUE, WHICH MEANS YOU PAID MONEY FOR THE SALE OF THAT INSTRUMENT. The banks that assert that their own self-serving allegation of holder or holder in due course ends the inquiry in terms of discovery are just plain wrong.

This is long enough. I will expand on these issues in upcoming articles. In the meanwhile read carefully the following cases, especially the KIND case, which shows how extraordinary the powers of a holder in due course can be.

See UCC 3-305

U.S. v Second National Bank of North Miami, 1974, 502 F. 2d 535, cert denied, 95 S Ct. 1567, 4221 U.S. 912, 43 L. ed. 777

Davis vs. West, App 2 d DCA 114 So. 2d, 703 (1959)

Daiwa Products, Inc. v Nationsbank, N.A. 885 So. 2d 884 (Fla 4th DCA 2004)

Kind v Gittman 889 So.2d 87 4th DCA (2004)

EDITOR’S NOTE: read the Kind case. see if you don’t agree that this case opens the door to appraisal fraud both as a counterclaim and set off. But the basis is that you must plead and prove that the property was worth something different at the time of the transaction that what the appraisal said. The action is against both the appraiser and the lender, because the appraisal is a representation of the lender. The resulting damages in interest and principal payments could produce the reduction in principal sought by so many homeowners in litigation.

144 Responses

  1. So what does it mean to negotiability, if anything, that some of these notes are non-recourse by virtue of anti-deficiency statutes? Neil, got any ideas

    TARP and EESA by act of Congress , threw all rules and regs and Most laws OUT the window – Are you sane – read the two – it gave the US Treasury unprecedented powers and ….woe to the man who gets in their way _that is with a Bull Shiest argument …..

    JG You won’t stop with you web research and asking NG to explain —has he ever addressed you here ?

  2. Tolle –

    cant argue fact
    cannot support a counter argument
    Loves to resort to calling me a fraud
    Cites offshore character assassinations web sites with one syllable mis spells

    I am on you and will press the bureau to monitor you and your want to be terrorist cell. Your a dumb ass to write here as you do . You need to be evaluated and brought before authorities – your no revolutionary jerk

    I believe your part of an anti government campaign and that has you on the radar jack off

    Please please… Call me please 213 239 4661

    I have reported you to the bureau over and over …your bullshit reads like a communist and threats cross state lines and are completely terrorist in nature

    take the bait – write back
    Can we meet and talk good buddy – do it chump

    I swear I will bring you to justice jack off – And I’ll watch you do the prep walk with your family a watching –

    I wont take this anymore Lies Lies Lies , You are a pathetic disturbed – not right in the head jack off

  3. I guaranty Szymoniak been paid again due to these securities settlements of recent but the government needs to hold back this information to get these other 9 clown to take a JPMorgan type deal, so they can rescind the loan from ever being in the pools, in order to stop the blood bath these clown would take.

    You want to follow Szymoniak and her guaranteed payment for Robo signors. Lets say “That what your being told …” Got it

    What I am telling you blows the roof off domestic and international channel’s for creating term demand deposit’s from bank wires into settlement .

    You can’t seem to get it. The fraud your searching for is in front of you and your going after a Robo the Bobo signor

    I have the discovery

  4. I don’t get the argument that in a non J State that the administration is not a court action when this was a major reason for the Robo signing were the forged assignment were submitted, along with the Notice of default as it require to inform the borrower and the county that your calling the debt due

    Blank endorsement was executed at time of the origination and was to be used at the time of the loans sale

    The blank endorsement is a live instrument that is being executed as a loan sale year 5 for a demand deposit and then 12 months later at the expiration of a short title option or futures selling short the value of the purported mortgage and basis in assets set forth by the alleged servicing agent “Master Servicer”

    Who writes these short title futures hedging devices and recovery instrumentalities needed to foreclose …talk about dumb shits

    I’m watching overseas golf tournament and there it is

    “…we are AIG providing guarantees and investment hedging having guaranteed 233 billion to date “.

    This current plan to recover mortgages is multi faceted and delegated to multiple entities of which each is unaware of what its doing with regards to the other.

    I spoke with a Dallas based FDCPA collections firm for Wells Fargo , on my urging to our counsel

    Agent – we are a debt collector and any information …..etc. etc.

    Hello – what is the amount to reinstate ? -We don’t have that information ….OK the amount charged as per diem? -There is no per diem Sir ……What is the amount of payoff your foreclosing on
    -We don’t have that Sir ….When was the last payment -We don’t know that Sir. When is the next payment due….. I don’t know Sir

    What is the date set for the foreclosure
    -Oh that I can tell you is December etc. etc.
    ( [(360 x “Y” ) +365] )

  5. MS the judge has already signed off on an agreement for $25 billion settlement because of Robo signing. You said a key thing and the was signing a power of attorney, but the power of attorney does not give one the right to commit a forgery. The forgeries a a fact as Lorraine Brown is in jail for creating them, and she said she produced 1 million of them.

    Szymoniak v. Ace was a part of this $25 billion settlement and her claim was forgeries and she is $30 million richer today, as I am sure the $13 million that was recently paid out by the SEC whistle-blower program on Oct 1, 2013 where they did not release the name was Szymoniak read her complaint and what agreement where reached.

    I guaranty Szymoniak been paid again due to these securities settlements of recent but the government needs to hold back this information to get these other 9 clown to take a JPMorgan type deal, so they can rescind the loan from ever being in the pools, in order to stop the blood bath these clown would take.

    But a legal document use in a crime does not obligate the borrowers to what they signed at closing. Plus what I am talking about only is Ginnie Mae who does not have an assignment at any land recording office and does not purchase a single loan and my have in its possession the blank Note, but that power of attorney does not belong to Ginnie Mae, and is a part of the security instrument and not the Note!

  6. I don’t get the argument that in a non J State that the administration is not a court action when this was a major reason for the Robo signing were the forged assignment were submitted, along with the Notice of default as it require to inform the borrower and the county that your calling the debt due.

    The Court requires the Notice before the bank can proceed and and these assignment are needed to be in place, thus the reason for the forgeries. The lien are put in place by the function of asking the courts permission when you deliver the assignment and asking the court to record it.

    So is this not a continuation of the initial act when administratively foreclosing? I would say yes because even if you not appearing before a judge you are adhering to the rules of the court!

  7. Charles Reed said, ignoring blatant document fraud, all out of a wrongful idea that continuing down the wrong path is the right path for everyone’s sake. It isn’t.

    How can a notice or published instrument in a foreclosure constitute document fraud when the seller gave a power of attorney to the purchasers .

    Where the seller is the sponsor and depositor who purchased title with the common stock it issued from the consideration held on the closing statement HUD 1.

    Where the holder is lost to the collateral pledged to a foreign national bank and the general ledger , IRS rule changes and SEC jurisdiction over private placements having been transferred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation

    Where Congress and enactments such as TARP and EESA appear to allow short title recovery of real property by writing futures….

    There is no chance , none , not a chance in hell you’ll get a judge to buy off on a Robo the Hobo or Nick the notary claim when the correct approach is to oppose the GAAP and IASB controversy over these reconstitution of value claims used to recover abandoned assets

    Am I right or am I wrong …..its year end and the 1099 A tax payer statements are being prepared as we speak

    Tolle – chump !

  8. D Wynn, you’re right. While it’s true that fraud has to be plead with “particularity”, even I guess with “notice pleading”, it’s also got to be true that when one has been defrauded, there must be a path to be compensated. Not getting to first base isn’t equitable at all, so I feel certain there’s a legally cognizable way to get to first base. I mean, there just can’t be a road block thrown up to preclude adjudication of fraud. I think we just have to make this a particular area of study and we haven’t done that. Maybe someone will and tell the rest of us. I wish to heck attorneys would band, identify issues, and hire law students to look into each difficult issue. Like I always say, where can I send my contribution?

  9. You know what’s totally, majorly messed up about that Consent Order in IL with Nationwide Title? It doesn’t include MERS, for whom those signatories claim to be officers and acting. Why is the state entering a Consent Order with company B when the acts are done by “officers” of company A? Think about it, if you would.

  10. re: the case at 1:21: so, if a lender applies one’s p & i payment first to late fees (or escrow shortage), has the lender made a fatal error? The money kept in the case cited appears to be from a deposit account at the bank. IS it a stretch to apply the reasoning to late fees? What about the agreement for a late fee in the first place? Is that a ‘condition’ which impacts negotiability? This can’t be new. Surely it’s adjudicated somewhere(s) and I’d be interested in the ruling(s) if anyone comes accross it .

  11. MS drools:

    Have you had your IQ tested . Can you read ?
    Why do you persist in off topic , irrelevant and longwinded rambling rhetorical discourse.”

    Oh man that’s rich, I don’t care who you are! The irony isn’t dripping, it’s like a cat-6 hurricane heading back to Evangeline Parish for a redux.

    MS, you’re not just a con artist, you’re a truly stupid one. Anyone trolling for victi….uhm, clients on a website like LL would be wise not to call former clients by their real names. It would probably also prove to be a smart marketing practice not to slam a former contact as having bad personal hygiene. Uhm, I’m guessing they didn’t go over business ethics 101 when you went to Wall Street U. Of course they didn’t. They prefer to teach Advanced Pilfering.

    In response to whatever you respond with – kiss my ass you fool.

  12. Remember Max Gardner? Is he still around? He was the original advocate of ‘these notes aren’t negotiable instruments (wasn’t he?) His premise appears to be that the note has conditions outside the promise to pay, which he articulates (or did two years ago) as:

    “In describing these conditions, the Note requires the Borrower to perform the following undertakings:

    Ø Obtain the Lender’s prior written consent to transfer a beneficial interest in the property;

    Ø Submit to the Lender information the Lender determines reasonably necessary to evaluate any potential transferee; and

    Ø Pay a fee to Lender for the privilege of transferring the property.”

    So he doesn’t consider the non-recourse aspect, and maybe it’s because it means nothing to negotiability. I did see some clues in an article of his which appear to say
    I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel, at least I think not. I just want to know if non-recourse notes are negotiable instruments or not, and if not, if the reason the note is non-recourse is by statute (because no personal money judgment is allowed in “anti-deficiency” states) if that changes anything. This is aggrevating, because it’s probably Notes 101, but I missed it when I did business law classes eons ago.

    Gardner also says this, which I found more confusing than informative:

    “Other than those limited permissions, a note must contain all of its material terms, and not require the holder “to examine another document to determine rights with respect to payment.” § 25-3-106. However, subsection (b)(i) permits reference to a separate writing for information with respect to collateral, prepayment, or acceleration. Likewise, “a statement of rights and obligations concerning collateral, prepayment, or acceleration does not prevent the note from being an instrument if the statement is in the note itself.” § 25-3-104(a)(3) and § 25-3-108(b). When an instrument “makes express reference to an outside agreement, transaction or document, the effect on the negotiability of the instrument will depend on the nature of the reference.” Booker v. Everhart, 294 N.C. 146 (N.C. 1978). “To incorporate a separate document by reference is to declare that the former document shall be taken as part of the document in which the declaration is [**922] made, as much as if it were set out at length therein.” Schenkel & Shultz, Inc. v. Hermon F. Fox & Assocs., P.C., 362 N.C. 269 (N.C. 2008), citing Booker. ”
    By the way, I have been talking about the one-action rule, and banksters argue that non-j foreclosure is not an “action” per se because it doesn’t involve a COURT action. I regret to say there’s some case support for this proposition, because I think it’s absurd.

  13. So what does it mean to negotiability, if anything, that some of these notes are non-recourse by virtue of anti-deficiency statutus?

    Nothing as of October 2008
    Its called the FDCPA and reconstitution of value lost to a charge and write down


    Have you had your IQ tested . Can you read ?

    Why do you persist in off topic , irrelevant and longwinded rambling rhetorical discourse.

    Go take the LSAT if that’s what you want in life

    Really, stop …..

  14. Its called a Zero Coupon Bond

  15. So what does it mean to negotiability, if anything, that some of these notes are non-recourse by virtue of anti-deficiency statutes?

    Neil, got any ideas?

    For clarification only, here is how I think in my lay opinion a note might read in states which have anti-deficiency statutes because those statutes prohibit personal judgments. Interestingly, this is taken from a note called a “Non-recourse, Non-Negotiable Promissory Note”:

    “THIS NOTE IS NON-RECOURSE, AND THE HOLDER MAY NOT SEEK RECOURSE TO ANY PERSONAL ASSETS OF THE DEBTOR. The Maker does not agree to subject any of his personal assets to the payment of this debt. However, the HOLDER* of this note may seek to subject any and all security for this debt for foreclosure or other applicable legal or equitable remedies. However, a deficiency, if any, shall not be a personal obligation of the HOLDER. The HOLDER shall be entitled to receive attorney’s fees and other costs of collection, provided that the same shall only collected from proceeds from foreclosure or other legal or equitable remedies related to security for this debt, if any. Such attorney’s fees and collection costs shall not be a personal obligation of the MAKER and the MAKER’s personal assets shall not be subject to the payment of these sums, however any property which is specifically pledged may be subject to foreclosure or other remedy allowed by law.”

    *I admit I’m confused. The note says it’s non-negotiable and yet it refers to and uses the word “Holder”, which we generally think of as one who takes a negotiable instrument by transfer and is entitled to payment. Neil? Maybe it’s just poor crafting?
    And in – at least -states which prohibit deficiency judgments, doesn’t the limitation on non-repayment remedy make the promise to pay “conditional” because the only remedy for non-payment is limited to the collateral? “Yes, I agreed to pay, but if I don’t, you may not get a personal judgment. You may only garner the collateral?” I guess that boils down to “what does it mean (if anything) as to negotiability if repayment may be limited as a matter of law and or contractually”?
    The language used in this particular note is a little odd to me, but it nevertheless says the note is non-recourse and no deficiency may be sought as a personal judgment against the maker.

  16. Now this is interesting as heck, from the link at 1:02:

    “A corollary to the one-action rule, the “security-first” rule (also codified in Civil Procedure Code Section 726(a)) provides that a creditor must first proceed against the security for the debt prior to trying to enforce, by judicial action or otherwise, the underlying debt.
    Perhaps the most notorious instance of a creditor running afoul of this prohibition is Security Pacific National Bank v. Wozab, where the creditor set off approximately $3,000 in the debtor’s accounts held by the creditor in partial satisfaction of a $1,000,000 debt without first foreclosing on the real property securing the debt. The California Supreme Court held that the creditor’s exercise of its equitable right of setoff, while it was not an “action,” violated the requirement that a creditor rely on its security before attempting to enforce the debt. As a result, the creditor in that case lost its security.”
    Here is the decision:

  17. Just when I think some people are rude, crude, and socially unacceptable, they open their mouths and remove all doubt.

    Regardless of what MERS is or isn’t relative to some purported exchange, it’s still liable for bad acts, like robo-signing, committed in its name. Apples and oranges. Now where was before I was so rudely distracted, asked as I flick the flake from my shoulder.


    Note this is from August of 2009 and so won’t consider any changes in laws.

  19. unless it could of came from third undisclosed party…….. who woudda thunk it….

  20. It didn’t come. It was a farce marked debt. It was a future promise out of the homeowners blood sweat and tears

  21. Seller Estate receives 100k payoff @ closing
    Note/Mortgage is for 100k

    So where did the money come from to payoff the 100k note for a title free and clear to the household estate to convey into irrevocable trust?

  22. The bank not writing a $200,000 check or wire for a $100,000 purchase or refinance!

    exactly – they should but instead charged of assets and are taking title free and clear

  23. Yes look as the PAS agreement’s under SELLER . I funded as a principal over a billion – please .


    Its used as a beneficiary for trust assets moron under a Tres. reg. 1.1031 exchange I am speaking to someone’s attorney you all know tomorrow….let’s see

    Stubborn argumentative blog freaks

  25. MS you got a property that the seller is selling for $100,000 and the borrower get a loan for $100,000 and a check or wire is brought to the closing if its being settled at a closing company for a $100,000.

    Seller receives $100,000, borrower receives the house and the bank has a home mortgage loan which leave ZERO extra dollars. The bank not writing a $200,000 check or wire for a $100,000 purchase or refinance!

  26. mortgage wire _ 100,000
    Loan Settlement -100,000
    Mortgage Loans = 100,000

    Loan Purchased – 0.00
    Depositors Acct. – $100,000

    100K -100K =100,k
    0.00 -100K = – 100k
    100k -100k – Deposits 0.00

    Where did the 100k in a depositors account come from jack ? Are you saying the mortgage was converted at its basis in asset held . Wheres the note ?


  27. I’ll bet those consent orders violate something. There are laws and there are people appointed by states to enforce those laws. If a crime is a ‘victimless’ one, like jay walking or violating a 2 a.m. closing time and no one was hurt, the law may provide for something like a consent order (or a ticket) in lieu of prosecution. But I don’t believe it when there are many victims and the violations have long-lasting effects.
    If a homeowner violates a set-back from property boundary law (like no structure within 9′ feet of property line), the state can and will make the homeowner take out what offends the set-back requirement. If a homeowner spent 50k putting on an extension to his home without permits (and inspections), the county can and will make him tear it down with zero regard for the 50k. I get it that the extension is a continuing violation, but so are fraudulent docs sitting in public record. Where is it written that even with a consent order and even without admission of wrong-doing, the bad actor isn’t compelled to recitfy that which shouldn’t exist, here fraudulent docs in public record? 50k to a homeowner is catastrophic. The law says mol you should have thought of that before you did it.
    There’s a principle of law called ‘stare decisis’. It means that where a court has ruled one way one day, it must rule the same the next. This must apply to prosecutors decisions to prosecute, or there is another principle with a diff name which says so. There just can’t be an argument that there isn’t sufficient evidence to convict. These consent orders are arbitrary and L and S are a bunch of dog-doo, and I don’t believe they’re lawful. I don’t believe the prosecution of such dire acts is discretionary one tiny little bit.
    Obviously the question is what to do about it. Christine says anarchy mol in the form of not paying taxes which by law one must, so I don’t favor that one. Rent Billboards? Open windows and scream? Deluge the AG’s? HOW do we unstack this particular deck? Picket the AG’s offices?
    Reading a book which is a novel, so not necessarily true, but it says there’s no limit on contributions to a judicial race.

  28. What killing me is these investors of the securities are receiving billions in settlements,

    And what you don’t know is there are billions set aside for properly made administrative claims. I personally have seen over $1 million to date

    165K Behan
    450K Henderson
    50 K Lopez
    25K Client’
    25K Client
    20K Client
    25K Client
    3K plus home returned after 1.5 years

    You said ….and there are millions of loans that were in these securities that the underwriting was incorrect as admitted,
    MS The underwriting was not incorrect. Regardless of the loan amount each was
    (1) prepaid for five years
    (2) Prepaid 10 Years in most cases

    The goal was to get the GSE off the guarantees and shift it over to European banks. The GSE could jump back in an take the title under the US dept. of Treasury guarantees…… removing the US homeowner from ever owning a home again

    You said …..and we know that blank endorsement were relinquished.

    MS For Gods sake get it right. The Gad Dang blank endorsement is prima fascia (like that Christine) to a charged off asset as a short lived receivable with a life of 180 days

    See IRS Rules
    See FDIC Loss Risk Rules
    See GAAP under ASC 310 320 and 280
    See Dept. of treasury rules for Reg 1.1031

    Your Comments

  29. “Documents signed by signatories at the direction of the Defendant
    for the purpose of recordation in Illinois shall accurately identify the signatory’s employer (e.g., employed by Nationwide Title Clearing,
    Inc.) ”

    At first I thought this might be good for something, but when a Nationwide employee executes an instrument in MERS’ name, and therefore will sign as a sham “vice president” of MERS” or some such, they can just say it was at the direction of MERS (but via their boss at NW). Well, it still might be good for something unless MERS and no one else sends NW’s employee a directive. Yeah, right. Last I knew, MERS itself got no directive, which as a novated party likely wouldn’t be necessary, that is, MERS admitted it acted – well, the straw officers did – without direction from any alleged principal. Any directive for execution of an assgt to a signatory or the signatory’s employer has come from the assignEE, and not from MERS, and that’s when the assignEE, isn’t having its own employee execute the assignment. Maybe NW has an aka: “The Go-To-Company When You Want to Avoid Liability for Fraudulent Execution and Recordation of Real Property Instruments PS Because We Act in MERS’ Name, We Have a Lifetime Stay Out of Jail Pass piggy-backed on MERS Lifetime Stay Out of Jail Card piggy-backed on TBTF”

  30. KC linked a Consent Order involving the state of IL and NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING. From the Order:

    “Assignments into and out of the Mortgage Electronic Registration
    Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) shall not claim that both the mortgage and note have been assigned when, in fact, only the mortgage has been transferred by the assignment. ”

    Thanks, KC. Not done reading yet, but came upon the part above. I’ll say quite honestly that sometimes I just don’t know how much more of this garbage I can stand. A Consent Order? Are they flipping kidding us? No ‘guilt’ was required to be acknowledged (again)? WHY? WHY? WHY? YES, I AM YELLING. No undoing the bs done???? NO CORRECTING THE FRAUD IN THE DOCUMENTS? NO IDENTIFICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS INVOLVED?
    I often mention MERS own Consent Order from 2011. If NW Title Clearing’s employees, like everyone else and his brother, was executing stuff in MERS’ name, it was with at least Hultman’s blessing, if not MERS (the ‘if not’ is re: the question of Hultman’s authority to execute resolutions appointing so and so’s employees as MERS’ officers) if history is a clue. That makes MERS liable for the acts of these individuals as MERS’ “officers” or even as MERS’ signatories. Not only is MERS not being prosecuted for any of the numerous charges available, it’s very likely imo these actions VIOLATE the spirit if not the letter of the 2011 Consent Order. Until MERS is prosecuted and held fully accountable for the thousands and thousands and thousands of instruments robo-signed in its name, THERE IS NO LAW IN THIS COUNTRY. I’m not going to bother citing case law because it’s black letter law that a corporation is liable for the acts of its “officers”. It’s way, way, way, way the hell too late for anyone to allege these people doing what they were told were acting outside the scope of their prescribed duties. WHY IS MERS SKATING?
    Those of you who have lost your homes to this bs truly have my sincere condolences. If I had a million dollars or 10, I’d spend every dime of it supporting the ‘displacement’ of all those who have made and make this possible. Those who contributed to and allow this to continue, you have my deepest disrespect and distain. In so far as a choice was made, you’re a discredit to your position whatever it is – muck, AG, legislator, representative of the people, judge, attorney, low-level clerk, whatever: You’re a blight on this country and humanity.
    “No one ever asked the winner if he played fair?” This time we’re quite certain you didn’t. Quite a legacy, you lying cheating-a$$-cheaters.


  31. Last week, it was China and Hong Kong. Today, Singapore and Hong Kong. Within the next 2 or 3 weeks, pretty much all of Asia will start trading in Renminbi. Inda and China (two most populous countries in the world) already do. Japan and China do. Thailand and China. Vietnam and China… moving fast. Each time, the US dollar loses.

    Zero Hedge

    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/14/2013

    Two years ago, the CME announced USD/CNH futures trading enabling speculation (and hedging or risk transfer) of offshore Chinese Renminbi. On the other side of the world this week, a couple of gentlemen that few people have ever heard of signed an agreement that has massive consequences for the global financial system. It was a Memorandum of Understanding signed by representatives of the Singapore Exchange and Hong Kong Exchange. Their aim – to combine their forces in rolling out more financial products denominated in Chinese renminbi. This is huge…

  32. Simply put, an Attorney General is a state’s TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

  33. Some years ago, I found in the state where I was looking that it is in fact statutorily the AG who is to prosecute predatory lending. They don’t, and refer people to any number of other worthless agencies within the state, but that is how the law read. Don’t know if it reads that way today. I don’t know what the course of action is when a public office ignores a statutory duty.
    When the AG prosecutes predatory lending, it isn’t representing a person per se. He’s representing the state because a crime (against the state) has been committed – predatory lending is unlawful. It’s the prosecutor (way I get it), just as the DA’s office prosecutes murder or car-jacking, say. Some states, don’t know which, by law make the AG the prosecutor for predatory lending, and leave it to the DA to prosecute most crimes. Like I said, don’t know the course when a prosecutor refuses to prosecute, but to act as if there is no statutory duty to act is absurd, outrageous, and dereliction of duty. Because predatory lending has been criminalized (misdemeanor, felony, don’t recall), and is not merely a breach of a contractual obligation (say) or fair dealing tenet, which are civil affairs, I don’t know if a private right of action exists on a tort basis or not for predatory lending. Probably. I’m not talking about a contractual defense here; I’m talking about a cause of action. So I think probably, even if the allegation is called something else. I mean, people file civil suits after so and so is found guilty of murder (or sometimes even when so and so got off on the state’s criminal charges).

  34. MS just because a person wears a cowboy hat does not make them a cowboy. I closed to many of our bank’s home mortgage loans and none of the thousands had money had any money wired in as I personally was the bank home mortgage loan office and closing agent of the loans.

    Yes as broker have monies wired in because they are not the lenders and don’t present themselves as the lender unless they have a warehouse line. But it a lender is having monies wired into a closing company, there is no reason why they cannot.

    I do see your point on these not being long term loan for the smaller banks working as correspondent bank, who are not taking the long term risk are actually like brokers but are just receiving more in yield funding the loan themselves.

    What you not accounting for is monies are need to pay a seller of a property before the borrower can take possession of the property!

  35. The Lucas decision screams this- PARTICULARITY facts, need to be backed up, EVIDENCE, WE CAN HARDLY GET PAST THE PLEADING STAGE

  36. just so ya,all know im politely asking the IRS about my 1099C, I cant file my 2010 taxes because I can not concede to the 1099A, ok, the Lender on that IRS document issued, needs explaining to a judge and then a few things that were done under jurisdiction of other courts, that lacked the aforesaid, you know im confused, im just asking questions that I believe I have a perfect legal right to do so, being that ive been dragged into this fight for over 4 years, let me tell you, im in it until there is no legal recourse what so ever,so help me God,
    anyhoo,. Getting my day in court is a struggle, im waiting and waiting and waiting. MS says its dangerous, so if deb wynn suddenly disappears, lol. im joking ok,
    the only thing to fear- is fear itself, walk into it through it and swim in it, because once you do- your perspective changes, you will not die, actually.

  37. My Attorney handled those pesky requests and 30 day notices just fine

    how can that be – servicing is barred under FAS 140 – check for the silent order for entry your lenders claim’s are resting on

  38. How long ago did I tell you … The Lender on the Note in the beginning of the transactions re-emerge as the Capital Co who buys your note (haha) under another company name in the end.


    Stop winging it KC

  39. “government service on the prosecution side is the standard way to break in”

  40. “We need to write everyone who is captured by this lunacy and explain in no uncertain terms that we’re over asking politely”

    You’ve been saying it for… how long again? We’re small because only one person here and there dares take action. And half of it is disorganized and unfocused. Count the people here who give MS a platform for his insanity and you know everything you need to know. In the meantime, government keeps coming up with laws to screw us more and more at the midnight hour. And they’re still here, fat and happy, on our dime. All of them since 2007.

  41. What killing me is these investors of the securities are receiving billions in settlements, and there are millions of loans that were in these securities that the underwriting was incorrect as admitted, and we know that blank endorsement were relinquished. So what being set up is the lenders like JPMorgan has just done to to cut off new lawsuit and end existing one by going to the Federal Government for protection and are rescinding these securities taking out attorney from monies they could win suing these bums!

  42. Christine, I have proof that as of Jan 1 2009 all our payments went into a suspense account. In April 2009 BAC refused our payments saying we were $12,000 in default and refused anything less than full payment even thou the monies in the suspense had they been applied, would have shown us paid in advance. This went on for an entire year, loan mod packages dumped at my front door and the never ending phone calls, I kept telling them there was NO hardship.. No loan mod needed! Finally I paid them every dime plus some in May 2010 and went for the Jugular …

    I to filed complaints with AG also and was told it was a legal matter and that I needed to speak to my attorney. My attorney wrote the complaint letters to the AG … hahaha. But none the less it did not change the fact that the AGs do not represent individuals.

    Private Right of Action ….

  43. Christine said, “….the infamous 2012 settlement was, if I recall, an AGs’ concerted effort to “go after the banks”. Could they have done more?”

    I don’t consider that effort worthy of the title “going after the banks”, it was a sellout from the beginning. And of course it goes all the way up the chain to the white house. They ALL did as little as they could get away with and still keep their jobs. But it was a lot of effort spent making no headway, it was all about appearances.

    They are mortgaging our futures (and our children’s) on the wrong plans of action!

    Behavioral economics refers to a condition known as the sunk cost fallacy, a state where one weighs what efforts, monies, or what have you, have already been expended against an outcome that isn’t being achieved, and irrationally decide to plod on, even though it’s not doing jack towards the desired outcome. People stay in nasty careers for their entire lifetime thanks to this phenomenon, believing that they would have wasted however many years at a nasty job, rather than taking steps to find a fulfilling career. Folks feed hungry one-armed-bandits till they’re running on empty due to this same lack-o-logic. AG’s allow the criminality to continue, like Charles Reed said, ignoring blatant document fraud, all out of a wrongful idea that continuing down the wrong path is the right path for everyone’s sake. It isn’t.

    As Wikipedia says:

    “The sunk cost fallacy is in game theory sometimes known as the “Concorde Fallacy”, referring to the fact that the British and French governments continued to fund the joint development of Concorde even after it became apparent that there was no longer an economic case for the aircraft. The project was regarded privately by the British government as a “commercial disaster” which should never have been started, and was almost cancelled, but political and legal issues had ultimately made it impossible for either government to pull out.”


    “Behavioral economics recognizes that sunk costs often affect economic decisions due to loss aversion: the price paid becomes a benchmark for the value, whereas the price paid should be irrelevant. This is considered irrational behavior.”

    Unfortunately for us in the 99%, our fearful leaders are caught up to their comb-overs in this very conundrum, knowing full well that the trillions of taxpayer dollars thrown at the efforts to shore up THEIR oligarchy didn’t aid one bit in correcting any causative factors, much less providing any desirable payoff, dooming us all to a rinse – repeat cycle, only with a monumentally disastrous outcome now 100% guaranteed. Take that to the bank.

    So rather than reviewing the problem like rational adults and taking corrective measures before the entire population to the last man (or woman) is pillaged to extinction, they simply pretend to ignore this blatant, seriously delusional behavior they’re stuck in. Well, what can we do about it E, you ask? We’re so small! No, we’re much bigger than them.

    We need to write everyone who is captured by this lunacy and explain in no uncertain terms that we’re over asking politely, that we as observant citizens are now DEMANDING that they alter course and immediately do the right thing – right now, that what they’ve attempted isn’t working one iota for America outside of Wall Street and D.C. We the people HAVE to DEMAND that the criminality be prosecuted, not with silly-ass fines and no admissions of guilt, but with lengthy prison terms handed out by the thousands. They can start by charging the top AG Holder with misprision of treason, and tossing him and his entire Wall Street cartel into tiny rooms with metal toilets. Send the state AG’s with them if they won’t do their sworn duty. Enough is enough!

    They’ve all proven themselves incapable at correcting this problem from the very start, as their desired outcome puts us right back where we started, serving these greedy bastards who’ve securitized not only our lives, but the futures of our children. These people honestly believe that they’re the rightful Masters of the Universe, when in reality, they aren’t worthy of even existing due to their inherent greed and a desire to dominate over all. It’s way past time.
    Since no one in power will fix this thing, it’s left to us. They’ve so blown it. REV 2.0.

  44. E. Tolle the citizens approach these AGs at a time millions or loans across the entire Nation have forgeries which are already admitted to by one corporation in DocX, and there is an settlement by all 50th States Attorney Generals for Robo signing. Yet a citizen says their property was stolen and the first thing is that the State AG does not looking into the titling that on file at the local court house that is the say so of ownership…Period!

    Yet these novice asking the professional in the AG to look into a crime not just some financial arrangement gone bad, but that a un-interested party has hi-jacked the local county land recording system. Its not like this issue was not addressed in Jan 2012 in a $25 billion settlement! However a proper letter is needed when one tell the AG that Bank of A through Z created a forgery and here is that forgery from MERS who was also complained about in the $25 billion settlement, where the $30 million dollar awarded Lynn Szmoniak said “MERS non paid agent were creating forgeries”.

    Somebody got to be kidding me that 5yrs in and here we are!

  45. E. ToLLe,

    I won’t get into a pissing contest over something like that. Don’t know who your AG (elected by the people) is but mine did intervene as he should have, when he should have. And the bank “found” my “lost payments” shortly thereafter. So, he did his job. As far as going after the banks, the infamous 2012 settlement was, if I recall, an AGs’ concerted effort to “go after the banks”. Could they have done more? You bet! They had, obviously, other marching orders from TWH. And it was all predictable, just from the way they did not take any action beforehand and/or all dismissed their actions against servicers, immediately after said infamous settlement (Coackley and Harris come to mind…)

    People did nopthing and waited for “government” to do it all for them. They still do. While keeping the problem alive, well and on vacation at their expenses.

    Don’t know what you filed, how and where you filed it. Sure, it was pro se: you already had one burden to overcome and I grant you that much. (I screwed a JDB case as a pro se. No shame to it: didn’t know what i was doing. Won’t doing it again that way. No money. So, they won’t get a cent from me.) It doesn’t change the fact that, reading most posts here, I can see why people don’t prevail.

    Am I going to apologize for having known how to play my cards and having advised people to do the same? Hell no! Do I believe that there is a course of action to follow in a precise order if one wants a crack at winning? You bet!

    Do I consistently see people here, running all over the place, following every and any theory, get bent out of shape when they don’t prevail, blame everyone and never themselves when things don’t turn out the way they hoped for, accuse judges, lawyers and what not? Absolutely. Where is the action…?

  46. Christine, you’ve assumed a lot in your post. I worked closely with my AG…. dozens of email conversations as well as meeting in person a half dozen times discussing the criminality and the bank’s absolute stance against resolving any issues amicably. I did this prior to, and post QWR. They proved themselves as worthless as the banks.

    You’re right, this is not law 101. I would use that same simple statement to counter your belief stated over and over in your comments here that there’s only one path to be followed, yours, where in reality, all of these cases are different and need to be analyzed and dealt with very individually. One size does not fit all in legal matters. Not by a long shot.

    I didn’t send QWR’s “believing that sending a letter will resolve everything”, as you stated. I sent them to define their MO, to further box them into a corner. And I did sue preemptively as well. However, when the percentages are in the 90’s as to how many mortgagors “fail to state a claim”, consider yourself one of a very small minority, one that I would say has little claim to preach so fervently to those who’ve had different outcomes than yours, as the dice don’t roll that way often. Nearly never.

    Did I expect a different outcome from my AG? Hell yes. They are the top law enforcement officers in each state, and I expect them to uphold the law vigorously, without any concern for any outcome other than upholding those laws. It’s not their place to fear undesirable economic outcomes from prosecuting banksters, but that’s exactly what they’re all doing, from sea to corrupt sea. I consider their actions, from non-prosecutions, to selling out the populace in their settlement, to be misprisions of felonies, and I firmly believe that all 50 AG’s should be herded into court themselves, to face lengthy sentences for averting their attention from massive criminal behavior.

    I believe it is you that doesn’t understand the role of a state attorney general. Not me.

  47. E. Tolle I see we are talking about two different thing as it is the AG duty to pursue forgeries submitted to the local courts. It the AG duty when court records are being undermined and the titling system is corrupted where the State does not actually know who owns what.

    Your taking a trillion dollar asset to court, when they have no financial interest in the property? How are not people rights not being protected when a criminal act is not prosecuted which is a part of our system and as you see help to bring restitution in these case as show in the last couple of weeks with JPMorgan who committed several law violations, but has come to a civil agreement of $20 billion in bad securities, LIBOR rigging and energy rigging, and if these AG would also use that same leverage as CA & NY are doing the average Joe Blow could settle these matters.

    But the only bright spot now that the light bulb gone out for many is that under Federal law there is treble damage, where there is not under state laws (at least in NE)!

  48. … then again, my state Bar Association just gave a day-long seminar for attorneys, to teach them how to write a letter… Unreal! They go to law school but they can’t write letters?

    The result of an atrocity called “multiple-choice quiz”. Going on over 50 years. 2 generations literally fucked for good! And it is still going on.

    Yep, this country is in for quite a few surprises…

  49. E. ToLLe,

    “They explained to me that they couldn’t actually take any action against BOA, that they can’t act as counsel for individuals.” The AG was right. It it not his job. The AG is the person one consults BEFORE sending the QWR. Not afterwards, hoping that he will take action upon it.

    It was up to you to follow through and sue. Why do you think I spent so many years advocating attacking the banks first?

    There is course of action to follow: first, the AG. I did, the bank “found” my payments and refused to give me back the late fees, interests and such wrongly assessed. Then, a QWR asking why the fees and where is my money. Then, since no one, not one person, not one homeowner ever gets the info he requested, automatically file a lawsuit in federal court, even if it means stopping all payments to the bank.

    There is something very, very wrong in a country where people do not know what the process is. It is NOT law 101: it is simply common sense and H.S. social studies. There is something very, very wrong when people do not know what the role of an AG is. There is something very wrong when people believe that sending a letter will resolve everything. It is only the beginning of a painful and lengthy process of documentation!

    And then again… imbeciles such as MS are allowed to spit their idiotic, baseless venom and con homeowners right underneath NG’s nose. Should tell everyone everything he needs to know.

  50. As E. Tolle said these State AGs are useless and will not deal with these large banks when an individual has an issue with them, and now will not respond to until them see dollar sign for them as a institution. Look at the 50th States AGs Jan 2012 Foreclosure (Robo) Settlement where DocX founder Lorraine Brown is in prison after receiving a plead deal and admitted to the firm committing 1 million forged mortgage documents for in 20 large banks.

    You cannot pay Szymoniak $30 million for her complaint of forgeries against DocX and MERS and not take action against MERS, while acting as if the charges were not presented for the same crimes of DocX.

    How is not loan that DocX provided a document to a leader not tracked to that file and prosecuted? We got the creator of the forgeries who got a data base as to who the victims are, but the 50 AGs act as if the name of the victims are hidden away somewhere and are impossible to find.

    The first issue is a Note that is separated from the Debt make each a NON. Its a NON because for each to exist they can never be unattached from one another. So whether it Ginnie Mae pooled loans (100%) or Fannie & Freddie which once we pull back the covers on these two that they are also not lenders, and that they are not actually purchasing the debt but are having relinquished to them blank Notes in these moneyless transfer.

    Title/lien where who is the “holder in due course” is after the fact argument, because no matter where one argues the money came from it is the Note alone that first must be deal with as it is the beginning and all other matters are secondary to the Note and whether it is in fact a Note under the law when not debt can be called due, entity Z is no owed a single red cent from the homeowner.

    They are wanting to substitute the Home Mortgage Loan for the debt of the Securities draws, and transformed lender into a issuer, who made this financial transaction post Home Loan Closing!

  51. “The communication may assert that there is a defect or mistake in the borrower’s account, and then demand that immediate action be taken to correct that mistake.”


    If there were regulators, these would be salient issues. But since there aren’t, due to the fact that these behemoth banks are treated with kid’s gloves fearing that they’ll topple over at the slightest ill-wind, these QWR’s are ignored as way too much trouble. At least they used to be, as I’ve had a half dozen of them ignored.

    Even my AG was rebuked in his request to get BOA’s office of the president to answer legitimate accounting errors in a QWR. After the AG sent a threatening letter detailing the bogus math, BOA simply refused to answer the AG’s direct questions, instead falling back on their stance that there was nothing to see, all was correct in their accounting, with absolutely no attempt at proving up their stance.

    Almost as if they’re above the law……

    The AG’s response? Gross impotence. They explained to me that they couldn’t actually take any action against BOA, that they can’t act as counsel for individuals. I told them I had no desire to hire them as counsel, that I simply wanted them to uphold the laws as written. They stopped any further correspondence, probably realizing that campaign financing is a very crucial consideration when weighing individual constituents against Behemoth Campaign Funding.

    None of this shit, ZERO, will change, unless Wall Street flag that’s been planted atop the beltway is ripped down and burned.

  52. They cant fc if their is no 2nd or HELOC and the taxes are paid thanks to the settlements unbeknownst to the public.

    Defaulting those 2nds and HELOCs and not paying those taxes is suicide.

    Just saying …….

  53. • The QWR provision applies only to mortgages secured by a first lien, thereby excluding subordinate-lien loans and open-end lines of credit.

    • The communication may assert that there is a defect or mistake in the borrower’s account, and then demand that immediate action be taken to correct that mistake.

    Send the request to your mortgage loan servicer’s customer service address, located on your statement. If you’re writing to a National Association bank, you can cc: its address with the Federal Reserve System. For non-bank mortgage loan servicers, you may also cc: the entity’s registered agent by searching your state’s business registry.

    MS… RE: NO liens due to charges taken in 2008 —-the creditors enforcement is for a junior encumbrance subject to any and all local property taxes due and purported mortgage charged off in 2008

    No Shit Sherlock! LOL!

  54. I beg your pardon Mr Smart Mouth … I do not concur .
    My Attorney handled those pesky requests and 30 day notices just fine. Thank You so Much!

  55. Here we go again

    The QWR of Qualified Written request is sucker bait.It establishes your acknowledgement of a loan long after the loan was charged off in October of 2008.

    The single most compelling argument for creditor debt collections reform is the 30 day notice that nearly anyone can issue under the FDCPA . It cannot be refuted by QWR or other administrative means other than filing an action to stop it .

    How stupid is a QWR – Lender servicing agents are now including their own version of a lenders QWR to fulfill the wave of worthless written requests that are moot against a 30 days collection letter.

    So what is the remedy?

    Well fr starters , a genuinely secured .creditor will never have to issue a FDCPA 30 day letter if they are already secured

    The QWR applies to real property secured liens under HUD and makes no mention of the 30 days FDCPA letter. The collections letter is for reestablishing a recovery right for charged off assets and given for purposes of obtaining an court clerks order for entry.

    The post 30 day letter , if not attacked by a complaint, will cause the court to order judgement that attaches for purposes of giving the collector a right to record a creditors lien and where there are purportedly NO liens due to charges taken in 2008 —-the creditors enforcement is for a junior encumbrance subject to any and all local property taxes due and purported mortgage charged off in 2008

    The subject claim is normally for therefore a judgement ordered for the recovery of a subordinate balance due on a HELOC or unsecured second mortgage that demands the subordinate judgement satisfy the senior liens (80-20 combo) and make whole the beneficiary.

    The real party in interest is a foreign national central bank for pledge of the equitable interest held in a depositors account.

    PS.I’m talking more than ever here – and few are listening ! If an attorney tries to bring this argument he would be immediately disbarred . I know over five out of work lawyers who tried and failed making the right arguments.

    So back to Robo the Hobo, Stand in the place where you live, Ricky Ricardo and Freddie Mertz, Ginnie Mae and Ely Mae Clampett, Nick the Notary and singing songs at your neighbor hood rotatory….

    [where’s the fed],

    Come on, your tired right .I hear you —-“I’ll deal with it in the morning. . .

    More than one commentary here are contributing to the single most debilitating social economic cause the internet has ever seen

  56. Correction … USPS as per RESPA

  57. Christine… Nice web link ….. I have a very thick file of ” we received your request (acknowledgement never within 20 days.. haha). And not one time did they respond (no lone in 60days) … oh wait… yes there was this one time, sorry … they sent it FedX not USPS as per TIL. Avoiding another Mail Fraud Charge?


  58. earlier I said that MS and I disagree what funding a loan means as to who’s the lender, but I said that wrong, sort of. DID the big guy fund the loan – if contractually and / or factually the big guy loaned the little guy the money? The big guy himself (likely) borrowed the funds, so is the warehouse lender or any other source of HIS loan the lender? Not! Once a party draws on a warehouse line, the money is HIS. He does of course have an obligation to repay it, but it’s still HIS, just like cash-out, say. The contract between the big guy and the little guy runs interference on the big guy being the lender. I have seen these contracts. No, I can’t quote them, and what they say IS important, but
    I’m saying they exist and matter, and imo, matter a lot. I’ll also say
    that it’s “possible” that the contracts could yet support the big guy being the lender, though I doubt it. Imo, the contract will find that the big guy loaned the moolah to the little guy or sold it to him at a profit over his own cost of funds. Yes, money is a commodity (my description) and is bought and sold. Big fish gets better cost of money than small fish. Just the nature of the thing. Okay, I’ll also say the contract might recite that the money, advanced at a cost over the big guy’s own cost, isn’t to be repaid with like value. It may say, essentially, that the repayment for the funds is the loan created with the use of those funds. Up one side or down the other, that contract just can’t be ignored. Plus I’ve mentioned, because it’s true, that for the little guy to be approved to originate fha and va loans, the big guy, the “sponsor” of the little guy, has to enter a binding contract to provide the little guy with a warehouse line of credit to fund fha and va loans. No little guy may be approved to originate fha and va loans without a sponsor and a funding line from that sponsor. One of the contracts between the big guy and F & F, the seller-servicer agreement, states that F & F will accept loans originated by the little guys, underwritten by the big guys. F and F were aware of the mechanics between big guy and little guy long before all this bs started, before greedy guess what I’m thinkings helmed FNMA. (Yes, of course I know some choice words. I just don’t think they belong here, even when it feels really good to use them).* That doesn’t prove anything, I grant, but it does say the relationship between big guy and little guy, including funding, has been blessed for many years.
    We’ve got a different set of facts if the big guy loaned the little guy the trust investor’s (embezzled) money, but as to the origination, more likely the same result: the little guy, with no knowledge of the source of funds, i.e., that they’re pilfered, is the lender (based on facts and contract) and so is anyone who takes that note (and gets the dot) with no knowledge of hijnx, etc. (if such a party exists). imo. I’ve never asserted these contracts aggressively, I concede, but I have mentioned them now and again, and NG has not addressed their ramifications or potential ramifications to his own beliefs (to my dismay).

    *Sometimes when I’m running around or find some case that makes me nuts, swearing like a sailor, I remind myself of Claus Von Bulow when Hershowitz says to him that he’s a weird guy (in the movie, of course). Von Bulow, without pause, responds “You have no idea.”

  59. JG,

    Here is a good site explaining how and why write a QWR.

  60. JG,

    Sent. Let me know if you got it.

  61. christine (anyone?) – got a link to a ‘well-written qwr?” Maybe lots of them – qwr’s online – but what about a ‘well-written’ one?
    You can send the decision to me at johngault764 @

  62. hman – going to try to read those decisions tomorrow fwiw.

    you said:
    “the HUD 1 shows …… a different party altogether…”. Say what?
    The lender shown on the HUD is not the payee named on the note?!

    Have you done anything yet while still in title which might queer title? Just asking. Maybe you did and told me and I forget. If so, disregard. (I’ll go look) Does the assgt purport to assign the note?

  63. There is a lawsuit filed nationwide, with every State Attorney General, which can explain why most every foreclosure goes through despite its inherent illegality. It’s been met with deafening silence. Read it at

    It’s called “The Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6, Confidentiality of Information of The Rules of Professional Conduct,” and was filed In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on August 8, 2013. There are two plaintiffs: one has a pending case in a PA court concerning his divorce, the other has a pending case in foreclosure dating from Jan. 2011. The Constitutional Challenge uses these cases only for reference. From the first 2 pages:

    “The Challenge presents circumstances where the States have demonstrated their inability to take action to prosecute judicial corruption and misconduct.

    “Filed on their own behalf, and also for others — as a large portion of the citizenry of the United States have been placed at risk while the Attorneys General have ‘lawfully’ failed to take action to address or restore the lost rights and civil liberties of the People.

    “How was the Judiciary permitted to usurp the power of the Legislatures and the Governors, enacting a law mandating judicial corruption and misconduct? (How can such a law) be ignored and excused while obstructing justice and denying Constitutionally-protected liberties?

    “Rule 1.6 is authored, updated, edited, promoted, maintained, managed, directed and scripted by The American Bar Association.

    “How did the American Bar Association come to be responsible for this unconstitutional and improperly enacted law in EVERY state? The people demand an explanation.

    “Every American is just one act of legal misconduct away from lawfully losing all of their constitutionally-protected rights. Lawful failure to address the actions sacrifice the reputation and the integrity of the judiciary.”

    Rule 1.6 is like a Catch-22 on steroids. If any officer of the court acts to expose legal wrongdoing or corruption, including violations of the rules of procedure, Rule 1.6 makes it illegal for them to bring the issue before any court!

    The remedy to this situation, which a successful prosecution of the Constitutional Challenge will provide, is described on p. 20:

    “(Rule 1.6 was) deliberately enacted so that the problem could not lawfully be resolved by legal professionals or
    legislators. ONLY a Pro Se litigant who survived (the early stages of a legal proceeding) could see the necessity, see the problem, find the Constitutional aspect, have proper standing, have a cause for relief, be able to demonstrate the loss of rights, and USE THEIR OWN RULE 1.6 AGAINST THEM. And do it LAWFULLY!”

    I urge all readers of this blog to investigate this Constitutional Challenge for themselves. The home page of the website cited above has complete info and details on how it can be used to end this judicial corruption and legal tyranny.

  64. JG,

    A well-written QWR requests should always request info pursuant to Tila, Respa, Fdcpa and other applicable statutes. It should also be very specific at to what is being disputed.

    I will bring some correction to what i previously wrote: some servicers have argued that the SOL started running at closing. When you deal with a servicer that is not the original one, you can easily rebut it.

    My own case is a respa, tila, etc. It started out as a QWR that was pretty much ignored and went all the way to federal appeals court. If you want the decision reversing and remanding the fed. judgment, send me a mail to

  65. MS ,

    Publish the key to the damn “code” already ,, we can crowdsource it and compare translations… if they are substantially correct you gain reputation and lose nothing … you are still needed because we would be like the person who “knows” how to drive but cannot explain any of the mechanical systems …

  66. JG, Not White Out … Scratch that One (shred) and print a new one … heck we don’t even need notaries …. we just print a copy of the old notary acknowledgement and or copy cut and paste new ones from the old ones.

    1st Hand Experience Here ….. Trust Me! I’m a Notary to and they (LPS) Pulled that crap with an associate of mine.

  67. christine, I don’t doubt you since it’s been a very long time since I looked at that stuff (tila and respa violations and sol). Having said that,
    I’m confused because the qwr has nothing to do with tila and respa and their respective sol’s, or is that not so? I don’t see how default triggers a duty to do a thing, though it may. I do know that, something like this, the tolerance for the dollar amt the amt financed on the reg Z may be off shrinks to 35.00 from X $$$ after some event – think it’s acceleration. The apr being “fatally” off is grounds for rescission (LAY opinion). One way or another, I would agree allegations of respa and tila violations are a tough row to hoe, and whenever a borrower says I want to rescind, the bankster says then you must tender, which is not true imo, but it’s an area which requires particular expertise (and I certainly don’t purport to have it). I saw an eejit take 35k from a borrower and he had not a clue, which I, years removed from most of it, could even see and the borrower just lost her home plus the 35k fee. People may have rolled over, but knowing what to do is difficult, even with an attorney. Is there something you can point people to which addresses failure to respond appropriately to a qwr?
    This is likely to vary from state to state….? In some states, it might – key word – be grounds for a QT action. Not my area, the QWR, obviously. Maybe you or another reader will give the rest of us some good info, at least as applicable in anyone’s particular state.

    Patrick said some good stuff the other day. People might go back and find and copy it (I did). Ditto on KC’s hidc info below.

  68. Just as five parties may claim poss of a bearer note when in the poss of any one of them, MERS used to claim poss by way of its straw officer at the servicer’s, aka the servicer’s employee. If the servicer ever had poss of a note, it wasn’t as the result of transfer. Servicers all had copies of notes, because copies are in the servicing file, the one which contains the loan stuff, like verifications, cr, etc. The servicers’ copies should have been certified as true and correct copies by the closing agent, like the title co., or by the lender. No problem to just white that out and make a new copy and call it the original, or whip a copy off a digital file and pawn it off as an original.

    I want to reiterate that as far as “for value” and hidc goes, one is only a hidc to the extent of actual payment, NOT a promise to pay.

  69. RE: As a defense, “knew or should have known” could mean pretty much from the very first time homeowner defaulted and failed to ask any question. Many banks have played it that way.

    So True! But brush up on, … Reliance … Yep! Yep!
    Both by the Judge and the Homeowner.
    dag gone it .. somebody give the dog a bone

  70. That is correct Christine, and the SOL works both ways, both for and against us and them.

    Play by the Rules and Play Nice!

  71. Oh .. and if the Holder dies and the successor inherits, he as successor holder also carries with it the liabilities of all claims. No protections under HDC. Pandora’s Box …

    They don’t want to open it.

  72. JG,

    The SOL starts running 60 days after sending a QWR to a servicer since it is THE legal tool to obtain the information necessary to the assertion of a claim under both Tila and Respa statutes. One problem is that people got all gung-ho after learning of QWR. They sent some, were ignored by the servicers or got half the information, they had no clue what to do with it and… they rolled over and lied down. I can think of quite a few bloggers even on this site who didn’t understand that and screwed themselves up with QWR and no follow through..

    Generally speaking, Tila and Respa have been used as defenses against foreclosure. Big mistake. It hasn’t been particularly succesful. As a defense, “knew or should have known” could mean pretty much from the very first time homeowner defaulted and failed to ask any question. Many banks have played it that way.

    It’s like anything else; you control the SOL by the actions to take. If you take no action, the SOL controls you.

  73. If the creditor is paid in full … he can gift it to Greedy, Greedier or Greediest. Yes he can. But defined under the terms of the note .. when the creditor is paid in full …. what will be filed?

    That’s Right! File It! ……. “Oh Granny” No! Don’t say It!

    What did Neil say? Satisfaction or FC … ut oh

  74. RE: Taking for Value
    An HDC must have given value for the instrument. A person who receives an instrument as a gift or who inherits it has not met the requirement of value. In these situations, the person normally becomes an ordinary holder and does not possess the rights of an HDC.

  75. RE; Requirements for HDC Status
    An HDC must be a holder of a negotiable instrument and must take the instrument (1) for value; (2) in good faith; and (3) without notice that it is overdue, that it has been dishonored, that any person has a defense against it or a claim to it, or that the instrument contains unauthorized signatures or alterations or is so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity.

  76. RE; A person will not be afforded HDC protection if he acquires an instrument on notice (knows or has reason to know) that it is defective in any one of the following ways: 1. It is overdue.
    2. It has been dishonored.
    3. There is an uncured (uncorrected) default with respect to another instrument issued as part of the same series.
    4. The instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered.
    5. There is a defense against the instrument or a claim to the instrument.
    6. The instrument is so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity.

    What constitutes notice? Notice of a defective instrument is given whenever the holder (1) has actual knowledge of the defect; (2) has received a notice of the defect; or (3) has reason to know that a defect exists, given all the facts and circumstances known at the time in question

  77. Holder must pay value to become HDC. He may be Holder based on a future promise to pay, but until that happens … he does not have the protections of HDC. And he certainly don’t have beneficiary rights until then either.

    Bites …. Especially when you put them on Notice.

  78. I said … No assignment of the note from lender on the note to MERS

    I meant so say No endorsement of the Note from Lender on the Note to MERS.

  79. thanks, kc – really. thanks. glad not to have to do it. this is info people fighting must understand. It’s a start, but we can make no mistake – the banksters will be all over claiming unverified hidc status. The bar for the (any) presumption is critical. If no presumption exists, what is evidence of hidc status. Maybe ng’s cases will tell us. I haven’t read them yet nor researched the issue.
    TILA violations and maybe those of respa may be exceptions re: hidc status; it might be they may be weapons against anyone holding the note (of course I forget) but I do recall that the sol runs from the time “knew or should have known”, often or at least sometimes taken as when there is discovery of the violation(s). Of course, the pi$$ing match is over “when should have known”.

  80. Guess what else? Successor 2 and 3 were both put on Notice.

    BawHaHaHa! Don’t Mess With Grandma’s Cookie Jar!

  81. Oh, I forgot the Good Part … before successor 1 dismissed and successor 2 filed LP release …

    MERS filed an undated series in one assignment of the note and mortgage together for value to successor 3 as successor to 2, as successor to successor 1.

    No assignment of the note from lender on the note to MERS.


  82. 1st successor filed the J.D for a V.D in 2010
    2nd successor filed L.P. release in 2011.

    All the same attorneys … just saying…

  83. Here we require both the endorsement of the note and the assignment of the mortgage before you have standing to fc. Now, In my case a party that was a thief filed LP and JD without the Note endorsement or assignment of mortgage in 2008.

    Died before dismissing JD and releasing LP….

  84. JG, this is out of Neils article, and is why everyone needs an attorney from their area….

    The first point is that a negotiable instrument can ONLY be a promise to pay that is NOT conditioned on anything. The maker is agreeing to pay regardless of any other dealings he has had with any other party at any time. A promissory note can be an unconditional promise to pay. A mortgage is not an unconditional promise to pay (there are not two notes for the same transaction). The mortgage is a collateral agreement for protection of the creditor in the event that the collection on the note does not satisfy the full debt. The mortgage is not a negotiable instrument. But in some jurisdictions it is treated as an attachment to the note such that the endorsement (“indorsement”) of the note also transfers ownership of the rights under the collateral mortgage or deed of trust. Those are called “mortgage follows the note jurisdictions.” In other jurisdictions the assignment of the mortgage gives rise to an implied assignment of the note. Those are called “note follows the mortgage” jurisdictions. Note that a mortgage cannot be endorsed — it is a legal agreement that requires assignment. And there are jurisdictions that do both.

  85. Neil said … RE;
    When I first got into this mortgage mess I called counsel for Aurora on a foreclosure case pending in California. I asked him how the currently self-designated entity pursuing foreclosure could justify its actions. His answer was “we are the holder.” So I asked him again why a company that has no financial stake in the outcome and who clearly does not meet the definition of a creditor of this borrower could initiate a foreclosure proceeding. And he answered again “we are the holder.” So I asked him does this mean the entity that he is alleging is the holder is acting for or against the interest of the actual creditor? And he answered again “we are the holder.” So I asked him, whether he was asserting that the entity pursuing foreclosure was a holder in due course. And he answered again “we are the holder.” By the way, this was not some foreclosure mill newbie. This was the main guy in Chicago who had been the architect of the legal plan for foreclosures.

    ROFLMBO! YEP! They get caught with their pants down in Illinois but they kept pulling that crap in all 50 states.

    This has been an interesting educational experience for me.

  86. KC .. put them on Notice,

  87. Commercial Paper:
    Holder in Due Course & Defenses
    Problems arise when a holder seeking payment of a negotiable instrument learns that a defense to payment exists or that another party has a prior claim to the instrument. In such situations, for the person seeking payment, it becomes important to have the rights of a holder in due course (HDC). An HDC takes a negotiable instrument free of all claims and most defenses of other parties. Defenses fall into two categories: (1) Universal or real defenses; and (2) Personal defenses. Real defenses defeat payment to all holders, including HDCs. Personal defenses can be asserted successfully against ordinary holders.

    Holder versus Holder in Due Course
    A holder is a person who possesses an instrument drawn, issued, or indorsed to him, to his order, to bearer, or in blank. An ordinary holder obtains only those rights that the transferor had in the instrument. In this respect, a holder has the same status as an assignee. A holder normally is subject to the same defenses that could be asserted against the transferor, just as an assignee is subject to the defenses that could be asserted against the assignor.
    In contract, a holder in due course is a holder who, by meeting certain acquisition requirements, takes the instrument free of most of the defenses and claims to which the transferor was subject. In other words, an HDC can normally acquire a higher level of immunity than can an ordinary holder in regard to defenses against payment on the instrument or ownership claims to the instrument by other parties.

    Requirements for HDC Status
    An HDC must be a holder of a negotiable instrument and must take the instrument (1) for value; (2) in good faith; and (3) without notice that it is overdue, that it has been dishonored, that any person has a defense against it or a claim to it, or that the instrument contains unauthorized signatures or alterations or is so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity.

    Taking for Value
    An HDC must have given value for the instrument. A person who receives an instrument as a gift or who inherits it has not met the requirement of value. In these situations, the person normally becomes an ordinary holder and does not possess the rights of an HDC.

    The concept of value in the law of negotiable instruments is not the same as the cocnept of consideration in the law of contracts. An executory promise (a promise to give value in the future) is clearly valid consideration to support a contract. However, it does not normally constitute value sufficient to make one an HDC. A holder take an instrument for value only to the extent that the promise has been performed. Tehrefore, if the holder plans to pay for the instrument later or plans to perform the required services at some future date, the holder has not yet given value. In that situation, the holder is not yet an HDC.

    Taking in Good Faith

    The purchaser-holder must have acted honestly in the process of acquiring the instrument. Article 3 defines good faith as “honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.” It is immaterial whether the transferor acted in good faith. Thus, a person who in good faith takes a negotiable instrument from a thief may become an HDC.

    Becuase of the good faith requirement, one must ask whether the purchaser, when acquiring the instrument, honestly believed that the instrument was not defective. If a person purchases a $10,000 note for $300 from a stranger on a street corner, the issue of good faith can be raised on the grounds of both the suspicious sircumstances and the grossly inadequate consideration. The UCC does not provide clear guidelines to determine good faith, so each situation must be examined separately.

    Taking Without Notice

    A person will not be afforded HDC protection if he acquires an instrument on notice (knows or has reason to know) that it is defective in any one of the following ways: 1. It is overdue.
    2. It has been dishonored.
    3. There is an uncured (uncorrected) default with respect to another instrument issued as part of the same series.
    4. The instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered.
    5. There is a defense against the instrument or a claim to the instrument.
    6. The instrument is so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity.

    What constitutes notice? Notice of a defective instrument is given whenever the holder (1) has actual knowledge of the defect; (2) has received a notice of the defect; or (3) has reason to know that a defect exists, given all the facts and circumstances known at the time in question. A purchaser’s knowledge of certain facts, such as insolvency proceedings against the maker or drawer of the isntrument, does not constitute notice that the instrument is defective.

    Holder through an HDC
    A person who does not qualify as an HDC but who derives his title through and HDC can acquire the rights and privileges of an HDC. UCC 3-203(b). This is the shelter principle or shelter rule. It seems counter to the basic HDC philosophy. It is, however, in line with the concept of marketability and free transferability of negotiable instruments, as well as with contract law, which provides that assignees acquire the rights of assignors. The shelter principle extends the HDC benefits, and it is designed to aid the HDC in readily disposing of the instrument. Anyone, no matter how far removed from an HDC, who can trace his title ultimately back to an HDC comes within the shelter principle. Normally, a person who acquires an instrument from an HDC or from someone with HDC rights receives HDC rights on the legal theory that the transferee of an instrument receives at least the rights that the transferor had. Howver, persons who formerly held instruments cannot improve their positions by later reacquiring them from HDCs.

    Real Defenses
    Real or universal defenses are valid against all holders, including HDCs. Universal defenses include the following: (1) Forgery, (2) Fraud in the execution, (3) Material alteration (complete defense against a holder, partial defense against an HDC), (4) Discharge in bankruptcy, (5) Minority, (6) Illegality (when statute makes it void), (7) Adjudicated Mental Incapacity, and (8) Extreme Duress. Each of these is pretty much self-explanatory except number two, fraud in the execution.

    Fraud in the execution occurs when a person is deceived into signing a negotiable instrument believing that he is signing something other than a negotiable instrument. This defense cannot be raised, however if a reasonable inquiry would have revealed the nature and terms of the instrument. Thus, the signer’s age, experience, and intelligence are relevant.

    Personal Defenses

    Personal defenses are used to avoid payment to an ordinary holder of a negotiable instrument. Personal defenses are: (1) Breach of contract or breach of warranty, (2) Lack or failure of consideration, (3) Fraud in the inducement, (4) Illegality (when statute makes it voidable), (5) Unadjudicated mental incapacity, (6) Other defenses.

    Federal Limitations on HDC Rights
    Because of the sometimes harsh effects of the HDC doctrine on consumers, the federal government limits HDC rights in certain cicumstances. To protect consumers, the FTC in 1976 issued Rule 433, which effectively abolished the HDC doctrine in consumer credit transactions. it allows a consumer who is a party to a consumer credit transaction to bring any defense he or she has against the seller of a product against a subsequent holder as well. In essence, FTC Rule 433 places an HDC of the instrument in the position of a contract assignee. The rule makes the buyer’s duty to pay conditional on the seller’s full performance of the contract. Botht he seller and the creditor are responsible for the seller’s misconduct.
    The Rule requires that the parties must cinclude in the consumer credit contract a specific notice. What if the seller does not include the notice in a promissory note and then sells the note to a third party. In this case the third party does not become subject to the buyer’s defenses against the seller, and the consumer is unprotected by the FTC Rule.

  88. All right, just now, have it your way, MS. Anyone who took a note by bona fide transfer without notice of all that jazz – yours or anyone else’s — and a few other things, even if it’s all truer than true (and we disagree what funding a loan means as to who’s the lender) becomes a holder in due course and if that’s established, no court is going to give a damn because the law says they don’t have to (this is said generically, without reference to the specific terms of these mortgage loans re: who is lender, etc.) Tell us why, applying applicable law, a court cares what so and so did with or about a note after it was made and before it was transferred, if so, to one who took it by the bar of a holder in due course. The bad news about the UCC is that it does find that one, a holder in due course, may have ‘better’ rights than the party who made the transfer. Prior payment and whatever the heck else is done is not a defense against a hidc.

    For the rest of my fellow-readers here, that’s why I bring up (legal) presumptions – what is a presumption and what isn’t in regard to these notes. When, for instance, is it ever appropriate to presume a holder is a holder in due course? Must one prove he’s a hidc? What is the standard of proof? I’ve said I think a presumption of even ‘transfer’ doesn’t exist with no stinking blank endorsement. There may be a presumption of transfer with a special endorsement. I don’t know, nor do I know when or if a presumption of hidc is ever appropriate. But we need to know. I’ve suggested a way people may get at discovery by asking for a more definitive stmt: claiming as a holder or hidc? (I haven’t finished reading this post yet, so maybe there are some goodies in what I haven’t read). ( I have no doubt none of these
    curmudgeons are either bona fide transferees or hidc’s. I think they’re all just a bunch of rico racketeers. MS may well know goodies he isn’t able to impart imo, but truly my concern is it doesn’t matter, and until I hear how it does, how any of it defeats a hidc, I’m sticking to getting
    f a c t s about the (alleged) live note before the court and determining how to get discovery (to prove the claimant is a bad actor and or has no claim, succinctly).

    from uslegal dot com:

    “A legal presumption is a conclusion based upon a particular set of facts, combined with established laws, logic or reasoning. It is a rule of law which allowing a court to assume a fact is true until it is rebutted by the greater weight (preponderance) of the evidence against it.”

    For examples of presumptions, see this:

    The internet is full of info on hidc’s and the limited defenses available against a hidc. One could just type this in a search engine:

    “defenses to a holder in due course”

  89. Back to moving the goal post. The banskers are like the Harlem Globetrotters. And we are the opposing team


    Be Strong and Courageous

  90. Aw, geez. I have to say it isn’t worthless to consider the fact that there are times when the lenders of mortgage loans may never see total satisfaction of the amt borrowed, of these notes, if not contractually then for intervening statutes, and loans were made (and sold) with that knowledge. The investors in these loans or their derivatives probably were ignorant of this fact. The reason I think it isn’t worthless is that this fact sets these particular notes apart from other promissory notes. Yeah, one can say big whoop at a glance if, admittedly like me, one can’t find the whoop. But the ramifications of this may well be a big whoop. I just don’t know myself what they are. Maybe it’s wrong, not allowable, to sell MBS’s, for instance, on notes that can’t be fully repaid unless the collateral covers it, at least without disclosure of this fact. Did the MBS investors have to be informed recovery could be limited to the value of the collateral? (say) Did they have to be informed that the use of the less expensive non-judicial foreclosure would preclude deficiency judgment in states which allow them at all? Did they agree to this? Did they have to? Is this another reason for guarantees? Are the loans insured, or is it the MBS’s, and if it’s the MBS’s, what might that mean? There are pandora boxes here I’d rather gnaw off my arm than open, truth be told, but it just isn’t worthless to know ‘stuff’, like whether or not one’s bankster may get a default judgment on the first and or the second and when that right has been waived, at least on the first. It’s important that borrowers understand “security first” and why imo this makes a note without the dot a NO-claim, not to be confused with an unsecured claim. Where security first is the bomb, there’s no such thing as an unsecured claim on a “mtg note” – there’s no claim. period. imo.
    The fact that some states prohibit deficiencies results in a nod to and an acknowledgment that the legislators of yore sought to save a homeowner from total financial ruin by limiting recovery to the collateral. Actually, it’s more likely a part of the trade-off: lenders in many states were authorized to take a home non-judicially (hence the dot v mtg and the terms of the dot, disregarding “MERS” – gag, as usual), but they lost the deficiency judgment if they did, and even with judicial foreclosure, some states (all? I don’t know) require “one-action” for recovery of real property and a deficiency judgment. Homeowners lost the lengthy right of redemption in this deal, also. This allows lenders to avoid that lengthy right of redemption and immediately dispose of foreclosed properties. AZ has one thing right – non j was legislated for the ease of the lender (who heretofore was the stinking ben in the dot), but what AZ overlooks for one thing is that non-j is a (legislated) Privilege (because there’s no court action required, there’s no judge involved to resolve a dispute, unlike every other dispute under the sun x maybe those involving contracts which mandate binding arbitration). AZ imo also misinterprets its own statutes, or at least that was my take on a look at their statutes when Hogan was decided. There can be no doubt the AZ legislators contemplated that the ben in a dot would be the lender, and no one else, even if the statutes don’t express this and I don’t remember. If the interpretation of a statute or even the very language in a statute leads to an absurd result, something has to give, and it’s not the rights of one party to his major detriment (or both parties to the deal). If a beneficiary doesn’t have to be the lender to enforce, a law exists which 86’s the rights of the lender as he is identified and his rights defined in the governing documents. (on the other hand, it’s also true that a note transferee is to see to the assignment of the note’s collateral instrument). This seems like a good place to point out again that the assgt of a coll instrument doesn’t require the (bs) consideration being recited in “MERS” assignments, UNless the note and dot are bifurcated (and not fatally), in which case, consideration for the assignment of the dot might be appropriate.* Payment of the note and its transfer vest the note transferee with the right to the assignment of the dot and, without known exception, no further consideration is necessary. The recitation of consideration in a MERS’ assignment can only be for the note, and that’s another story (like it’s prima facie evidence the note wasn’t previously transferred, disregarding the lack of known authority for MERS to assign a note, even as thee ben of the dot).
    Where a court, like CA, says “substantial” compliance may stand in the stead of strict compliance for what is a privilege, even a statutory one, which compelled the strict compliance requirement, that ruling, also imo, is due for appeal, and if rejected, move up the chain. If CA has a law (don’t remember, if I ever knew to begin with) which says substantial compliance may stand in the stead of strict compliance where ‘substantial’ compliance v strict compliance adversely impacts one party or leads to an absurd result, that’s another crock and or the law should (and may be) be challenged.
    * Because lawful bifurcation, if there is such a thing, would be pretty much Greek to us, the unknown for now, if a dot is bifurcated from the note, whether or not consideration for its assignment is appropriate or not is a mystery, at least to me. Without getting into it, I’d say not. Actually, what I’d say is at least ‘original” bifurcation is fatal to the formation of and enforcement of the mortgage loan, which it likely wouldn’t have been had they not imo gotten insane and kept on naming the lender as the ben and then assigning to MERS. Even if one takes MERS assignment as legit, this doesn’t change the fact that the note and dot were originally bifurcated, and maybe fatally so. As I’ve said, at least one court said they may be re-united, but what of no unity in the first place? I can’t and don’t recommend this argument. It isn’t likely to be well-received, even if the bifurcation is fatal.
    Lay opinions, one and all

  91. Nobody wants to live without water and electricity, and those who do is usually because they need food and meds. This woman owns her home and her taxes are paid.

    What a CrocK!
    A thief taking advantage of the poor again. I pray her community steps up to the plate and keeps this woman in her home.

    fladfjlusserxxx lksdfoieh gasd

  92. Nice Try! Ill give you credit for that. LOL!

  93. KC

    Your stupidity and ignorance is brilliant (keep them on their toes love ) . But your partially correct (She is really one of the smarter people I know here )

    The PPM Agreement is the equivalent to looking under the hood of the Trust. No the PPM is for the obligation created amongst the lender and the member bank for the repurchase of stock equal to the value of your home .

    The P&S is what provides the synthetic obligations amongst the left hand and the right hand and has no transferable reps and warranties .

    I find the P&S worthless and solely for the sponsor’s shareholders and Chris-stoned .

    you wont regret it

  94. How long ago did I tell you … The Lender on the Note in the beginning of the transactions re-emerge as the Capital Co who buys your note (haha) under another company name in the end.

    Some of those Smarty Pants,

    When their mommies told them
    ( ” Do Not Step One Foot Outside the Door”..)
    They would open the door, kneel to their knees followed up by stretching out on their back/stomach on the deck WITH BOTH FEET INSIDE THE DOOR..

    Taking advantage of the Gray Area.

    Reverse Psychology …. Reverse the Cinder …..

    Reverse the Players

    When the shape of the train track is a circle, the train always ends back up where it started…unless it derails and is towed back an unsalvageable wreck. .. no value ..

    Burning Ring of Fire “

  95. JG can you say it in a few more thousand paragraphs

  96. Fact:

    The lender originated the loan. The investor funded the loan transferring the obligation. The investor bought the transaction with the household’s wire into settlement. The purchaser is the member bank who put back the obligation to the originator as a repurchase agreement for shares.

    The conversion of debt into equity constitutes a stock repurchase device. The anticipated time and place of repurchase is at time of the originators satisfaction of the obligation outstanding.

    At such time, 20 years, the value of the stock, equal to the MORTGAGE, is completely repaid. Where the originator defaults the obligation is charged off leaving the real property abandoned at its basis for which the encumbrance was made.

    Or, how about this …

    Robo the Hobo called Zac the notary about Ginnies fanny and Ricky Ricardo called Freddie Mertz about Lucy and the Copa Cabana while Christine called MS a fraud.

    Idiocy !!!!

    Please – stop the case history gibberish and make the right administrative claim out of court.!

    Your 2009 statement holds the entire story as an embedded code and your talking about case law fungus and judiciary gibberish !

  97. I so don’t want to do this because I don’t want to go down the road with you, MS (and won’t), but in this case, I feel I have to:
    MS said:

    “first thing first is who on the Note as the lender?
    Answer – The Obligor for the amount wired into settlement ”

    I can see how one might think that, but it’s not necessarily so. imo. First of all, technically, the one who made the wire or caused it to be made might not be the “who” on the note, as the question was phrased, and often isn’t named on the note. But that doesn’t mean the guy on the note isn’t the lender and that he’s necessarily the guy who owes the wire, and this assumes, as you must have, the funds were borrowed, which they probably were. (the question was likely meant as” who is the lender regardless of who’s named on the note?”)

    Everyone, including NEIL imo, wants to act like all table-funding was illicit, when in fact, imo, it wasn’t, or at least means something it doesn’t.** The little guys had contracts with the bigger guys for table-funding. Yes, the loan was sold forward from the little guy to the big guy in some regard, but a loan isn’t a loan until it’s made (no rights in the loan, under the note, were created for anyone, either the little guy or the bigger guy, until the loan was made) . Pursuant to their contract, the little guy owes the bigger guy 1) the bigger guy’s money or 2) the loan (at a pre-determined strike price. For those who don’t know what a strike price is, it’s just a fancy name for a sales price of the loan as used here (and generally when loans are sold and MS knows what that means). So, I would say the little guy owes the wire amt from the bigger guy to the bigger guy or he owes the bigger guy the loan, one of the two, but the little guy doesn’t owe the warehouse bank / lender for the bigger guy’s draw on that line and the bigger guy’s obligation to his warehouse lender doesn’t make him the lender. The fact that the bigger guy borrowed the money to loan the little guy to make the loan doesn’t make the bigger guy the lender, tho the bigger guy is the one who is “the obligor for the amount wired into settlement.” The minute that loan was made, however, it’s yet likely a security interest in both the note and dot was created for the bigger guy’s warehouse lender which would only be released by the repayment of the warehouse draw. That still makes the little guy the lender, subject to the warehouse lender’s security interests, and this situation is covered in the contract between the bigger guy and the little guy and the contract between the bigger guy and the warehouse lender. Until there is delivery to the bigger guy or satisfaction of the warehouse line, can both the bigger guy and the warehouse lender have security interests in the loan? Probably – depends on the contracts. If there’s a pi$$ing match of priority, the contract(s), the UCC, or a court will determine the winner. The court would have to look first to the contract(s) before turning to the (default) UCC or equity imo.
    The time when this might not be true is if no contract exists between / among any of these players, but since there are generally contracts , I’m not going there, don’t need to imo (that’d be a lot of work, I think). And of course in the absence of contracts approving it, if the investor funds were literally used to fund the loans, that’s another scenario, but even that has to consider any party who took for value with no notice of “irregularities”. Using someone’s stolen / embezzled funds to make loans imo doesn’t necessarily make the party stolen from the lender. I don’t think that would be the presumption, but I don’t know for a fact. I don’t believe it’s first impression (disregarding any bona fide sale of a loan made with stolen funds): somewhere in history, someone has made a loan with stolen / embezzled funds and the issue’s been litigated.

    **I’ve heretofore been stymied by ‘who has the right to payment’ on the note the minute it exists on a loan sold forward (which is the case, isn’t it?) It may present an issue, but then again, it may be as simple as the little guy because it’s his note until he endorses and delivers it, even though he’s contractually bound to do so: the bigger guy may have a security interest, but that’s not a transfer of the note such that it would entitle the bigger guy to payment under the note. I recognize this may be oversimplistic, but that’s all I’ve got, unless it’s enforceable by no one until it’s transferred (!) But I don’t think this is first impression, either. Must be case law (if it hasn’t been scrubbed).

  98. The PPM Agreement is the equivalent to looking under the hood of the Trust.

    Nope! No Trust There!

  99. Hey! No picking on JG! You and Christine are going to have a Pissing War no matter what anyone says. But JG is OFF LIMITS!

    Take the Bait Christine … Answer the Questions! Piss on It!

    Oh My Bad …. Sorry!


  100. leave it to J Gault to throw everyone else off with long winded junk of no use to anyone

  101. Christine

    What is a PPM
    Why is the Investor the note holder
    Why is the note holder an obligor
    How does the broker dealer fit in
    What is the principal obligation

    Lets see if this rat filth and blogger excrement can give us an intelligent response. ….Come on

    – take the bait !

  102. Yep! They are in the Buttwipe Blackball Book. BBB

  103. Strike 3 … No more assignments in and out of MERS saying that both the Note and Mortgage have been assigned when in fact only the mortgage has been transferred with the assignment.

    Now why in tarnations do you suspect they filed that crap on top of the load of shit they dumped previously?

  104. And JG, if you read this case IL vs Nationwide Title Clearing INC., you will understand how they split the note and the mortgage, and when they did it. Left all the Titles Clouded and or Unmarketable. You should even be able to figure out whose titles were involved. Notice they are INC… INC of Who? Ut Umm…

    Illinois is a Judicial State

  105. Nice JG! Let me add this …. In Judicial states they offer you a loan mod application by the tons … you know … those admissions? And get this …. they are offering D.I.L. without a deficiency.

    Nice Right?

  106. Well now, that’s kind of weird, when you think about it: The dot may itself spell out “security first” and some (don’t know how many – could be all) states have security first laws, meaning a lender on a mtg loan must first look to the collateral (the real estate) for satisfaction of a mtg note. So first of all, a mtg note is not enforceable like other promissory notes where a personal money judgment may be the first remedy for default. Because of security first, the lender has no cause of action on the note alone – he must have the rights granted in the dot, as well, since he needs them to go after the house, his one and only first course of action for default on the note.
    Next, deficiency judgments (personal money judgments) may only be obtained if the lender forecloses judicially; deficiency judgments are waived with non-j foreclosure to the best of my recollection.
    The fact which is the “weirdest” is that it may be that total recovery of the money owed as evidenced by these notes may be impossible (and fwiw, in some instances / states was known to be impossible when the loan was made).
    In states which forbid deficiency judgments (even with judicial f/c), the lender has NO, none, zero hope of full recovery if the value of the real estate doesn’t cover what’s owed.
    To the best of my knowledge, these are facts. What it might mean, if anything, to / about these notes outside what I’ve expressed, I don’t know.
    These states, on info and belief, allow deficiency judgments when judicial foreclosure is implemented. Source of states (lists below) =
    Wikipedia. Do your own research or ask a lawyer! Do NOT take these lists as factual!

    District of Columbia
    New Hampshire
    Rhode Island

    These states allow deficiency judgments with certain limits on the amount that can be granted in a judgment per wikipedia:

    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    New York
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    West Virginia

    But see this from
    “Which states don’t allow deficiency judgments:

    California – Allows only a single legal action (Google it)
    Idaho – Allows only a single legal action (Google it)
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    Utah – Allows only a single legal action (Google it)
    Washington state”

    These lists may not be factual. Just what was handy to demonstrate that deficiency judgments are regulated by law and that in some instances, imo, satisfaction of the note is impossible and also demonstrates that other things, statutes (not just the UCC and the Statute of Frauds, for instance) impact mortgage loans).
    Some states prohibit deficiency j’s period and some seem to have some restrictions and yet others say lenders may go for it (but all imo
    are pursuant to judicial foreclosure, and not non-j f/c). There is a pi$$ing match of sorts about helocs and other seconds. I forget what it is. Something about who made or holds the second, like is it the holder of the first (and as I recall, if it were the first, they just “assign” it to someone else to avoid their own prohibition of a def judgment).

  107. “Tickle Tickle” ….. Yes you do. Come on .. Admit it!

  108. KC,

    Wrong. I don’t have a fetish with spelling. I do have a problem with self-proclaimed experts who misuse the legal jargon in order to prey on unsuspecting and ignorant people and openly insult those who call him on it.

    When MS stops trying to fart higher than his butts and comes up with real cases he has testified in and homeowners have won thanks to him, i will cut him some slacks. Until then, I will keep on putting the proper perspective on the kind of individual he is.

  109. M.S. was your Spell Checker drinking last night?

    masterservicer, on December 14, 2013 at 2:19 am said:

    Corrections [Spell Check]

    Answer-Not If the household is siesed of the esate …………

    Just teasing, lol … My friend Christine has a fetish with spelling, …. borderline O.C.D. But we all have our weaknesses and strengths. I know what your weakness is to …. Kindness ….. but we are working on that.

    Tollee, 60lbs … wow! *giggles*

  110. The A man – thanks. If anyone can access the pleadings in Lucas, I would hugely like to read them.

  111. Corrections [Spell Check]

    Answer-Not If the household is siesed of the esate and title is left unencumbered subject to the existing liens of record .. . that were never paid under the HUD I settlement statement

  112. MS

    first thing first is who on the Note as the lender?
    Answer – The Obligor for the amount wired into settlement

    Does the lender entity Holding the Note have a debt owed to it?

    Answer – Not upon the conversion of the borrower obligation , a debt, converting into equity held in a depositors account

    Now there must at sometime be a security instrument recorded placing a lien against the property to foreclose

    Answer – Not if it were substituted out for title and pledged as common stock under a UCC filing

    and it not the loan is a unsecured debt if the owner on the Note is owed the debt.

    Answer- If the household is siesed of the sate and title us left unencumbered subject to the existing lines of record that were never paid under the HUD I settlement statement

    Conclusion : A philosophical argument emerges with using a foreclosure and local recording for the enforcement of an asset backed UCC filing , installment sale contract and clandestine or secretive transfer of the estates title (what you call the trust mortgage and I call the trust title ) ; using nominee Mers Corp and Reg 1.1031 tax deferred exchange used to transfer the title that was sold in a pledge to a foreign national banks!

    The FDCPA is Moot to a secured lenders claims and therefore …2008 short title legislation charged off the toxic obligations being transferred back to the household at a zero basis – cause for issuing the 1099 A etc etc

    I showed this to a CPA and he said he ignores the 1099 A . I pressed and told him to explain and he said I am going against the courts understanding and Congressional act

    I pressed further and asked him to reconcile the 1099 A for my client . He said – “i can’t and…. what your doing is very dangerous ….”

    I am burned brother as I spend most of my time on more esoteric accounting and international securities sites. But as I commented to a colleague -this guy (Reed) is good , very good — compliment

  113. MS first thing first is who on the Note as the lender? Does the lender entity Holding the Note have a debt owed to it? Now there must at sometime be a security instrument recorded placing a lien against the property to foreclose and it not the loan is a unsecured debt if the owner on the Note is owed the debt.

    However if the Note holder is not in possession of the Note because they have signed endorsing the Note to another (anyone) without an exchange of money the Note is no longer valid because a Note in order to be a Note must have a debt! The Note is forever separated from the debt because Ginnie Mae has no legal way of returning the Note with an endorsement because they don’t purchase ANY home mortgage loans at all, and cannot sell it, and they are not a lender or in fact not an investor or seller of Mortgage Backed Securities.

    So we cannot even get to a claim by the investor of or trustee of or any parties because step one was not done correctly to have a lien against the party. There is no valid lien if the Note is not held by the who is owed it, and once the two are separated neither actual exist ever again in the purpose they were created. What a Note if it not got a debt? The is nothing at all.

    Washington Mutual Bank is the last name entry on the Note and they were shut down on Sept 25, 2008 and we know for a fact that Wells Fargo had possession as custodian of records all of the 1.3 million government insured loan as a result of the Jul 31, 2006 mortgage servicing agreement. Even this agreement is not valid because the Notes are being held by an entity that cannot collect a home mortgage payment, so the balance cannot be paid down anyway because they pass-through and are not first applied to the loan but to pay the investors who purchase MBS. The investors are not lenders or servicers and don’t take there earning and apply it to the home owners account.

    Who is in title as the “holder in due course”? and are they in possession of the Note as “holder in due course”? Now if this loan was assigned by another then were is the receipt of purchase. Until you can get pass first base all these other are a part of a Ponzi scheme and it not for the borrowers to make these investors whole, and it not there debt, but this is a result of a totally separate financial transaction post closing!

  114. To Whack Job

    Read …or let me explain how it works . PRIMA-FACIE, EVIDENCE, CASE /Latin for “at first view.” Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.

    A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail. Below’s an example dealing with employment discrimination claims.

    A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII by establishing that (1) he or she belongs to a racial minority; (2) he or she applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (3) he or she was rejected for the position despite his or her qualifications; and (4) the position remained open after his or her rejection and the employer continued to seek applications from other people with similar qualifications to the plaintiff. McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). In Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981), the Supreme Court stated that”[t]he burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous.”

    After the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the plaintiff’s rejection. Id. If the employer sustains the burden, the plaintiff then has the opportunity to present evidence showing that the employer’s stated reason for the rejection was merely pretextual. Id.; see also McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 807; Lindahl, 930 F.2d at 1437 (“The defendant’s articulation of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason serves . . . to shift the burden back to the plaintiff to raise a genuine factual question as to whether the proffered reason is pretextual.”) (quoting Lowe, 775 F.2d at 1008).

    The third step does not require that a plaintiff prove that “he was rejected because of his protected status.” The plaintiff must only show in step three that “despite his qualifications, he was rejected.” McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. The two standards are quite different. The McDonnell Douglas test merely requires that a plaintiff raise an inference of disparate treatment to establish a prima facie case, not actual proof of such treatment.

    Under McDonnell Douglas, to establish his prima facie case, the plaintiff need not prove that discrimination was the motivating factor in his dismissal. All he must do is raise an inference that such misconduct occurred.

    A plaintiff can also establish a prima facie case by “offering evidence adequate to create an inference that an employment decision was based on a discriminatory criteria illegal under [Title VII].” Mitchell v. Office of the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, 805 F.2d 844, 846 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 358 (1977)); see Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (plaintiff can establish prima facie case of disparate treatment without satisfying McDonnell Douglas test if he or she provides evidence suggesting rejection was based on discriminatory criteria), amended, 784 F.2d 1407 (1986). A plaintiff who provides such evidence for his or her prima facie case may be able to survive summary judgment on this evidence alone. Lowe, 775 F.2d at 1008.

    Although “the mere existence of a prima facie case, based on the minimum evidence necessary to raise a McDonnell Douglas presumption, does not preclude summary judgment,” Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 890 (9th Cir. 1994), “the plaintiff [who has established a prima facie case] need produce very little evidence of discriminatory motive to raise a genuine issue of fact” as to pretext. Lindahl, 930 F.2d at 1437. In fact, any indication of discriminatory motive . . . may suffice to raise a question that can only be resolved by a factfinder. Once a prima facie case is established . . . summary judgment for the defendant will ordinarily not be appropriate on any ground relating to the merits because the crux of a Title VII dispute is the elusive factual question of intentional discrimination. Id. at 1438 (quoting Lowe, 775 F.2d at 1009) (citation omitted). Thus, burden at the summary judgment stage is not great.

    The first blush; the first view or appearance of the business; as, the holder of a bill of exchange, indorsed in blank, is prima facie its owner.

    Prima facie evidence of a fact, is in law sufficient to establish the fact, unless rebutted. For example, when buildings are fired by sparks emitted from a locomotive engine passing along the road, it is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of those who have the charge of it.

  115. Reed ‘

    They reconstituted on sponsors guarantees as of 2012. Stop

  116. Christine is correct –
    spell check ….I got your email and engagement letter back and thank you – so much . Thank you

    Whacked out with very poor hygiene – what I’m told by those who know you …I’m sorry

  117. Christine I love what you said in hiding our shame, and it is exact what is being done, plus we been so ignore for so long to the fact of what taken place.

  118. masterservicer, on December 13, 2013 at 3:27 am said:

    See your mortgage statement from 2009 and beyond. Therein is a embedded code that is prima fascia in support of dual tracking a contra assets account

    PRIMA FACIE. Look up “fascia” once and for all, shall you? An “expert” allegedly testifying in court that something is “prima fascia’ evidence of anything is sure to help homeowners a great deal… Any wonder serious fighters don’t trust anything coming out of that guy?

  119. MS remember Ginnie Mae pools are not in default which is the different that your talking about. The reason the Notes are relinquished to Ginnie Mae is to prevent what your talking about that the did not get into the hand of a conservator or the bankruptcy court hand because there is no proof that the securities in the case of Ginnie Mae that there have been any money that was paid for the underlying collateral.

    That why they make the issuers/lenders sign the HUD11711A so that they are trying to tie up the lose ends. Ginnie Mae got a problem as it not like the other securities as the Federal Government is not allowing a court to not give them control of these assets. So the rigged the system from the start back in 1971!

  120. Mike,

    This is not the first time a dissenting judge makes a homeowner’s case. If homeowners really did the work it takes of learning from the pros instead of wasting time and energy commiserating with each others or hiding their shame, by now, we’d all be home free.

  121. JG I like your lay opinions.
    especially when two 1099s exist for one mortgage transaction and theft by fraud foreclosure by non-creditor.

    Wonder how that works when both try to do something with them with the IRS.
    So far the borrower is saddled with them, but I wonder if by not using mine in any way, if it still leaves something hanging that I can’t see over the heads of the two entities that created the claim.
    PNC and Fannie Mae, when PNC did a Special Warranty Deed supposedly handing things over to Fannie Mae.

    I like that they may have given up the right to writeoff by going through the 21 day fast path non-judicial fraud foreclosure and the subsequent ‘evict the occupant because my client purchased the home at a foreclosure sale’ court process.

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

  122. Qui Tam is submitted and nothing about the case could be discussed about the case as it was sealed,

    Reed I agree , Qui Tam is a trap i almost fell into to – it puts a huge target on your back and during a fire will cause your wife to quiet the children as they exit because Dad is sleeping

  123. DECEMBER 13TH 2013

    Monsieur Reed

    What do you think the appointment of a conservator is for …


    Among the reps and warranties are the Guarantor assurances as the

    “Holder” that consents to the appointment of a conservator, receiver or

    liquidator due to insolvency, for purposes of readjustment of debt,

    marshalling of assets and liabilities or similar proceedings relating to

    the Guarantor or to all or substantially all of its property; or (e) the

    Guarantor admits in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as

    they become due, including the filing of a petition to invoke any

    applicable insolvency or reorganization statute, make an assignment

    for the benefit of its creditors, or voluntarily suspend payment of its



  124. Not too long ago, a well-known (to us) attorney was fighting a claim based on possession of a bearer note, l & s. The bankster said “aha! we have the note, so blah blah.” There WAS NO blah blah. The note alone – in his state – was NO claim because his state was security first and without the coll instrument, the bankster should’ve been made to eat a rock. The attorney didn’t make the “you have no claim based on this note (alone)” argument, but later complained the court was biased, can’t win, and so on. Bah! Short recap IMO:

    * the note without the dot is unenforceable (no pers judgment allowed as first remedy for default on these sec’d by r.e. notes) and note not constitute a justiciable claim. Personal judgment only allowed by way of deficiency j after judicial foreclosure only (not following non-j foreclosure) and then only in states which allow deficiency judgments.

    * These notes identify who may enforce, who is appropriately called a holder: one who takes by transfer and is entitled to payments.
    I construe these as warranties to the maker, that such a party
    will be the only party to come after the maker.

    * Only a HIDC is free of most affirmative defenses. Among other
    things, to be a HIDC, one must have taken the note without notice
    of its dishonor, without notice of prior payment, and only to the
    dollar amt it’s actually paid as distinct from promised to pay (if any)

    * A party who is not the note holder as defined in the note itself
    has no right to an assignment of a dot. An assignment of the
    dot to a non-holder bifurcates the note and dot. ** This and
    security-first preclude enforcement of these notes by a thief
    and others with no right to act. This may (or may not) affect
    the note as a ‘negotiable instrument’.

    * An assignment of a dot requires a writing. An executed and
    accepted assignment is binding on the parties thereto (generally)
    if executed by a bona fide such and such of the assignor whether
    recorded or not. It’s not binding on those with no knowledge of the
    assignment, including and especially the borrower, which is why BK trustees and certain bk debtors may avoid the unrecorded interest pursuant to 544 something. (Banksters are hard at work behind the scenes trying to get that changed – yes, they are.)

    * Remic’s may not own real estate. This precludes them from being
    the successful bidders at foreclosure sales. This has caused
    more fraud and was a primary reason for MERS. The MERS
    Consent Order interferred with this remedy for the trusts
    inability to own real estate by way of a successful credit
    bid at the foreclosure sale and prompted every post-default
    assignment by “MERS” to trusts. One will never find a deed
    from a secn trust to a buyer of a foreclosed property. If NG is
    right and now the game (again) is the loans weren’t securitized, or
    more appropriately, were never meant to be, that likely requires
    10 more bullets.

    * Imo, the bankster has foregone a write-off and its accompanying
    debt-forgiveness 1099 by opting for non-judicial foreclosure: he
    chose not to pursue the deficiency. A write-off is generally only
    allowed after a legitimate attempt to collect, as anyone who has
    tried to take a write-off for uncollectible debt has learned, and
    since a deficiency j is only allowed with judicial foreclosure, there
    was no attempt to collect. The bankster took a bogus write-off
    and the homeowner is dunned with a bogus 1099.

    **If MERS is thee ben (by novation imo), the note and dot are
    already bifurcated and maybe fatally so. One or more courts have stated that a bifurcated note and dot may be re-unified, citing – without reference – the Restatement of I forget. This doesn’t speak to ‘original’ bifurcation i.e., the lender was never the ben.

    These are strictly lay opinions.

  125. i’M sure you all know know the meaning of the phrase Nemo Dat
    —–you have to own something to sell it or give it away.

    The parties occupying my two condos have no title,lot of fraudulent papers issued by Fidelity Title and a sham title company David K FIVESON calls Coronet Title .

    My titles have never left me. Judge Alice Schlesinger cannot be that dumb that she doesn’t know the basic rule of JUSTICE. THAT A COURT WITH OUT JURISDICTION CANNOT ISSUE A VALID JUDGMENT.

    A Void Abnitio judgment never turns good.

    . Even the Bank Astoria Federal knew it was indemnify indemnify indemnify and i don’t think they had any idea the judge Alice Schlesinger of NYSC was going to take a bribe to rule against the law of the land of the US Constitution.

  126. MS with a VA loan their is no recourse and is part of the agreement in originating a VA loan so their is no reconstituting the debt as the debt is consider to be settled. Now what I have done over those year is file a whistle-blower claim in Aug 2011 for these Ginnie Mae MBS.

    TARP was passed to buy these toxic assets and was passed on that reason but there was a clause and Hank “Goldman” Sachs instead of buying the toxic assets gave the money to the banks. MS this is well documented.

    Now look I could not convince a attorney except one to handle the case and we did let the US Attorney that we were filing a Qui Tam in Jun 2011 however, we the attorney broke off the deal because I would not provide every single document including copies of everything, and I could not retain a single piece sheet of what I had collected.

    I did not trust that at that time, but knowing now what I know about when a Qui Tam is submitted and nothing about the case could be discussed about the case as it was sealed, I do see the problem with clients running around with documents of the case. However I did not have blind trust of someone I just met.

    You live and learn!

  127. Leave a Reply” . . . ..believe the banks got too greedy and should have paid out smaller settlement to known victims

    Reed – your two philosophical ….STOP ! The Congressional passage of TARP charged off all TOXIC assets include your mortgage. Over the next two years YOU did nothing and they reconstituted value need to allow a debt collector the right to recover LOST collateral

  128. Leave a Reply

    There no longer is appraisal fraud …its called basis accounting
    No longer is prepayment speed risk a problem …Reg 1.1031 exchanges. And there no longer is any home-ownership in America – its called a sale- lease back and Lender installment sale contract.

    You think i made this up —Discovery folks Discovery

  129. johngault I agree with you comment, and Mike I believe the judges like everybody else as has been mention, just did not know! This started out as the best crime ever, however I believe the banks got too greedy and should have paid out smaller settlement to known victims, but motivation is being that guy or gal that said I had enough and I am not taking it anymore.

    Now it may even turn out that even with all this discovery that bank still make a boat load, and the crime does pay.

  130. GAINES v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INS., et al. CA Appellate Case #B244961 published 12/12/13. Et als include Countrywide, Aurora, Lehman Brothers, etc.

    Check out Justice Rubin’s dissenting remarks, really.

    ” As is common in many of these “financial meltdown” cases, promissory notes are separated from deeds of trusts, paperwork is often not complete, and the parade of people and entities appears endless.”.

    And, to sum it up…

    “In my view the dismissal of this lawsuit under the circumstances described defeats the substantial ends of justice. Instead, it rewards parties who, it would appear, have played a major and unlawful role in the theft of someone’s home.”. And…

    “I would reverse the trial court’s judgment in its entirety.”.

    How is it that things are so crystal clear to Rubin but not so for his colleagues? Everyone should read this decision.

  131. Neil, reading your blog and like (and appreciate) it so far, til I get to this:

    “The mortgage is a collateral agreement for protection of the creditor in the event that the collection on the note does not satisfy the full debt.”

    That’s not at all accurate (and maybe it’s not what you really believe and meant), which would be no great shakes except that the scheme, importantly, of a mortgage loan is that a lender must generally look to the collateral (“security first”) for satisfaction of a note when the borrower stops payment. Your statement seems to make the dynamic the other way around: the lender goes after a borrower for a money judgment and then goes after the home if the judgment doesn’t satisfy the note, which is not so and can’t generally be so. The reason I give a hoot and think we all should is that a note imo is not a claim AT ALL by itself in a state which adheres to “security first”. The dot also probably says security first (on my list, dontchaknow). Leaving aside the states which have “security first” statutes (meaning, again, the lender must first look to the collateral for satisfaction), if the dot itself spells out security first (because the dot is referenced and therefore likely incorporated into the terms of the note), I’m not sure how, if at all but maybe, that caveat (security first) affects the negotiability of the note. (Seems to me it does) If the dot spells our security first, then there is no value to being ‘just’ a holder (or hidc) of the note (without the dot) since, unlike other notes, enforcement must first be against the collateral and plus, some states preclude deficiency judgments on mtg loans. Those aren’t hallmarks of a negotiable instrument. Other notes used in commerce are enforceable by personal judgment against their makers and by and large if not always, these particular notes aren’t. If the dot doesn’t recite security first, then borrowers can yet scour their state’s statutes for security first laws. The point is that because a note by itself is not in fact enforceable, it’s not in fact a claim, and neither poss of a note endorsed in blank or one specially endorsed changes that. No claim is no claim.
    So whether or not a coll instrument follows a note becomes paramount. I say it doesn’t, not dot’s anyway (not so sure about “mortgages”). I say it doesn’t because interests in real property, which are regulated by the Statute of Frauds, must be evidenced by a writing (and the borrower must have Notice of that interest, etc. etc, which was heretofore generally accomplished by recordation). Courts may say recordation is primarily for the purpose of securing the lender’s position. Okay, I guess, but it’s also to provide Notice to the borrower of the party with the interest in his property, without which imo enforcement is not possible (and without the note, except in the out-to-lunch AZ, the ben can’t enforce against the property or anything else). One of the many errant imo things AZ is saying is that a ben may enforce against the real property, while it’s a given that even in the absence of language in the dot or a security first statute, the claimant couldn’t otherwise enforce the debt itself. This is true because the claimant doesn’t have to demonstrate interest in the note to allege ben status in the dot in AZ (apparently). So looks to me like AZ says an alleged ben may enforce against the home while that alleged ben couldn’t enforce the note (!).

    Real property interests aren’t transferred by voodoo or by possession of a dot and aren’t regulated by the UCC, anyway. The only thing in the UCC which the banksters are known to cite in support of the ridiculous proposition that a dot follows a note is 9-203(g), which most assuredly doesn’t say that. It says that a security interest in the note creates a security interest in its collateral. A security interest is not an assignment. If it were, or if a dot followed a note, there would be no need for an assignment and historically, we’d never have seen any. If I pay you for a note and I get it, I have a right to the assignment of the coll instrument, but I just don’t have it. I don’t know if the bona fide transfer of the note to me creates a security instrument in the dot. Maybe. Might even be probably. But I do believe this: even one who took a note by transfer and doesn’t get an assignment of the dot overlooks this at his own peril; he has an unsecured, unenforceable note (aka no claim) by way of security first statutes and or language in the dot.


  132. There in this case from this year that the judge ruled in Ohio, Wells Fargo Bank v. Rebecca Reaves were Wells Fargo claimed to be holder, but not holder in due course as Wells first received a default judgement however over 6 month later the defendant when into court and got that over turned because they proved that Wells Fargo was not the “holder in due course” and that as they claim to be working for JPMorgan they could not provide evident were JPM was the holder as the Note was signed in blank and was does so by Washington Mutual Bank and and was titled as such when the May 2012 judgement was awarded.

    As this was overturned in May 2013, it signals to me is that it over and we are just getting in position to win this war. They have “No Standing” to be able what they have done and they are clearing the deck with the settlement of the securities in a procedure were I say they are rescinding these securities, but will have to settle the past illegal foreclosures because the damage has been done!

  133. Thanks. NG, I needed that – the word ‘bailment’ eluded me. Helped me lead to argument that GSE can’t make credit bid so vesting assignment is made at last minute to ‘correct’ clouded title caused by agent / trustee filing NOD where recorded beneficiary is not the party on the notice. That results in fewer and lower bids, increasing chance credit bid will prevail and is a violation of PC 115.5, felony false filing, and unclean hands.

    So it makes sense to commit to a national settlement with the states instead of facing a slew of $75k fines (Ca) and state prison time.

  134. It’s time this dam of fraud, is busted wide open !!

  135. I do see the immediate transfer of the loan to another represents the originator never intended to actual hold the debt loan for a long term making making the likelihood of cheater monies to be lent for the actual risk of securities, So instead of a mortgage home loan were the investors cannot itself make mortgage home loans or even want the risk but in the case of the Federal Reserve Bank who is wanting the 100% insurance on the principal investment is the beauty of this crime.

    The Fed want monies in the market to extract as much monies from the public as possible, but they make the US Taxpayer the mark of paying for the losses.

    Look at the beauty of this crime where the heads of the parties in Obama & McCain come together in Oct to meet with the out going President in the last month of the Presidential race, and Obama is knee deep in Democratic Wall Street bankers campaign money.

    So the three meet and Obama appears to be the most knowledgeable one and is elected and all his advisers on the economics after Wall Street connected guys. Now I believe Obama not that well enough versed in finance so he go out, and speaks of some generics Fat Cat Banker and these deadbeat homeowners that the GOP, Dem and public identify with as the bad people working together to create the financial crisis. However it painted to the public that look your 401K has lost 45% of its value and your saving, pension and way of life will all if we don’t stop the bleeding, so we got to saving the bank so you will regain what you lost, and if we can we help these deadbeat, even that we don’t want to encourage the bad behavior of “living out side your means” but we need to save some of the responsible one out the goodness of our hearts!

    So no matter what was the reasoning of the homeowner as to how or why they were wronged, the President who created this modification program, told the public that no crime were committed by the banks, as it was only bad ethics that was not a crime but just boys being boy. Court caught off guard and never experiencing this volume of foreclosure and in most cases in the pass when employment was at 5% and another job was around the corner, the homeowners in the past just did not make the payment and foreclosure was inevitable, so why prolong the process.

    Now America is face with 10 million ex-homeowner deadbeats from a wide walk of life who 99.5% of the foreclosed had jobs to qualified for the loan in the first place, and all suddenly decided to stop paying their mortgage loan payment? Obama acts as if mass unemployment was not the cause of most of the foreclosures and he planted that people chose to purchase a home they could not pay for knowing this fact.

    So as the usual defender were taken out the fight as in the NAACP, Urban League, Jackson or Sharpton who have seem to be paid off in one way or another where Jackson’s son was under legal problem with the Federal Gov, and the idiot Sharpton who was $3 million behind on his taxes, but get appointed by the President to be some spokesperson for education and the dude get hired by MSNBC after having protect turned violent and Jewish people and some workers were killed by Sharpton’s protectors?

    Now we got the LIBOR rigged, energy prices rigged and bad underwritten loan in securities all by the first present Good Banker out the bunch in JPMorgan has in the last month or so has paid over $20 billion not only here but they are fined in Europe, yet have we seen these foreclosed overturned in mass by JPMorgan?

    Once again as with the JPMorgan of the Wahington Mutual Bank loans deal how does 1.3 million Federal Government loan go under the radar who is owner of these loan that Wells Fargo Bank is servicing claiming that they are the “holder in due course” but saying what Neil is saying that they are “holder of the Note” we know they are holding the Notes as the custodian of record, who last I check they are being hired by Ginnie Mae to be the custodian of record and cannot be granted ownership of the debt when in fact we know Ginnie Mae did not and could not purchase the debt!

  136. I requested a copy of my note from Aurora. 1st version came was endorsed in blank. Latter they sent me another version that was endorsed from brooker to Residential funding to trustee (Deutsche) and with an allonge appointing Aurora as the power of attorney.

    Loan gets sold to nationstar. Again I ask for a note. Their version is endorsed in blank from the broker. Predating Auroras versions. My DOT was assigned from Aurora to Nationstar. However, response from FDCPA dispute states Nationstar is not the current note holder but Deutsche bank is. They can be given “Temporary” possession to give authority to foreclose.

    I have already alleged that they split the note which should seem obvious but AZ is so in favor of banks. No note required only that trustee is authorized and meet criteria set fourth in Statutes. Don’t forget AZ also contradicts Logan saying that the Deed & Note can be “reunited”. Total BS

    My position is that the note may not be required but that the fact there are multiple versions is prime facia evidence of malfeasance, robosigning, etc…Also, there is one person who has signed in multiple capacities. The next lawsuit will be against the trustee if the sale is concluded. I have and continue to make them aware of all wrong doings in my case.

    O and also the HUD 1 shows a funding date a week after my loan closed and shows a different party altogether so the note itself is defective thus unenforceable. If we talk about tolling for a minute the RESPA and TILA claims can still be made. (This is from a previous post from this blog but appropriate)

    (1) Ramsey v. Vista Mortgage Corp, 176 BR 183 (TILA RESCISSION IN BANKRUPTCY CHAPTER 13 CASE). In this case, the court laid down the test of when the three year right to rescind begins to run and specifically tackles the concept of when a loan is “consummated.” Several internal citiations also help clarify this point. Here is what the Ramsey Court said:
    “When Ramsey signed the loan documents on September 13, 1989, he knew who was going to provide the financing. Courts recognize the date of signing a binding loan contract as the date of consummation when the lender is identifiable.” The Court also cited to the Jackson v. Grant, 890 F.2d case (9th Circuit 1989), a NON-BANKRUPTCY CASE, and said: “the Ninth Circuit held that under California law a loan contract was not consummated when the borrower signed the promissory note and deed of trust because the actual lender was not known at that time. Under these circumstances, the loan is not “consummated” until the actual lender is identified, because until that point there is no legally enforceable contract.”

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: