Neil, What Are You Really Saying in Plain English

That is the question one of my callers asked.

So let me try to explain the mortgage monstrosity in short plain statements. Based upon my analysis of information in the public domain, there are two ways that anyone claim a loan was securitized — carved up into pieces and then sold to multiple buyers or bundled with other loans. Either way — carving or bundling is meant to decrease risk. If one loan goes bad it is only a small part of the entire portfolio of loans you bought so the perception of risk is reduced.

There are two types of transactions in which a loan enters the stream of claims of securitization — origination and acquisition. Origination is what it sounds like — money from the investors is used to fund the loan. Acquisition is a purchase of the loans with investor funds from someone who made the loan without the help or money of anyone else. Either way, it is the money of investors that is used and therefore they are the only ones paying value for the loan. Therefore they are the creditor.

There are two ways that the investors money can enter the system — Purchasing mortgage bonds or direct funding. Either way there is an intermediary party aggregating or carving the loans up. And here is the problem, to wit:

The investor money was used for direct funding of the loan origination or direct funding of the purchase of the loan. But the loan documentation named some third party that didn’t loan or purchase the loan. My analysis indicates that not only was there no agency agreement between the investors and the party NAMED as the originator or purchaser, but that this was an intentional act of deception. The broker dealers selling the bond were selling a security issued by a REMIC trust.

But instead of giving the trust the money, they kept it and tacked on fees. And instead of using the investors’ money to make loans through a trust they converted a direct funding transaction in which the investors should have been named the lenders into an acquisition from a “third party” thus creating a “profit” for the broker dealer. The profit was the sale of the loan the investor already owned to a trust that was never funded. They took junk mortgages and sold them as platinum loans — creating an entirely fictitious profit for the broker dealer and increasing the risk of loss to investors exponentially.

So the investor had his money split into two pieces — neither of which was the purchase of the bond, which is why all those investors and agencies and law enforcement are accusing the broker dealer of fraud. One piece was used to fund the origination or purchase of the loan and the other piece was a pool of money that would be used for Servicer advances and extra trading profits on fictitious trades generated internally by the broker dealer. This process creates a lying mortgage securing a lying note. And that is why the investors are saying the paper is unenforceable.

The banks have done a good job of blaming the borrowers for the fraud. But it is clear that no borrower even understands this process now, much less as the designer of the scheme. The broker dealers racked up huge profits through theft of investor money that should have been used to fund the origination or acquisition of mortgage loans but was used instead to create a slush fund. The fact that SOME of the money was used for loans is not good enough because that changed the whole deal and created a loan transaction with the borrower in which the actual lender was left out and the designated lender was a party controlled by the broker dealer to create fictitious transactions or purchase insurance on loans the brokers didn’t own.

In cases like this the law is clear. Victims of the fraud must receive as much restitution of their investment as possible. And the perpetrators of the fraud are not allowed to enforce any “contracts” (loans) that they created under false pretenses to both the lender and the borrower. It is called unclean hands. So unless the foreclosing party can show a money trail that leads to the doorstep of the foreclosing party they have nothing but dirt on their hands.

Does this create a free house for the borrower? In most cases the answer is no. Because the borrowers were putting down earnest money and equity in their homes to get these wondrous loans that were too good to be true based upon appraisals of pricing that were coerced.

The bottom line is that the perpetrators of false schemes may not be allowed to keep the benefit of the money they stole nor the benefit of contracts they created under false pretenses to both the lender and the borrower.

Does that help?

74 Responses

  1. Carrie…a little more complicated than that, is seems.

  2. No, Neil…the securities investors are NEVER the “creditors”—no matter how many times you say it or spin it. Under TILA 1641 g. According to the law, any investor with the largest position in your “alleged” loan, has to identify itself to you…they never do.

  3. BobG

    After reading Bloomberg:s (Dec 31 /13)“ Wall Street has become America’s landlord” thru to the end , what is surfacing is the end product of this massive fraud from loan origination to the present is to bring communism to the United States of America.

  4. “Whip…you’re closing in on something extremely important. Please go into more detail.”

  5. Of course the loans were not funded, just as the Documentation NEVER LEFT the Originators so-called WAREHOUSE! It was all BOGUS>>>> SO why were those loans never funded, and Investor $$$ pooled or Slushed?? Easy, because of Greed, Arrogance, In ur Face Laziness, and more Importantly the Ability of “credit swaps”, and “Default Insurance” aka PMI, Collateral swaps, or “Cross” Collateralize the Pool, or Outright Repurchase Collateral in default for Dimes on Doughnuts while keeping the Initial Investments by Investors. All sorts of Games especially where you have a “high Touch” aka Master Servicer who is Hedging the Back Doors. Until you Expose the Books, the PSA is just a pipe Dream in front of a Kangaroo Judge.

  6. MS & NPV

    You guys are missing my point. I want to know why all the subprime tranches in the monthly distribution report are empty, how they got emptied, who emptied them, and for what purpose or end. That’s the key to the whole deal and what will bring these guys down. Think about what I just said and the importance of obtaining answers to those questions.

  7. You buy a car off the car lot

    the contract is with Long Dong Toyota
    the cost to floor the car is with Toyota Commercial Credit Corporation the contract is sold to Toyota Credit Acceptance Corporation

    So, the amount necessary to satisfy the cost to floor the car is
    1) Paid by the boogie man
    2) Paid by the consumer
    3) Paid by the Acceptance Corporation
    4) Merged into the flooring line transferred over to credit acceptance

    Answer (4)

    This is perfectly legal for creating an installment sale contract …but no so for a secure mortgage contract

  8. Bob

    For a deposition

    Who is the Lender -HUD 1 statement
    Who is the Credit provider – the Lender
    Who is the Seller – The credit provider
    Who is the transferor – the lender

    Who then is the assignee ?

    Don’t hire me – just read what I say and have an attorney nix it and go with a Robo the Hobo signor argument and mustard off the hot dog BS claim …..

  9. too bad, with what you know, there’s money to be made here.

  10. Sorry, Bob – Neil is the lawyer on this site. I am just some pathetic old washed-up wall street guy. I have never deposed anyone except my ex-wife, and she took all my shit!

    They got the access to the Fed window, the rest was throwing a couple bones to some of the borrowers to appease our fearless leaders.

    Every great dynasty comes to an end! Most folks are waiting for John Wayne to ride in and save the day. Unfortunately, the days of the good guy rising up has passed,, and so went with it, are the simple days of ole.


  11. So give us a roadmap…what key questions should be asked in a deposition, and who should the deponents be?

  12. @ Bob1365 – See- Master Servicer / NIM Insurer and the term clean-up call. Also, investigate Grantor Trust and the Depositor.

    “I’ve got to run to keep from hiding”

    Many still believe the NPV tool was developed to help distressed homeowners. The NPV Calculator is a loan decision engine, and exists only to recapture current borrower data, which is required to insure the GSE and some PLMBS loans (alleged) that they are re-securitizing. The NPV is the loan decision engine to replace DO / DU for distressed debt.

    I beg anyone on this site to find one, JUST ONE, Final HAMP Modification Agreement that lists FNM or FRE as the lender.

    Hiding in plain sight!

  13. about what happened to the stuff that was in the tranches that are now empty

  14. About what?

  15. Y’all can sat whatever you want about the MS guy/girl, but he /she has got it right. Finally, the Originator in any pool, as identified in the “Underwriting Agreements”, MLPA, Swap Agreement is the Sponsor or any affiliate thereof. The rest are fetch banks with a nifty title like correspondent lender, or affiliated seller-agent.

    Even the reserve system banks used wholly owned subsidiaries to seek-out and close loans – the key part is; they did not fund or originate loans pursuant to the PSA.

    The loans were all underwritten (alleged) pursuant to the Aggregator’s Lending Guidelines. That is why interest rates vary at loan inception – credit risk and hedging costs based on a credit matrix. Even Fannie and Freddie had DO/DU, which after 2004 would accept shit ALT-A and other sub-prime credit files – just to compete with the Private Label MBS.

    Fannie Mae and Freddie – were on the verge of collapse due to increased private competition back in 2003. They paid guys like Newt Gingrich to lobby for lax underwriting standards – so they too could participate in the free-for-all. If we started indicting the CEO’s of the N.A.’s, do you know how many FNM, FRE, GNM, FHLB Officers and Politicinas would also have to be indicted.

    Fight your individual case based on the merits of your specific arguments and funding pool. Let NG continue to peddle his goods, and would someone hire this MS guy already. It was like slob-on-the-knob, who used to come here every so often, they all write some neat arguments, and all are right to some extent, you just never hear about their arguments winning cases. I WANT WINS.


  16. You and I need to talk.

  17. @ Trespass Unwanted – Go take a quick gander at the FNM and FRE business model – they are the circuit, and nothing will change because they have both been a political slush fund for generations.

  18. Charles, exactly right on that last comment. That is why the Servicer provides the affidavit of merit, and not the officers of the SPE, investment bank or the trust company.

    These guys don’t even allege to own the note any longer, they claim “holder status”, which I do not believe is “holder in due course”. I believe it is “Eric Holder Status”, who is the ultimate culprit, and allows this to continue.

    Not one Trustee will admit to owning anything, because they know the Trust never had any of the money, and did not receive the mortgage loans prior to the closing date, or anytime thereafter prior to a default by the Obligee at the sub-service level.

  19. MS i don’t doubt what you are saying but because the titles are a state controlled issues just as foreclosures, the arrangement that a lender may or may not have had is not the homeowners concerned……Period!

    You cannot call a loan due if you not the “holder of the debt” in title!

  20. Understand the difference between debt and equity . Your lender formed a Special Purpose entity now banned under GAAP. Read for yourself

    The devise known as Special purpose entities (SPE), also referred to as off–balance-sheet arrangements, that companies used to enter into securitization. The SPE served a legitimate business purpose at one time – that was to isolate financial risk and provide less-expensive financing.

    This assumes that SPEs do not engage in business transactions other than the ones for which they are formed. Their activities are assured or backed by their sponsors, the member bank corporate officers.

    The SPE are essential to the banks as they used mortgages offered at a prevailing rate to raise investor funds at fraction of the cost – i.e. your payments financed the waterfall.

    This is where something went terribly wrong and Robo the Hobo, Abe the Assignor and Lien Garfield arguments wont carry the weight of the fact that ……[Read TARP]

    Mortgage Loan . . . . . . $350,000.00
    Coupon . . . . . . . . . . 8.325%
    Ann. Debt Service . . . .$29,137.50
    30 Day Comm’l Paper ..0.83%
    Added Paid Capital . . $3,500,000.00

    Take a 8.325 percent mortgage and SPE offering 30 day commerical paper at 80 BPS – woosh you have lower interest rates than those available to the originator bank and a windfall held on deposit that is exactly 10:1 equity to debt

    The best part about it is the deposits are not offset by liabilities and
    these off–balance-sheet arrangements can be found in the Banks registration of a qualifying special purpose entities (QSPE)

    First cause of Action
    Lenders extinguished Liabilities forcing tax payer sponsors to charge off mortgages and write off the existing liens of record

    1. Defendants used the consumers title to the estate for perpetrating undisclosed financing schemes that imposed hardship on the household by multiplying the repayment of the borrowers loan by ten times its value [10:1 ratio]

    2. Defendants failed to meet the member bank tax payer requirements set forth in SFAS 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishment of Liabilities.

    [See – “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities—An Interpretation of Accounting Research Bulletin (ARB) No. 51,”]

    -attack the argument – not the writers ….

  21. correction 75 billion

    Trespass Unwanted

  22. Charles Reed,
    Their remedies are single remedies. For One.
    Some of us have placed ourselves with the masses. The ones who are ignorant of the transaction behind our transaction, who ‘thought’ we were in honor as we dealt with these persons, and who were robbed of our assets under color of law and color of authority while they pretended valid contracts were in place to compel performance, and they were not.

    So the individual winners went to court to expose there was no valid contract, so the all powerful ‘no law impairing the obligations of contracts shall be made’, is moot when it’s exposed that there was no meeting of the minds and no consenting parties and that the parties are ‘foreign’ to each other.

    There are people like me, who know I was ignorant of the transaction and I have friends, family, neighbors, community, people laid off, people on food stamps, people sick and shut in, who are going to deal with these persons, and they are going to remain ignorant and be taken advantage of.

    How do you catch a thief? You have something that doesn’t belong to them, you watch them steal it so it’s in their possession without authority or right to have it, and you follow the trail to all the other stolen goods.

    There are people who think greater than a small circle.

    This is impacting people worldwide and there are giants among us who want to see where this all began, and expose it for what it is, and let their own rules consume them in their own theft.

    We have free will, and we are the creditors.
    They have turned our ignorance against us, and want those able bodied who can ‘pay for our assets’ to go to court and pay for it back, or trick us into valid contracts that will compel performance when we didn’t need to enter those types of contracts to have shelter.

    The first shall be last. The last shall be first.

    The property is ours if we haven’t entered into subsequent contracts after the fraud to validate their claim like mods, or bankruptcy, or signing settlement checks. A signed settlement check is final judgment. They will never tell you the truth behind the transaction.

    From what I can tell, there is a squeeze going on to back out, but the first guy to backs out has no support from the other guys to buy his exit. So all are sitting there holding papers they need to sell and there is no buyer, but they are being foreclosed on, because they have I would guess something like 90 days to come up with the proceeds they are backing out of.

    It’s a nasty catch 22. The Fed is only going to purchase 75 million, but there is more out there that needs to be sold, and someone is controlling the amount that hits the market, in my opinion.

    I heard of a woman, 72-yrs old, going to jail over a traffic ticket from not wearing a seat belt. The ticket was written in 2009, and they put her in jail in 2013 due to a warrant for that ticket.

    Why would they hold a warrant that long? They were in her estate, is my guess and opinion. Why did they arrest her now? They have to close out all their outstanding transactions and pay the piper is my second guess. Now this woman will sign a bond ( a new financial instrument) to get out of jail, and that will maybe, validate their 5 year hold in her estate, because she won’t know what was going on behind the scenes.

    My opinion is, all these people had no right to rob us of our estate if the account was paid when we signed the paperwork. Something has been revealed it and it wasn’t from the closed circuit of a court.

    They are closed circuits. Someone opened that circuit to outside exposure and what happens when a circuit is left open? If it’s charged, the charges get drained.

    We had to go outside of them for the remedy and in my opinion, the stakes had to be high enough for the custodian of our estates that if nothing was done, by their own rules the custodian is the culprit. Now don’t you think that custodian will start looking down the chain at all the people that should have done something and didn’t?

    It seems to me, the unwinding has been going on, and it’s a controlled falling of the house of cards, but really, how long can anyone control something like a house of cards falling or stacked dominoes falling?

    Not long. One day, we sleep through the night and the next day, all heck has broken lose.

    All I can say is a bond situation was back peddled and unwound as if to save someone’s neck in these days of computer trading transactions.

    They need to sell and unwind their claims, in my opinion, and everyone wanting to sell means no buyers except the Fed.

    All the other countries are through with us, it seems. China and others deal with each other using real assets. Our print as much as we want money means nothing to them, and we are tired of them going to war.

    So many have expatriated and the rest have renounced their citizenship. People have unregistered out of the system, and on guy said he resigned his position as the corporation they created with the birth certificate.

    All I know is there is fewer and fewer people attached to a system based on fraud, and more of us have awakened (not just sleep walking) and have studied the fraud, and know that what was done cannot be done, and we know they have rules in place to keep it from being done, but just enough was in the group to allow it to happen, but not everyone is in the group and not everyone will go down as culpable in someone else’s unjust enrichment.

    Ill gotten gains cannot be kept.
    IRS is a good place to point the all seeing eye, once you know how to tap their shoulders and get them to look.

    Reminds me of the eye in the Lord of the Rings.
    Once it focuses on something, people jump and it’s got an army just that big behind it to enforce the very rules they wrote and broke.

    Keep your eyes open.
    The single resolution people are not the ones who have cracked the matrix to free the rest of the world from this financial tyranny.

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

  23. Paraphrasing some discussions about Article 9 from a youtube video.

    Article 9 UCC, a promissory note is a promise to pay, not an order to pay which would be a check.

    Debtor, the person who has an interest in the collateral. The person who owes the obligation is now the Obligor.

    Rights to payment for real property sold; is in the expanded definition of account (account receivable).

    Perfection rules in the security interest. Perfection means the perfection step plus the attachment step.
    o Deferral to other law (ex. like a federal statute that preempts a state statute for perfection)
    o Automatic perfection Section 9.3.10 (certain types of security interest where it was determined there wasn’t a requirement to have public notice)
    o Possession or control (very few that you can’t file to; one you must possess to perfect is money, not rights to money but currency – something declared by government or a country to be money. You perfect by possession; unless it’s proceeds then you can use the proceeds by perfection rule.)
    Question was what about secured party wants to perfect by possession but doesn’t have possession, how do they perfect possession by bailee? You have to separate the steps of possession in 4 different areas.
    o If you have a document of title issued for goods. (it’s not covered in this part of the discussion).
    o If the third party in possession is actually an agent of the secured party under agency law (its not covered in this part of the discussion)?

    What’s left is a bailee who is not an agent and who has not issued a document of title, for this group of possession by third parties you have to have an acknowledgement by the bailee in order to perfect by possession. That acknowledgment is authenticated record they hold for the benefit of the secured party. Those bailees don’t have to make the acknowledgment. They are under no duty to make the acknowledgment. At least by virtue of Article 9, they might under some other contract law have such a duty. Once they make the acknowledgment under Article 9, they have no duties because they’ve made the acknowledgment. They don’t have to actually comply with the acknowledgment unless they have an agreement to comply with the acknowledgment. That acknowledgment idea, it might, go back to the idea of attornment but to a lesser version of attornment under common law.
    Black’s Law 5th edition pg 119 Attornment.
    In feudal and old English law, a turning over or transfer by a lord of the services of his tenant to the grantee of his seigniory.
    Attornment is the act of a person who holds a leasehold interest in land, or estate for life or years, by which he agrees to become the tenant of a stranger who has acquired the fee in the land, or the remainder or reversion, or the right to the rent or services by which the tenant holds. It is an act by which a tenant acknowledges his obligation to a new landlord.
    The agreement of a person to recognize a third party as a permissible successor party to a contract; most often, the agreement of a tenant to pay rent to a new landlord, especially a mortgagee who has foreclosed.
    To bailees who have issued documents of title, you break that into two subcategories,
    o Negotiable document of title – you perfect by perfecting as to the document , you can take possession of the document or file as to the document.
    o Nonnegotiable document of title – you can perfect by mere notice to that bailee.
    Found in Article 9; 9.3.12 and 9.3.13
    You have to know agency law, bailment law, and property law.

    Control is concept like possession but for something you can’t possess. Control as a method of possession and defines control depending upon the type of asset. Control is defined differently dependent upon each type of asset. Article 9; 9.104 – 9.107

    Great discussions in Part 1 and Part 2, regarding UCC Article 9 until changed and adopted, these are the rules being manipulated, ignored, or broken, and adjudicated by people without any knowledge of the transaction and they have no right to adjudicate these matters in ignorance, no more than we were deceived in contract in ignorance.

    Ignorance. The want or absence of knowledge, unaware or uninformed.
    Ignorance of law is want of knowledge or acquaintance with the laws of the land in so far as they apply to the act, relation, duty, or matter under consideration.
    Ignorance of fact is want of knowledge of some fact or facts constituting or relating to the subject matter in hand.
    Ignorance is not a state of the mind in the sense in which sanity and insanity are. When the mind is ignorant of a fact, its condition still remains sound the power of thinking, of judging, or willing, is just as complete before communication of the fact as after.
    The essence or texture, so to speak, of the mind, is not, as in the case of insanity, affected or impaired.
    Ignorance of a particular fact consists in this: that the mind, although sound and capable of healthy action, has never acted upon the fact in question because the subject has never been brought to the notice of the perceptive faculties.

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

  24. Chuck-

    The loans were sold as converted common stock discounted to 80 percent . (read about zero coupon bonds / sinking fund investment offsets by derivatives, etc. ) These BS settlements (majority) are for TPC holders and phantom assets – under an accounting scheme for charges taken and foreclosure held for the junior tranches ….for writing new bond to settle the plaintiffs accounts (Pension funds and capital managers )

    Reed -your a puzzled intelligent guy . . . looking for simple answers.

  25. Wells Fargo has never reported one late payment on my credit 2 years, but is foreclosing.

    Response – Your mortgage was charged off and reconstitution requires two years from that certain “trigger date”.

    They have never sent me one bill or mortgage statement in 2 years either.

    Response – Your mortgage is de-recognized for the reconstitution period and you failed to reclaim title as you were entitled.

    Because they were paid 200 times.
    Response – Wrong no wrong ….your blowing it here

    They also Changed the co borrower name who died in 2008 4 times!!
    How does a co borrower change after loan Docs are signed with World Savings in 2006!!

    Response – because the 2008 TARP Charge off does in fact allow for the reversion of the bond holders term to treat the sale as a “Sellers” liquidation of assets under short title claims by writing derivatives called futures or “Puts” that short the value of the trust common shareholders value back to the time the blank endorsements and assignments were given .

    The assignment was given at time the co borrower was alive .

    Do you have an attorney in Santa Barbara??
    Sure – why ?

  26. Here why I am done with this site and that because you have people who are not thinking as to too why this situation is still hanging around. If thinks were so cut and dry as christine and Bob who allege to be these winners, why every week is there a new settlement where the banks are paying out billion?

    If things are what these two are saying why is the OCC & Fed working out a deal that will include homeowners who were victims of forgeries from LPS? If the banks or investors owned the loans as these clowns are claiming why did the not get together among themselves and fix all these titles instead of hiring DocX to create a million forgeries?

    So not one of the titles at any court house in the country has one of the GSEs in title as the lien holder, and not an assignment from MERS to any of the three agency….but why if they own the loan? Why go to the trouble of assigning the title to a mortgage servicers claiming on the face of that document that the servicer is the “lien holder” but they are not, but they are being slick by saying they are the “holder”?

    We will see in a couple weeks I feel the untold story break out as soon as the 9 other probes the Justice Dept is conducting, saying that they are using JPMorgan case as an example!

  27. Twilight zone all over again…

  28. Bob have you ever seen Lynn Szymoniak? She did not think inside of their box but out of the box. She took what she did for a living just as Markopolos and knew there was wrong doing. Now I know from my experience as a mortgage loan officer what wrong with the title and why loan are called what they are called.

    It not if they are going to have to refund people but when they are going to refund people. There are not driving over to the Justice Dept cutting deal 5yr after the fact.

    Tip off you guys don’t know who owns what, is you did not realize the when people talked about having a Fannie, Freddie or VA or FHA loan that it is referring the the product line and not the owner of the loan!

    You would have told Markopolos that he was crazy, however only one person in the world knew what Madoff was doing outside of his circle!

  29. Bob G. Gee … You know the rules, no child left behind.

    … Don’t be a Quitter …

    I Like a Good Debate …

    Just Play Nice!

  30. Christine
    We should give up. Like the Voyager probe, no matter how many times we try to communicate we are unable to make contact with any intelligent life here.

  31. christine if what Neil believe that the Fed supplied the monies in the first place and we know the Fed is the biggest buyer of the securities then why did bank need to purchase forgeries, and why are investor obtaining settlements if it real one bank controlling it all? Why is FHFA suing everybody and winning if they own the crap in the first place and supplied the monies?

  32. christine here is were you wrong, and that is I already gotten the letter from each party as to what their relationship is. Wells Fargo already know that when they are caught as in the 100,000 loan the federal government is suing them for that the Fed Gov is rolling the bus over them.

    So your telling me that Wells Fargo who is assigned the deed of trust too as the owner of the debt, but now they are saying they were not the owner of the debt is barking up the wrong tree? And also Ginnie Mae written the letter that they are also not the owner, but the last owner was WaMu, so how does a dead company assign a mortgage instrument to another?

    christine I already now its going down or there would be no reason to pay restitution to investors! It the separation to Note and Debt and neither is any good without the other! This is why Szymoniak has gotten $30 million, and I take my changes with the same argument!

  33. And Charles,

    The deeds cannot be made out to Ginnie inasmuch as Ginnie is only a guarantor. The same way that FDIC is a guarantor that you won’t lose the first $100,000 of your money if your bank goes belly up (although it no longer is true). In order for many people to get mortgage loans, the government had to guarantee to the banks (and/ or the investors… I’m still not completely clear about that part) that it would absorb most of the risk. Ginnie was never a party to the transaction between the lender and the borrower.

  34. Charles,

    “…so MERS does not have the ability to act on behalf of the GSE in the capacity as the lender at all.”

    MERS’ authority with respect to any party, either at origination or later, if the loan was transferred/conveyed/sold or whatnot, is strictly defined by the terms of the underlying contract between MERS and those parties. The membership is not a blanket delegation of authority established in a vacuum. Its terms and conditions must be and have been expressly defined… in a contract! Incidentally, countless attorneys have tried to put their hands on those membership contracts and have been mercilessly blocked by the banks et by the courts.

    Why do you think judges have refused to rule on the relationships between lenders, MERS, servicers, Fannie. Freddie and Ginnie? Because they know those contracts exist and everything was ironed out in such way that the relationship cannot be easily understood, let alone contested.

    You’re barking at the wrong tree and wasting an enormous amount of energy at it.

  35. assign to another is what I meant.

  36. Bob there are never any deed made out to Ginnie Mae because the Note is blank and Mr. Blank cannot assign the deed. What happens is the FHA or VA have a preset bid and the purchase the properties. Ginnie Mae did not purchase the Note so they are not entitled to a free house!

    The Notes will forever be blank because there is no party that can assign the Note to about because the chain is broken!

  37. christine people were under the impression that loans were owned by these agencies because the loan product was a let say Fannie Mae 30yr fixed loan, but it only the loan product as the Note are only printed at the bottom of the Note that they are useable in writing up that agreement, but the loan is not owned by Fannie Mae. Now some of these loan are packaged and pooled and are serviced for Fannie but this arrangement is not correct as they are no lenders of home mortgage loans. This is why people are saying were did my payment go, because it cannot be collected by these agencies and you cannot get a surrogate to act for you if you cannot also act in that manner.

    Let take a VA loan, and the VA does not make originate or purchase loan and neither does Ginnie Mae, but it is a VA loan because of the requirements of the VA product. The individual must be a active duty or veteran with an Honorable Discharge and not owe the government monies and meet the debt ratio, and so on, and that makes it a VA loan in a short version. The Lender process it and a VA underwriter approve the loan and the lender (bank) make the loan.

    Now next that lender could sale the loan and or simply just pool the loan with Ginnie Mae as long as the loan is insured by VA. This is a VA loan but the loan is never owned by the VA. The VA will buy the properties at a foreclosure sale if it thinks that it can retrieve some of the Guaranty Fund insurance money back through the resale of the properties. However the VA is not buying the loan back because it did not purchase the loan.

    So these loan are placed into the pools and there is no securities instrument that includes any of the GSEs. So we know that as member of MERS which includes non-lenders, that membership into MERS does not grant you authority to lend, so MERS does not have the ability to act on behalf of the GSE in the capacity as the lender at all. Titling & Foreclosing is a State issue, and the GSE do not fit the lender standards and is why Neil’s Theory is whacked as he is trying to make owners out of people who cannot by law be the owners of home mortgage loans.

    We are going to win on some level in order to save all the other contract/Note because the titles are screw up, and there been the separation of the only thing that makes a Note a Note and that is it must identify a “holder in due course” and the entity must also be the holder of the debt!

  38. Charles

    Look…gnma doesn’t buy mortgages…it insures them. It’s part of HUD. So when the servicer completes a foreclosure and there is no buyer at the foreclosure sale, the referees deed is made out to HUD.

  39. Charles,

    You lost me. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make.

  40. Yes all three of these entities as well as most all the large bank founded MERS however as they are all shareholder of the company, but the fact still reminds that they are not Lenders of Home Mortgage Loans. Yes the documents do say Fannie or Freddie but it just a program and not the originator.

    Look at Feb 2, 2010 Ginnie Mae FAQ and Ginnie Mae lays out what it is and that they are not a lender or buy or purchase home mortgage loan at all or securities!

    The reason no loan at the local level are titled in the name of the GSEs. The Note is endorsed in blank so it not identified a purchaser, so who is it that MERS is working for? It all a big con, and this is the reason I feel right now they are working to rescind every pooled loan, because they cannot at present prove ownership and must start over as if these transactions did not happen.

    It is about the separation of Note & debt and therefore the chain of title is also screwed up!

  41. Also, know that since April 2011, the U.S. Govt has to approve anything that MERS or MERSCORP does. See Consent Order #2011-044 on the OCC website.

  42. Charles,

    I believe you are mistaken. Fannie and Freddie were the original founders of MERS and, to my knowledge, they still are members. I will refer you to Abigail Field’s 2011 article on Fanie, Freddie and MERS. As far as Ginnie is concerned, although not a member per se, it has been in bed with MERS from the get go. Unless you get a hold of the entire contracts between MERS and those three, you can’t comment in the type of incestuous relationship that exists. All you need to do is look at your closing documents: more often than not, the actual docs are on Fannie, Freddie or Ginnie’s forms (and you can see it at the very bottom, written in very small letters). The mere fact that your lender was a full blown member and MERS was listed there as a beneficiary or anything else tells you that MERS has a finger in it the size of TX.

    I haven’t followed closely what happened once the Feds took a hold of Fannie and Freddie and whether it changed the relationship but, if your docs date back before 2008 or 2009, I would expect that the contractual relationship with MERS remained.

    Fannie Mae and MERS

    Fannie Mae was instrumental in the creation and legitimation of MERS, the mortgage registration “system” that has wreaked massive damage to our property records and land titles (at pg. 1370). Fannie Mae was a founding MERS member and initially one of only two entities that used MERS. The other was Freddie Mac. After a few years, the private securitization market started using MERS mortgages. But helping midwife MERS and legitimize its use are not Fannie Mae’s only contributions to the MERS mess.

  43. Charles Reed greatest commentary yet by one of the bloggers here.
    Broken chain of title = unjust enrichment for the banksters
    They are trying to pull the good old Brooklyn Bridge sale.


  44. christine MERS only has authority to be the authority when it involve another MERS member and when that loan is transferred out of that member control MERS does not have that working agreement.

    Also Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are not members of MERS as a lender so assignment titles in states cannot be transfer to them. That is why I say that they are rescinding the securities because they are caught .

    Szymoniak is saying this but she did not know at the time this issue in my opinion, and I believe that only after has this been brought up because I brought it to her attention. WaMu is the perfect example of this because on Sept 25, 2008 they were a “failed bank” and cease to be a valid member of MERS and MERS can only do what the entity they are working for can do and WaMu is no longer a bank.

    The reason MERS in my situation jumped back to act as if the originator of the loan sold the loan to Wells Fargo the service, because they could not explain the sale of the loan to WaMu on Jul 21, 2003 and the blank endorsement by WaMu on Aug 6, 2003 when the loan was placed into the MBS. So because the local court don’t require that the a copy of the Notes be kept on file and updated the scam goes on. If only the court had a copy of the Note they could see that WaMu had purchase the loan per letter form the originator that I requested from the FDIC!

    There are more ways to skin a cat, and I used all the agencies against each other to obtain the Note and letter of sales!

  45. Clarification: filing first does NOT mean filing for bankruptcy.

  46. Wisconsin is waking up, they’ve revised their Act for mortgage satisfaction requirements.
    Section 3. 428.104 (1) of the statutes is amended to read:
    428.104 (1) Any time a payment is made in cash, or any other time the method of payment does not itself provide evidence of payment, the creditor shall furnish the customer, without request, a written receipt, evidencing such payment. …..

    They will not continue to benefit from the fraud. If they had applied the payments like they were supposed to, and notified us of the payments so we’d have a record of the transaction, and released the lien, none of this would be going on where people not a party to the transaction are coming out of the woodwork and robbing the creators of the money in the transaction in the first place.

    There is no need for someone to file bankruptcy to keep what is already theirs from being stolen. When the truth finally comes you, you will see the angry bitter ones who had sly remarks to make about the knowledge of the rest of us in this transaction didn’t know a thing about the truth.

    If you tell a lie long enough and forcefully and attack people who speak things that don’t support the lie, the people who haven’t the comprehension of the ‘big picture’ will be-lie-ve the portion of the lie that is pressed upon them through disrespect of anyone that isn’t speaking the same lie.

    If your leader is disrespectful of peoples right to ‘be’ and ‘do’ as that leader purported to allow, then you must think of who you play a role in the outcome because of what you support.

    See disrespect of others, support disrespect of others, expect the people that disrespect to do the same when they turn their eye on you, because disrespect carries no limits for the one wielding that power. What goes around comes around.

    Insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results; eventually we evolve and stop stepping into the same hole hoping ours will be the one to give us a judicial remedy.

    The remedy is not in the courts, even if you have the best argument. The remedy is in the regulations that are already there and not enforced. All it takes is for there to be more culpability on the one who is supposed to enforce than there is on the one who committed the fraud, and we start seeing some activity that reverses this and links everyone that was in the line of the fraud, who had a responsibility to do something but didn’t.

    Seems the camps built for the masses will hold the masses who thought it wasn’t built for them.

    The Creator in me, knows of the Creator in you. That’s who I AM.

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

  47. *I don’t know if it helps your case. What is does do is explain the human nature behind the events unfolding.

    As for Glaski, I’ve been advised by CA counsel that the three other departments are not following it because they’ve ruled contrary. Movements by only 10% of mortgagors in foreclosure aren’t going to do squat. And less than 5% of those would participate anyway. Without critical thinking skills and focus, nobody is going to win anything. Example: you wanted help in untangling the break in your chain of title. And I asked you what Countrywide trust your loan was in. Did you respond to that request? Nope. Why not?

    That’s why you guys lose. An inability to focus and follow through. Sorry to say, but I’m of the opinion that most of you are going to end up as Walmart greeters living in lower class rental neighborhoods in the near future. Such a shame.

    Oh, and I’ll bet most of you have voted democrat all your lives, right?


  48. The A Man,

    I already won on my appeal and it is a published case. If you want me to send it to you, write me at

  49. Bob E. Gee,

    Excellent study. That explains very well why, when people come into money suddenly, through the lottery for example, a great majority end up worse off than if they never had any: it is not the money itself, it is the mentality. My mother always taught us: poverty is not a state of affairs. it is a state of mind.

    At the end of the Russian revolution, all the money was confiscated and redistributed equally (meagerly) among paysans in many Kolkhozes and Sovkhozes. Within a couple of years, some people had become rich. Others were barely making ends meet. Leaders realized that those who had become rich had come from more privileged background than those who remained poor and that it would take generations to build a solid, homogenous and cohesive middle class. China did the same thing and reached the same conclusions. It’s a mentality; a congruency between the individual with what money represents for him.

    This country is systematically undoing 2000 years of human learning and experience. Sad commentary about what was once the greatest country on earth. It is fairly easy to pinpoint when the “poor” mentality permeated this society the most: when people started being told that they would not have any retirement because SS was in a hole. The threat and fear of forthcoming lack turned many into “poors”. Play on people’s minds and fear and you’ll win every time!

  50. Bob G how does the last article help our case? Hey judge watch this video.

  51. Christine if you are in appelate stage try to get a grass roots movement going or join one and inform the judges that you have support. That is another lesson from Glaski.

  52. Okay MERS where is the paperwork? Where is the loan and how did it get there. Where did my payments go? Glaski is a case won by the appelate court and is published. It is not one of many. It is a fatal blow (if you focus on it and expand) for the banksters. if you stay focused.


  53. Here’s a scientific explanation of why all this looting is taking place.

    If you don’t watch the video, at least read the narrative. And now you know why it is so difficult to stop them, whether they be the private 1% or the govie $1%.

    Ok, so now folks, you know what you’re up against, and why all the whining and crying about the System’s injustice will never get you anywhere. Forewarned is forearmed.

  54. The A Man,

    You keep talking about broken chain of title as the main and primary issue. With MERS as the beneficiary who, in most states, has been recognized as having absolute latitude and authority to transfer/convey/assign/sell and whatnot, there is no broken chain of title per se in most courts’ opinion. Remember: Glaski is ONE case among millions of similar ones, it’s been going on for years and it is far from resolved.

    The second issue is that Glaski started out as a foreclosure action. It is a defensive posture and you are at the mercy of the bank’s allegations. Raising all kinds of defenses under those conditions… well… often doesn’t work. Remember courts’ knee-jerk reaction: “No one files suit unless he has been wronged. The bank filed. Therefore the bank was wronged.” By not giving enough weight to that prejudice, homeowners are hurting themselves.

    What I would strongly recommend is not to wait if you know you may run into problems in the near future with paying your mortgage. According to my own attorney, in every single mortgage without exception, some money paid by the mortgagor is unaccounted for and has not been credited where it belongs.

    My advice is to start taking action as soon as you feel a problem might be arising. Get your recordings, get all your statements in order, start analyzing the transfers, see if money is missing, position yourself for a fight, even if, in the end, you don’t need to wager it. Following the money is the best course of action: judges do relate to that!

  55. Bob G., thanks for that link. digesting it now.

  56. I don’t know.

  57. @ Bob G
    i have heard when a company or an individual deposits a check electronically, the bank can see what account it is being taken out of, but not what account it is being deposited to. is that true Bob G?

  58. Problem for with Neil theory is were did the investors get the money to provide the money for the loan, Is the money actual the homeowner’s money anyway?

    A loan is a borrower paying every cent of the money to this lender who is given all their money advance back, that comes from the pockets of the borrower so was it just the deposits of the homeowner who financed their own loans in the end?

    So were did the monies from investors come from? The Fed run on a fiat money system were the Fed print this money and put it out there not because the Fed had $16 trillion in asset but because it said that the monies was worth a certain amount and not that it had the assets.

    So now for the Fed to want to collect because it engage in illegal loans, we would need to open up the Fed books to see exactly where this money came from. Is this money from Madoff or drug cartel or Mafia? Where did the monies come from to make all these loans if it did not come from the bank?

    Here are argument and that is that who is on title as the “holder in due course” has either originated the loan or purchased the debt and is authorized to do so. As being negotiated by the OCC and Fed in the LPS forgeries, also there must be the same course of action with MERS!

    We cannot go down this rabbit hole Neil seem to think he must go!

  59. What is the name of your Countrywide Trust ?

  60. I am in California I do not know what a distribrution report is. What I need is a simple diagram from origination Lets assume that the origination is cool. I got the money from Countrywide legitamtely Where is the next broken chain of title. thanx Bob G.

  61. A Man…why not look on the back of your mortgage payment checks over the years and see where they were deposited?

  62. Empasis on broken chain of title when it occured. Not what did they do after they broke the chain of title, that is the investors probelm.

    A loan modification okay judge where are my payments going? To which investor or investors. The title company will take care of it. Okay find me a neutral title company that is not in any way connected to the Banksters.

  63. A-MAN

    1. What state are you in?
    2. Do you have access to a distribution report?

  64. Bob G. I agree with you. The issue is when can we prove in the cheapest way possible the broken chain of title issue. We need to expand on Glaski case in California Focus on it. The next thing we must ask is where did our payments go? this is only my opinion and only an attorney can show us how to get there. I would start with a simple chart. Emphasis on simple where the chain of title was broken? and where did our payments go?

    Then we say the unjust enrichment is enjoyed by the entity that broke the chain of title. On purpose. This is the oldest trick in the book. The brooklyn bridge doctrine.



    Related to UCC application to mortgage notes. Starting at pg. 10, you will see that Neil’s theory about no valid note being created at funding is not in accord with the UCC. It says to me that proceeding with that theory in court is done at your peril.

  66. Neil
    And what part did the Courts play in all this?

  67. I guess 2014 won’t be the year this country regains control over its money, its cities, infraqstructures or anything else… From the look of it, the opposite appears to be true.

    Goldman Sachs’s Glen Appointed New York City Deputy Mayor By Henry Goldman Dec 23, 2013 2:50 PM

    Alicia Glen, head of urban investment for Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), was named deputy mayor for housing and economic development by New York Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio.

    Glen, 47, who has run the department since 2002, arranged government partnerships and financed more than $5 billion in dozens of residential, mixed-use and commercial projects in the U.S., according to Columbia University Business School, where she’s an adjunct faculty member. The urban-investment group also helped finance New York’s bike-sharing program, the largest in the U.S.

    “Alicia is a pioneer in developing innovative financing and investments that have improved the lives of thousands of New Yorkers,” Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein said in an e-mail.

    Glen replaces Robert Steel, 62, another Goldman Sachs alumnus, who has been Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s deputy mayor for economic development since June 2010. The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.

  68. And to add insult to injury, if you short sell or obtain a modification, you’ll be liable for a tax, the forgiveness of which was not extended by Congress in the new budget.

    Underwater homeowners could face extra tax burden in 2014

    By Amrita Jayakumar, Published: December 25

    Struggling homeowners could be hit with an unexpected tax bill in the new year.

    A law that spared people who owe more than their homes are worth from being saddled with extra taxes when their banks provide mortgage relief is expiring next week. Congress hasn’t extended it.

    Underwater homeowners often try to negotiate with their bank so that they can sell their homes for less than they owe in a short sale or have their mortgage balance reduced. But the difference between what the homeowner owes and the lower sales price approved by the bank is considered income for the homeowner and subject to tax by the Internal Revenue Service.

    For example, someone with a $100,000 mortgage who is allowed to sell their house for $80,000 is supposed to pay taxes on the remaining $20,000.

    But a law known as the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act saved such homeowners from the tax burden. Last year, Congress rushed to extend the law during negotiations about the fiscal cliff but only through the end of 2013. Now it’s down to the wire again.

    Lawmakers and housing advocates argue that the rule hurts those who are already financially strapped. Since 2009, more than 220,000 homeowners have sold their houses for less than they were worth through a short sale with help from a government program. There are more than 6 million homes still underwater across the country, according to a third-quarter report from research company CoreLogic.

    That is down from more than 11 million homes during the peak of the housing crisis in 2009, but it shows that despite the sector’s strong recovery, many homeowners aren’t out of the woods.

    “What you’re looking at is people who have lost their house,” said Marceline White, executive director of the Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition. “And then to have them hit with this [tax] just boggles the mind.”

  69. Does that help?

    Not really. It makes for a good story regulatory agencies still haven’t tackled and homeowners can hardly use and it doesn’t give any how-to tools for them to successfully prove any of it. This is the same story told over and over, with certain variations depending on who the narrator is. Wins based on it are almost nonexistent nationwide.

    Anonymous has been telling it for 9 years, going on 10. Max Gardner and Nye Lavalle told it in a two-hour Mandelman podcast a couple of years ago and were pretty convincing about the near impossibility to get anywhere with it except with a loan mod.

    As far as making it public, it has already been, over and over by former regulators and prosecutors such as Bill Black, Catherine Austin Fitts, Neil Barofsky before he sold out and many others much more qualified than any pro se fighting the bank.

  70. Please send this type info to news papers and internet / social network everywhere so the word gets out. Start a loud discussion, like what happen with A&E and Phil get the word out because if enough people know and scream, things will change. Stir up the masses, make the noise, make them shake in their boots, rattle their cage.

  71. So I refinance with Lucky Mortgage. Lucky immediately has Ohio Bank service my account. About 3 years later Ohio Bank switches me to Wells Fargo. After paying 10 years straight WF is able to mess up account and start foreclosure. After fighting them for 5 years they finally steal house.

    Fannie Mae was the investor one month after original refi with Lucky Mortgage , although their name never showed up anywhere from day one on paperwork, all the way thru Fraudclosure by Plaintiff Wells Fargo , who lent and paid and owns and holds NOTHING !!!!!

  72. Neil your wrong on funding of loan and you cannot place a loan that was a lender debt into the securities as it must be free and clear of a lender debt. Bank A cannot have a debt against that loan, because when the loan is placed in the pool/securities its a post transaction and the lender/issuer draw amount in $25,000 amount, so if the loan the lender is suppose to have is called debt but the lender been advanced draws you got a problem as to who would have right to the collateral.

    The money is borrowed to purchase a house and if the lender wants to attach a lien against it they must ask the courts by simply recording that lien to inform the court so chain on title is know. Now if the lender does not do so it has a non-secured loan.

    In a securities if a loan goes bad the issuer has an option to replace that loan or some settlement of that missing monies is paid to the “investors”.

    Do the homeowners get a home for free? No as they been paying a payment up to a point so it was never for free and down payment and taxes have been paid. It was the bank that void the contract not the borrowers when these loans were placed from day one.

    This is why this thing is screw up in arguing these case because the attorney don’t want to follow contract law. A lender can at anytime forgive that debt, and let take the case of WaMu were the FDIC sold $308 billion in assets for $1.9 billion which was not an open bidding process to get fair value, but an arrangement that stop the bleeding of the FDIC’s insurance fund after the collapse of IndyMac, plus we got Wachovia hanging in the wind.

    You cannot take a car to the dealership and sell it with a lien against the vehicle and not pay off the lien to the bank with the lien. This is what Neil is saying that these banks have a lien against all these home mortgages they made from some investor, and now are placing them after the fact with another investor. If the loan are from monies from a non-mortgage lender the loan could not be made and now you put the homeowners in illegal contracts. If no different that a drug dealer or loan shark making a home mortgage loan and trying to petition the court for this transaction which they the alleged “investor” has illegally fronted the monies.

    Now we got “investors’ in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other claiming that they were tricked, and are receiving billion dollar settlement because the underwriting was not correct, but the homeowner is out of luck? What I think is happening is that they are buying back the product in a rescind process for the loan that are still active, but those that have already been foreclosed is the issue of ownership where the lenders have already admitted that the pooling process was a fraud!

    So what is that Neil been arguing? What the damage if it not about ownership of the homes!

  73. Neil enough with the “Bubbe Maises” Where did they break the chain of title? Glaski case in california

  74. Why can we not get this information into the mass media!!!!

    There needs to be a homeowner revolution.

    All the fraud and deceit has created billions of dollars of settlements all of which are tax write offs for lenders.

    How about exploring land patents for homeowners?

    I am researching this. In lending for 26 years and Wall Street for 8.. Get the whole picture loud and clear!!

    Wells Fargo has never reported one late payment on my credit 2 years, but is foreclosing. They have never sent me one bill or mortgage statement in 2 years either.

    Because they were paid 200 times. They also Changed the co borrower name who died in 2008 4 times!!

    How does a co borrower change after loan Docs are signed with World Savings in 2006!!

    Do you have an attorney in Santa Barbara??

    I sent a postal money order for 22 dollars with my loan number and wrote “paid in full”. I believe they cashed it which is a settlement of my account in dispute for 2 years!!

    Input. ??

    Cynthia A Ziemer 805-689-7384.

    Peace and Love!!!

    Sent from my iPhone

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: