Should Investors Buy Bank Stocks?

The answer is an emphatic YES if you believe that they will, in the end, get away with the biggest economic heist in human history. Lest you think otherwise, all the evidence points in the direction of the Banks prevailing. The enforcement actions brought by law enforcement and regulatory agencies has been tepid at best allowing the banks to settle claims for less than a reserve for defaults in a typical loan portfolio. Law enforcement has concentrated on civil actions rather than criminal actions presumably bending under pressure from policy makers who have swallowed “too big to fail” hunk line and sinker. And there is a virtually unending supply of money — real money as well as shadow money that might aspire to real value — to support fictitious transactions as the ill-gotten gains are laundered back into the banks and reported as profits from proprietary trading.

All this was predicted in exquisite detail when I wrote about the bank blueprint for action back in 2007-2009 in numerous articles. Absent a turnaround by policy makers, the whole thing will be dropped in favor of allowing the banks to corner the market on natural resources, which is now providing cover for trillions of dollars siphoned out of the world economies. So profits will go up at whatever rates the banks wish to announce and so will dividends. Earnings growth will accelerate causing the stocks to achieve price-earnings ratios never awarded to banks. Each dollar reported as “earned” becomes $20 of equity. It is quite a successful game they are playing, but the rest of the world is paying for it and that is the risk factor. How long will the world tolerate increasing income and asset disparity or will people rise up and upset the apple-cart just as they have done hundreds of times in world history. Since the banks have the next 50 years of earnings and dividends covered already, it seems a fair bet that they will return many times any current investment over the short-term as well as the intermediate and long term.

But there is another side of the story. This great escape of the banks, this avoidance of accountability may not work. The entire strategy is subject to lynchpin dynamics — such as the unavoidable discovery that most of the assets reported by banks are fictional (although they can be replaced by assets held abroad in natural resources). The number of Judges is increasing — who reject the improper and illegal submission of pleadings, service of process and proof through through professional witnesses. If this reaches critical mass, the entire foreclosure apparatus could collapse leading to more inquiries, lawsuits and potentially indictments. In that case, the banks that engineered this crisis might have their “earnings” discounted and even offset by huge judgments for damages payable to investors and borrowers.

115 Responses

  1. It’s a pity you don’t have a donate button!
    I’d without a doubt donate to this outstanding blog!
    I guess for now i’ll settle for bookmarking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account.
    I look forward to new updates and will talk about this blog with my Facebook group.
    Talk soon!

  2. @ ML:
    Judge Napolitano: LAW IS BUNK & he has had it:

  3. CAN

  4. tech, high-profile spaces.

    2014 Forecast: The Evolution of Social Media in Banking…of…/240164671‎

    Dec 19, 2013 – Social media is one of the fastest growing channels in banking and banks need to be mindful of several trends in the channel going into 2014.


  5. poppy and all
    exactly this downfalll that is happening to this country now is what Thomas JERFFERSON SAID OVER 200 YEARS WOULD HAPPEN TO THIS COUNTRY IF THE bANKS WERE ALLOWED TO LEND THEIR CREDIT.

  6. @ Guest

    That would not surprise me…I have my own foreclosure woes and to get bit on both sides really sucks. They are frauding everyone…we’ve gone from dead beats to dead bodies. Really?

    For me, these bank practices are “BIG” news…they lie, cheat and steal and everyone is paying for this. When is the media going to pick this up and run with it? These thugs have made money hand over first and are allowed to sell and profit from theft and fraud…by anyone with a pulse! Jeez

  7. Judge Schlesingers and any judge MUST vacate a void abinito judgment
    A judge has no discretion.

    Jurisdiction of a Court. Primary in a ruling

    law law law

    US Supreme Court case Elliot v Piersol

    The laws decided by the US SUPREME COURT

    JUDGES CANNOT LIE in their opinions.

  8. most of all are getting side tracked from the original fraud just like those that stole our properties want.

  9. ian
    It is good for attorneys help Charlie but just as beneficial that those of knowledge to be concerned with my old case To ge t judge Schlesinger and the Court to ruled accordING to the Constitution.
    that IS beyond a bank’s charter IT is an ULTRA VIRE CONTRACT and BE BEYOND A BANK CHARTER’s IT IS AN ULTRA VIRE

    anyone cite the law that allows a bank to lend their credit.

  10. if every chief Judge of every state made their lower court judges follow the law as they are required of our property rights we would get possession of our properties and or restitution and damages from the Banks, Title Companies and all that stole them from us.

  11. @ poppy:
    The dead body found in the house stolen by HSBC was probably one of their dealers or victims.

    HSBC is the world’s second narcotics bank. Let him explain:

    Max Keiser on The Silk Road and HSBC Money Laundering Scandal

  12. @ Alessandro Machi

    Depending on the situation you are correct. However, I have a situation where the payments were not applied. The loan went into default in October 2007, while all payments were made by me. Then in a bankruptcy court Credit Suisse claims to seize the note for collateral and then moves it through a servicing process, while getting 90% compensation for their loss from the bankruptcy court….this was after New Century took lines of credit by them, to run their company….so I never defaulted the note, nor did Credit Suisse have a right to move it to a servicer, as they never owned the loan.

    It matters! But, every situation is different.

  13. I’m not a lawyer, just trying to use common sense…

    If you choose to read this story link, please read all of it because at one point some judge’s who disagreed with the argument give the basic, boilerplate, but logical as well response.

    Here is the paragraph with two judges comments…

    “Even assuming that the subsequent transfers of the note were invalid, the court nonetheless concluded that plaintiff is not the victim of such invalid transfers because her obligations under the note remained unchanged,” U.S. District Judge William Orrick wrote in his ruling, over a foreclosure suit in Gilroy. “Instead, the true victim may be an entity or individual who believes it has a present beneficial interest in the promissory note and may suffer the unauthorized loss of their interest in the note.”

    end of quote..

    This is exactly what I have written in the comments section here in the past. PROVE something changed as the note passed hands that led to the mortgage default. Example, ANYTHING related to customer service being slower or less capable when it came to processing payments.

    Or, immediately penalizing late payments if the prior note holder did not. Or not taking a late payment and filing a foreclosure papers when the prior, or original note holder would have accepted the late payment..

    Example, a newer note holder won’t allow the homeowner to “catch up” on payments whereas the original note holder would have.

    Everytime the note changes hands, some of the future profits have been pre-absorbed, leaving less ability to service the mortgage as well as the original note holder did. I think that is a key point.

    As for loss of home value, how would the original note holder have handled that versus those who bought the note afterwards? I would assume the first note holder would have had the most room to negotiate, and therefore those who took over the note could not possibly be as accommodating, and therefore in theory a reason to fight their foreclosure action.

    Think of it as the sheriff hands over sheriff duties to the newly hired deputy who can’t see as well, shoot as well, or discern when to shoot and when not to shoot. Wouldn’t the townspeople have cause to sue because the transfer of sheriff duties was done without the consent of the townspeople, who then suffered as a result?

  14. And just for the record, christine; if you were as smart as you think and insightful enough, you would clearly understand the banks are claiming victims on both sides of the ledger. And you might ponder for one minute that bringing attention to innocent sellers would help bring necessary attention to this scam by the banks from all sides!

  15. It was…and Matt Weidner personally called me about it! Stay in your misery, woman…alone!

  16. This is not “traction”. Traction supposes that the info is picked up and spread by at least one unrelated third party.


  17. Story gaining traction: UNWITTING-BUYER-BREAKING-NEWS-JAN-2014

  18. YES, banks are probably the safest investments in the U.S..
    Here is some proof which you can pull by copy-pasting each line below into Google:

    “U.S. Facilitates Drug $$$ Launderings”

    “WACHOVIA $1/2 trillion Drug Money Laundering Blessed by U.S. Court Case# cr-20165-JAL”

    Or this link in browser:

  19. Exactly TU. What is needed, and what would be provided by a just government, is a special prosecutor along the lines of Archibald Cox and Watergate. But unfortunately for us, back then we had a real attorney general who believed so much in upholding justice that he resigned rather than fulfill Nixon’s command of firing Cox. Even the deputy attorney general who took the AG’s place resigned. Nixon was toast.

    Without anyone willing to stand up to Goldman Sachs and CITI and their entrenched people throughout the governments of the world, we’re toast. Unless we turn up the heat.

  20. thharry said, “ok Neil, it was bad enough when e.tolle and someone else wanted to hunt down the attorneys and judges with rifles.”

    This, again, is the very definition of disingenuous.

    not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere

    You claim my satire as reality, and add whatever falsities you want to make your point more stinging. And this goes to the meat of the problem….you and your brethren think nothing of twisting facts into pretzel logic, in order to fool the judges and steal homes. Plain and simple.

    Years ago, when you first made your appearance on LL, you quipped how the bank foreclosures you handled were portfolio loans. Now that statement slides all the way through disingenuous straight into prevarication, having no basis in fact whatsoever.

    But it’s easy to understand why folks here would kowtow to you, what with lawyers across the land asking and getting hundreds of dollars to explain in great winded depth why they can’t possible win, excluding, of course, the details about how they and most every other lawyer wouldn’t dare bite the hand that feeds them a.k.a. the TBTF banks. Not to mention that nearly zero of the attorneys out there understand the criminality involved in this spree. And there’s simply way too much money to be had writing dog bites man letters and chasing ambulances for sport.

    Stockholm Syndrome abounds these days, as people feel the need to jump as high as they can to fulfill the demands of your bosses at the bank, in hopes that they’ll continue to have shelter from the storm. But alas, it’s not to be for millions and millions more to come, as these are simply further cons perped by minions like yourself.

    So, by all means help a few people here if it helps you sleep, or as Ian said, do it big and decipher the GSE conundrum. My money’s on you continuing to toss an occasional bone to the soon to be homeless. It better serves your master’s business model.

  21. If you pay someone you don’t owe, it’s considered a gift.
    So for any judge to say, you owed some money, the one you owe doesn’t want it, but this guy is giving me paperwork that you owe someone and he wants the money our your house, so give him the money or I’ll give him your house is just utter stupidity!

    The remedy is not in the courts. It’s in getting someone the courts fear to look in their paperwork and at their holdings and make them come clean.

    In my honorable opinion.
    We are figuring out how to get to them outside of the courts. They will be accountable for what they do. The fraud is even in the court, when they bring it to the court.

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

  22. My response is directed at masterservicer

  23. If I have understood you over time, the issue relates to the contract? In the evidentiary hearing, which is the path to trial, you need to get the information and denial out, right then and there. The judge needs something to “doubt” or “question” for issue at trial.

    The examination belongs in the trial arena. And, it is my experience if you do not know how to explain and reduce the language sufficiently, you are toast. Subjective analysis is not going to fly. And the judge is not going to listen endlessly to blather.

    Am no expert by any means, but I can say, cross examination “must” be about hearsay evidence, which is what most of the presented paperwork is, movement of the note, authority and consideration. Personally, I have never admitted the authenticity of the note presented…my response is: it looks familiar, but I cannot be sure, as it is a copy. I “attempted” or “intended” to make a mortgage contract, but as the evidence will reveal, that was not the case, your honor. Time and time again, when you say, yes I have not made payments…the game is over. IMHO

    The strategy is getting the shit turned around, so they have to prove they are legitimate players, again, IMHO…the paperwork is just not enough!

  24. Tnharry-
    While we appreciate your legal expertise, why don’t you review Charles Reed’s whistleblower suit and help
    Steer him in the right direction? Or, with his knowledge, create a template for homeowners fighting GSEs. That would be productive. Then you can stop addressing ML’s 15 year old case.
    Thanks again for the input.

  25. Here is what I am saying is it people like Bernard Madoff who is Jewish and stole from mostly his own people to the tune of $65 billion, and a son committed suicide as a result. Madoff was the ex-Chairman of the NASDAQ, but for maybe 40yrs he ran a Ponzi scheme?

    Its not all Jews, but it only takes one to steal $65 billion who needs a lot to steal the rest. Blacks are only 12.4% of the US populations but we commit the most murders, but it not all blacks, but if your walking at night and a group of black are walking behind you, don’t tell me there not a fear.

    If you walk into a Italian neighborhood and young people are hanging out your not think the Mafia and who is connected, even if no one is connected. However did not the Justice Dept just bust that Mob over some Tony Soprano sanitation route BS just a coupe of year ago?

    I am just saying that we had a $30 trillion or more world wide crime happen here and nobody gone to jail?

  26. I got up in the middle of the night and thought of how I AGREE WITH CHARLES REED My grandparents and relatives came to America at the beginning of the century fleeing parts of Europe that hated the jews. and made a wonderful life here but when the nazis showed up were always aware of them.

    The jews worked hard here because they had to get out of the ghettos or would be trampled on.
    i’m sure that is what gave them their drive.But jewish judges did to me and so many others what the nazis did to the jews they are a disgrace, more than racist Charles. is truthful.

    the pen is mightier than the sword. just like bankers these judges should not get away with stealing anyone properties.

  27. The 80’s/Reagan start of the Wall St nightmare.

  28. Morning Squids and evening Racist

    I told you how to win and what to argue and what to cite to overcome a lenders zero defenses – you no listen ,

    You got a wire to settle your account – where did it go ?

    The value of the loan is the wire – where did it end up ?

    Why are they foreclosing on a wire by reconstituting its value

    Your intellects acting like morons –

    Did you get a 1099 A – why

    Deficiency judgement – why

    1099 shows the home depressed value at an amount equal to the first mortgage and 10 years of payments – oops Why

    Wake up!

    God Almighty Wake up

  29. The old day are gone unless rate on a 30yr drop to 3%, and refinancing will be back. 2014 should suck for mortgage people and time to look for a new job.

    wrong I can take a 1 percent mortgage and carve out any rate you want …off again

  30. HMAN

    I sued the servicer,trustee, & trust but this time I lost.


  31. Folks: Don’t Worry Be Happy


  32. House loan will be lower because the interest rate at under 4% were a 40yrs low and and everybody who could refinanced did and and home values are still low so step up buyer cannot sell their existing home.

    You got new home builder competing for the same client as the exist home seller, but it a new house vs old meaning less upkeep. What buy a old 20yr old house for $10K-$20K less needing new appliances, when rates are still low given a low payment for a brand new home that not got the taxes assess for a year!

    So it was great for everybody to get a new lower interest rate who could, but that took from the next 20yrs of refinancing. Who going to refinance in the future a 4% 30yr loan with rates are back at 6.5%?

    The old day are gone unless rate on a 30yr drop to 3%, and refinancing will be back. 2014 should suck for mortgage people and time to look for a new job.

  33. MBA: Mortgage Lending to Hit 14 Year Low in 2014. They are expected to drop to its lowest level since 2000 and one third lower than in 2013.

  34. johngault, on January 16, 2014 at 5:02 pm said:
    It’s enforcement which requires both the note and its coll instrument. As to the issue of bifurcation, it may be that they may be “reunified.”

    Was Michael Jackson Hair bifurcated …JG Your a Web Tweeker and must find a life —gibberish (I read it all – Go to school and get a degree in finance ….your way to long into this and so far off ..)

  35. According the the Judges remarks they are happy when you bring it up to there attention.


  36. READ _ best advice :

    Florida Notary Fraud Erin Cullaro – Scandalous – Substantiated Allegations of Foreclosure Fraud That Implicates the Florida Attorney General’s Office … ABC News obtained a copy of multiple signatures attributed to a Florida lawyer moonlighting as a robo-signer. She had a day job in the Florida Attorney … Co-conspirators & ROBO-signors: The list of problem companies and those aiding in the concealment of their crimes is so vast we can’t .. . or this one ….API NEW FLASH Michael Jackson’s hair ignited while on stage preparing to sing Free Willy… saddened concert goer’s Christine and Tolle stated at press time they smelled something awful but were accustomed to these odors by self proclaimed bad hygiene ….DATELINE Press Release – Texas Chain Saw Massacre now linked to Pico , a Cuban Bongo player turned hobo paid as a Robo signor & Scallop lover who loves brown balloons & slapped lobsters on the floor….and..or….. ummm……. hey….. yep…duhhh…yelp…..belch ….. Sooooo.

    Which of the due process defenses will work the best

    Please . . . .

  37. From Recent Testimony :

    1.Wells Fargo Bank Trustee for the HVMLT Series -12 assets held by trust beneficiaries Bank of America under nominee Mers Corp

    2.Trustee is transferred title by transferor “commercial lender” WFB by tax deferred exchange under a nominee, a one Mers Corp that allows the Trustee to carry back and accrue forward to years six, the value of the subject mortgages settlement wire
    4.The value of the wire is mark to market transferred , not rerouted, into an offshore depositors account.
    6.Plaintiffs argument support claims for failure of consideration alleging the funds required to settle the J.P Morgan Chase beneficiary demand were deposited offshore [and off balance sheet] by intermediate holder WFB. for treatment as a sale.
    8.Successors in interest to CWHL Inc. “Originator” Bank of America, is permitted to carry back [subordinate] the borrowers obligation (silent second) for amount satisfied on the final HUD 1 (Mezzanine financing sold into TPC) leaving the equity to the estate unencumbered.
    10.Discovery to date alleges the BofA obligation stems from pledging the subject controversy over title into trust under a UCC 1 filed in state of NY assets, placed into off shore depositor accounts for bonds pledged to bond holders the RBS D/b/a/ RBS N.A. Financial Products – Under IRC tax payer rules that purportedly satisfied GAAP codified book entry requirements for issuing shares in a de-novo entity

    For more info on the Harborview Trust Mortgage Pass Through Series 12 claims, write

  38. @Guest this is the key point “Indeed, Rakoff takes pains to disavow any opinion about whether criminal fraud was committed “in any given instance.” But he does point out that evidence of fraudulent behavior is not hard to find — the final report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission headed by former California Treasurer Phil Angelides brims with documented examples….Rakoff suggests that the failure of the justice system may do even more lasting damage to the fabric of American society.,0,4386369.story#ixzz2qbfat2lq

    Another key point was the excuse that “intent” can’t be proven. Shows both parties, Congress and Obama administration are ignoring their duty and using the budget against us and as an excuse.

  39. Accounting rule FAS 165 and codified SFAS 165 allow the non gov. banks to cook books anyway they want to ….for reporting earnings

    They will pull this off but its the few who win in this high stakes poker game – you must have a winning hand ….and thats tough with the likes of Christine and Telle who will divert you and send you into a big legal bill, sanctions, oppositions award for legal , more money, peanuts and hair pieces…

    Look at the books and book entry journal

    Deposits Held Acct. . . 25,000. . . Compared to 500,000
    Loans Held for Sale . .500,000. . . Compared to 500,000
    Loans Held on LOC . -475,000. .. Compared to 0.00

    Net Equity/Liabilities .[ 50,000] * .Compared to 1000,000
    [*] Pledged. . . . Pledged. . . 500,000

    Whole loan sales go from $50,000 equity pledged to whole loan retained at $1.0 million and $500,000 pledged

    PS. I love the crap people posted on me in the matter of Debtor v creditor before the honorable US Bankruptcy Court SNA Ct Judge Albert . Mis spelled “expret” and failed to notice the Judge set aside relief order and granted a 90 day stay on experts testimony (the Urine CLub)

    (OMG he’s making sense again…someone may save their home or get a settlement ….ahhhh attack him , make up things ….pee your pants …Tolle please ….find something and finger yourself ….take over ….Ohhhhh ouchhhh ummmm ahhhhhh )

  40. Unbelievable!

    Neil.. I think its about time you Quiet them.

  41. TN
    its not physical hurt, it is a disgrace.

  42. My name is not jewish. i don’t look jewish but when some carefully reads my book about the judges and my foreclosure nightmare and how my property’s were stolen i get the person saying ‘that’s how those jewish judges are.

  43. Actually Charles Reed I apoligize. Your remarks sound anti semetic. It is a touchy subject and let us all change subjects.


  44. who ever it is that does a fraud hurts their own people the most

  45. I hope Tnharry you arent referring to me on hunting down Judges and Attorneys and E.Tolle never said he would… Dont shoot the messenger.

    I also said you are an asset to this site

    Nobody wants to hunt Judges. And I can take the anti semetic remarks.

  46. you all have to be fooling yourself if you think this massive fraud has not brought out anger and prejudice against who ever perpetrated a fraud against them and stolen their property.

  47. So what’s your point Charles Reed. Brian Moynihan non Jew. jamie Dimon Non Jew. George W. Bush Non jew. There has not been one Jewish President who calls the shots. No one put a gun to the non Jew to hire a Jew. I can go on and on and on.

    Yes Charles Reed you are a racist. but that’s okay we have the Atom bomb now. So we all go down together.

  48. It’s enforcement which requires both the note and its coll instrument. As to the issue of bifurcation, it may be that they may be “reunified.”
    The court that I know of who said they could be REunified didn’t bother (shock) citing chapter and verse of the Restatement it alleged supported reunification, so I can’t go look it up easily. Imo there is a monster difference between RE-unification and original unity (which orig unity imo is not found with the use of the “original mom” – lender not named as orig ben and then assigned to MERS) Many of you may think that’s a tired argument, that MERS IS an agent because some courts have so ruled – they’re wrong; they slept thru agency. And they’re certainly wrong to find evidence of agency in the dot itself. It’s not there. One reason, and only one reason, for not calling MERS an agent, something obviously easy to do – “a g e n t, five little letters – is because if the dot were the document being relied on to create an agency, that doc would require the agent’s acceptance as evidenced by a stinking signature (this is why real estate commissions, for instance, can get shot down – listing agreements require a writing, one signed by both the seller and the agent, not just the seller. If the agent didn’t sign, there would be no evidence of mutual agreement)
    MERS’ alleged agency might yet be found, but it’s not created in or by the dot. What the dot says by nominating MERS as the ben is a sub of parties. It’s possible a nominated, or novated, party could also be an agent. One of the indications of agency (not peculiar to real estate, though, generally because of the SoF) is how much control the principal has over the agent. The alleged principals have had no control over the acts of the alleged agent that I’m aware of. Rather, the alleged principal or others (servicers, foreclosure mills) act in the name of the alleged agent, which is legally impossible. If you list your house with Find Em Quick as your agent, you as the seller may not act in FEQ’s name. FEQ acts in your name, subject to the scope and terms of your agreement. As a substituted party, the language in the dot about what MERS may and may not is 100% misdirection to detract from the substitution. There’s no hybrid allowed here. There’s only one ben. MERS wasn’t apptd an agent in the dot; it was a substituted party. If the judge is right (C’s link below), that a note and dot may not be separated, I’ll take that to mean and agree that’s true when the mtg loan is created (otherwise the borrower has agreements with two parties). Another document must find MERS, the sub’d party, the agent of the lender or there is no complete mtg loan ‘contract’, if then. So if agency is created in another agreement, oh, say, the membership agreement, why don’t they just fork it over? Because it demonstrates that MERS doesn’t do jack, that the alleged principal acts in the name of the alleged agent by paying money to the alleged agent to do so, and exposes most of the whole rotten deal. And WHEN and if a particular party apptd MERS as agent and is that still the case? Agencies don’t generally run in perpetuity. What I believe it’s missing is indication of Hultman’s corporate authority to sell, oh wait – appoint – for a $20.00 or so payment, anyone to be a MERS’ officer.
    more lay opinions
    I got an idea – how bout we form a company wholly owned by another co. and with no or few assets or employees and get any of our future loans made to that company. And keep our own records. They wouldn’t play, would they? Then we’ll enter a 7 year contract when necessary to try to straighten out who owes what.

  49. Another point as tnharry want to says we are anti-Semitic because what 65% of the top player on Wall Street a Jewish and almost 100% of top leaders at the Fed are Jewish, and a good percentage of attorney in New York are Jewish as with Judges.

    To say something does not make one prejudice if its true. How do we take a dual citizen (Naturalized US Citizens) and recent former head of the Bank of Israel and make him the Vice Chairman of the Fed?

    I am just saying, are there no other to handle these jobs when 72.4% of the population is white, 15% Hispanic and 12.4% black but only 2% Jewish? There are 3 US Supreme Court Justices that are Jewish, plus the Fed Chair and Treasury? All Obama’s head economic team at the White House are Jewish!

  50. Let take the cow analogy a step further and look at the securities as the byproduct in the milk the cow produces, that the consumer is purchasing at the market. All the GSE’s have got problem because they not got any type of receipt showing that they exchanged a single red cent for the purchase of the loans.

    The “investors” buying the loan are not going into court claiming they purchase all these loans, because they are not guarantees to recover your investment, but with Ginnie Mae securities the “investors” are 100% insured for the initial principal investment!

  51. hman, did you agree or disagree there was a valid DOT?

  52. ok Neil, it was bad enough when e.tolle and someone else wanted to hunt down the attorneys and judges with rifles. now you have a lovely thread of anti-semitism rolling through the site.

    hman, I’ll get back to you and then I’m rolling on down the road…

  53. I don’t hate Jews or have anything against them but this entire thing got the Jewish financial fingerprint all over it. It the Jewish financial sector and not the average Jewish family, just as some blacks (which I am) dealt in crack cocaine but it did not mean all black were crack dealers.

    But as Obama is criticized he road crew in the Sharptons will start with the white man is prejudice routine, as the Jewish community will start with that anti-Semitic stuff to try and force people not to accuse them of financial crimes.

    So now we got Judges and attorney that are aware of the what the world was saying leading up to WWII and who was responsible for the financial collapse of the Great Depression. America media has ban this type of talk but I am sure that other places in the world are throwing the blame on the Jewish banking system!

  54. TN

    One other tid bit of info. I sued the original broker & won a default QT prior to the Assignment of mortgage being completed. After I won the QT the Servicer tried to move forward with the Sale.

    Again, I sued. This time I sued the servicer,trustee, & trust but this time I lost. The judge felt that the assignment did not have to come from the original broker but rather one of their “assessors or assigns” as I agreed to in the original DOT. Additionally, I never admitted I had defaulted as there was no binding agreement presented showing I owned any other party anything.

    Any ideas of how to get around this verbage? Furthermore, I wrote another Debt Validation & QWR to Nationstar where they contend that they are in compliance with all applicable state & federal laws. They claim they are conducting the sale non-judicial for “breach of contract in the note & deed of trust”. How can they conduct a sale on a breach on my behalf when a QT has already been recorded prior to their assignment of mortgage? Doesn’t the QT already determine it was the “lender” (broker) who defaulted on the contract. On what grounds can the loan servicer claim a breach of contract when it was already established that I had one first?

    PS thanks for the info.

  55. why I am zeroing in on jewish judges from Alice Schlesinger on thru the appellate judges of Saxe., Friedman, Moskowitz,Freedman .Richter? and LIPPMAN . Most sound jewish to me and the only who followed the Constitution was Chief JUDGE Lippman

  56. My husband could payoff the note … sure…no problem.
    But he couldn’t transfer title …… or should I say “we” couldn’t transfer title to the buyer.

  57. In the Fannie Mae v. Conever the pink elephant in the room is that Fannie is purchasing the property at the foreclosure why? Why is there an allonge when you got enough space on the Note to endorse. The crap going to hit the fan when proof of purchase has to be brought in front of the judge.

    But what I believe has just happen is this is the reason for that purchase from Citi by Fannie because all these loan are screwed up in the same manner. The Note cannot remain to be blank anywhere because there is a vacant entry.

    In the case it said that the loan was signed in blank to Citi, but that would mean that Citi could never have a lien against the property because they are not listed as the “holder in due course”. Once the purchase has occurred the past owner has no ability to come forward later as assign the Note to another because they have sold there interest.

    Now this is not to say that a buyer of the debt cannot purchase the debt (cow) but the title (tail) cannot survive without the debt, so that title that was recorded becomes invalid because there was not a valid assignment recorded. Unless in some States its automatic that the title follows the Note automatic. However if there is no proof of purchase them the heart of the cow the debt, does not exit and neither does the Note (cow)!

    Fannie is not FHA or VA where the loans are insured by that agency and the FHA & VA are purchasing the loan to try and take less of a loss by selling the properties. This Conever situation says why does Fannie purchase a property?

  58. JG, exactly the reason I got plowed in offers to refi my loan. ME? and an amount 180% of the face value on the note.

    No.. I don’t have a loan, I wont refi. Where did you get this information? “public record” they responded.

  59. Chicago Title …
    2010 … Prior to Title Commitment

    Need Trust Agreement and POA agreement
    Need proof MERS was paid off.
    Need confirmation of LP from CW was released.

    BOA response almost two years later … 2011 ALL IN ONE

    Need proof CWHL was paid off.

    roflmbo … poor title abstractor ..
    poor homeowner/seller
    ( poor me/ buyer)

    Everybody is going to court ….. Nice, Orderly, Quiet and Kind

  60. When a loan is modified, the original note needs to have ” modified by blah blah on such and such date” or like that marked on it and a certified copy given to the borrower. If not and a hidc gets the note, the note maker’s defenses are limited. Not only that, but one would have to expend the time and other resources asserting the available defenses.
    Imo, the note, not the mod agreement, is the best evidence of its modification. That writing on the note would preclude anyone from attaining hidc status as to the original note. imo.

  61. Charles, set them down and put them on Notice.
    Nail their lil” peckers down if you have to.

    They said … We haven’t filed and you have possession, what harm? Oh .. lets see… CW slander to title and false claims you have inherited.

    Then there is the Criminal Slander to Title in Sept of 2011 complements of you … you lil stinker … you……..

  62. @hman – let me mull that over a bit. it’s easy to play with ML while on a conference call but your post requires actual consideration.

  63. Exactly JG, they need the permission of ALL parties with an interest in the estate.

    Meaning they need the signatures of all the borrowers and non borrowers with an interest in the estate.

    Volunteered via Mods, Refis SS, DIL….

    Or waived by inaction …

    Heaven forbid they be forced to file the Warranty Deeds to perfect the DOTs. To Much Info …

  64. from NBc news
    Tons of tons of horses dung dumped outside the French Pariliment
    Sounds like a rear end Shays rebellion

  65. @ hammertime:

    Rakoff (your below link) talks from both sides of his mouth. Just look how he starts his conclusion:

    “In conclusion, I want to stress again that I do not claim that the financial crisis that is still causing so many of us so much pain and despondency was the product, in whole or in part, of fraudulent misconduct.”

    I think this guy is just a white-wash or a fraud by himself. Have anything to show me he isn’t.?

  66. “The security interests of the trusts can’t be modified by the borrower and the lender by anyone else any more than a warehouse lender and the borrower could modify.” oops – said that wrong

    The security interests of the trust (or anyone’s security interests) can’t be modified by the borrower and others any more than a warehouse lender and the borrower could modify the rights of the note payee.

  67. a man
    i am jewish and pick on the jewish judges cause after what the jewish people suffered they should not do the same thing Hitler did.

  68. Imo it takes a lending license to negotiate a modification of a loan for another and a modified loan proposal, coming from anyone, requires a reg z with all its disclosures such as a.p.r., amt financed, amt of payments. The couple modifications I’ve seen are dribble, especially that no lender is actually named. And I don’t see how they
    can comply with TILA. In my view, a modification is akin to a refinance in so far as disclosures are required. This is all so wrong. The govt forked over HAMP etc funds to the only people I guess it thought it could (if those funds don’t just pad the banksters’
    balance sheets), but this securitization nonsense has caused other contracts to be injected between the real parties – the borrower and the lender (if that dynamic still exists and hasn’t been 86’d by novation) which are material to “modification” considerations. It appears that in at least all GSE loans, someone – the Issuer
    or FNMA – has to repurchase loans (good trick when there was no delivery, etc) to “modify”. That – modification – should be a straight-forward deal, but it isn’t, as evidenced by the honky modification paperwork. If the loan weren’t delivered, so there was no transfer, it’s someone else “modifying” a loan for which it’s already been paid by the trusts and in which that party has no benefical interest TO modify. The security interests of the trusts can’t be modified by the borrower and the lender by anyone else any more than a warehouse lender and the borrower could modify. The PSA’s may authorize the servicer to modify, but on GSE loans, repurchase is required by another contract between at least the servicer, the issuer, and the the GSE. And if the servicer is authorized by the PSA to modify on, say, non-GSE loans (loans “in default or when default is imminent”) , why isn’t the name of the trust on the modification paperwork?

    Let’s just say that’s the case – the loan was paid for but not delivered. What, if anything, must be, can be, done to modify that loan? Can the supposed-to-be-transferor simply return the money paid by the trust (which means among other things a diminished
    return of the expectation) but call it a repurchase? Nah. Will whomever keep pretending the loan was transferred and call it a repurchase to modify, shell out moolah to an entity as a repurchase when that entity only has security interests?
    “Whomever” has no beneficial interest himself to modify, having already been paid (at least once). What about the (any) insurance or whatnot that that ‘someone’ already received? That’s really a
    hornet’s nest. If a repurchase were being done as is required, at least on a GSE loan, the modification ‘paperwork’ would clearly name the party entering into the modification with the borrower
    and it does NOT. Is there any other conclusion to reach than that it’s all chicanery?
    NG seems to espouse ‘deals’ between the investors and homeowners. Disregarding the UCC, there are other (material) contracts, contracts which guaranteed the investors’ payments, paid out pursuant to the MBS’s (and imo not paid out according to the loan schedules, making the loans mol CDO’s for the true rights of investors, while simultaneously being touted as the assets entirely supporting the payments- the fallacy of sec’n; one loan / asset can’t
    create two separate and distinct obligations. The trust has a right to payments – if it actually owns the loans – but its alleged bens are paid differently and third parties have guaranteed those payments in a novation, it appears). As such, the investors, and as to NG’s ‘deals’, even if the investors were deemed the lender, they have no incentive to modify. Can HAMP funds be used to satisfy that guarantee, a third party’s obligation? Got me, but I doubt it. But maybe.
    Even if so, though, they’ve still got the non-delivery problem. To my knowledge, no loan is ever ‘assigned’ to a trust unless it’s in default by the note maker, which assgt I’ve posited is prima facie evidence there was no prior completion of the transaction.
    Under any theory, then, there needs to be an assgt (for what it’s worth) to the trust to modify, but the banksters aren’t going to increase their exposure (late / void) any more than necessary.

    I’ve said anyone modifiying a loan for another must have a lending license (and fork over a Reg Z), but that may also include anyone who modifies more than X amt of his own loans.
    lay opinions as always

  69. Why do you pick on the Jewish Judges? The Jews are a minority and dont have to do the dirty work for the majority.

    Havent enough Jews died for the majority? Like Jesus Christ.


  70. Neil,

    I think it is time you took that idiot off the air once and for all. Or maybe not… now that she is going after an entire group of people, surely one of them will find it in his heart to put her out of her misery.

  71. Any judge, elected official, bank elitist, employee and ourselves will be judged for this corrupt era.

  72. @TN
    I am putting together my next case & would appreciate some professional insight. I don’t mind you poking holes in my argument, actually I’d rather have it shot down on this blog now than in court is why I’m posing the questions.
    Deed of trust recorded 2006 by “broker”. HUD 1, Note & deed of trust all show “broker” as the lender. HUD 1 also shows the “funding date” dated a week later than the other documents. Also, underwriting documents obtained (never received at closing) show GMAC instructing the broker to close loan as RFC (Residential Funding Co). Also, all prefunding requirements were signed off on on the “funding date”
    So my case starts with My TILA rights were violated from the beginning. No meeting of the minds occured & therefore equitable tolling has not taken place. (I could I guess attempt to excercise my right of recession under TILA)
    Additionally, in a response to a Debt Validation letter I received from the old loan servicer (Aurora) it states that the securitization trustee obtained the note years after the closing date of the trustee. Pursuant to Glaski I am able to make & show these allegations.
    Also, at a later date Aurora sent me a mortgage note with an allonge.
    Here is an excerpt from a case law in my state;
    Under Arizona law, when an instrument is endorsed in
    blank, it becomes a bearer instrument, and may be negotiated by transfer of
    possession alone. ARIZ.REV.STAT. ANN.
    § 47-3205(B). Normally, under Fed.R.Evid. 902(9),
    the Original, as commercial paper, is entitled to a presumption of
    authenticity. Furthermore, U.C.C. § 3-307
    (ARIZ. REV. STAT ANN. § 47-3307(B) presumes the genuineness of
    signatures in negotiable instruments. But, under ARIZ.REV.STAT. ANN.
    § 47-3308, when the validity of an endorsement is challenged, the
    burden of demonstrating authenticity is on the party asserting it.6
    One person signed on behalf of 3 parties in my paperwork. The robosigner signed on behalf of Deutsche (Trustee), MERS, & the loan servicer. I have also pulled docts on the maricopa country recorders system showing her signing on behalf of multiple other parties.
    Additionally, recent AZ case law has overturned lower courts decisions regarding “false recordings”.

    google stauffer-v-first-american-title-relating-to-ars-33-420-and-false-recordings

    Here is another case that relies on the logic of the first case & again saying the bank can’t create false recordings;

    My point is that the person who signed my documents on behalf of multiple parties violated this statute as well as well as recent case law. The assignments & so forth based on false recordings are there for void etc…
    In a nutshell; TILA rights violated as well as fraud, Loan being accepted after cutoff date contridicts PSA requirements & would create tax implications, finally false recording. That seems to be the nuts & bolts so have it please & don’t feel as though you need to hold back.
    Again, I feel it’s better to get a realistic approach to what is going on in the courts. This will be my 3rd go around.

  73. In CA lawyers, non-profits, officials are still pre Homeowner Bill of Rights ignoring issues of standing and steering people into unlawful foreclsoures and modifications.

  74. Charles, you’d better reread the Conover decision too. Fannie and Nationstar won the appeal

    “When viewing the disputed facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovants, Nationstar was a holder of the Note, succeeded to all rights and interests under the Note and Deed of Trust, and had the authority to enforce the Note and Deed of Trust against the Conovers and to appoint the successor trustee to conduct the trustee‟s sale and to deliver the trustee‟s deed. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Conovers on the basis that the successor trustee was not properly appointed. On the record presently before us, neither party is entitled to summary judgment under any legal theory”.

  75. A MAN



  76. Charles, I read the Gray decision as reversing the summary judgment based on them not explicitly stating that Everhome was in possession of the note. Seems a trivial issue that they can correct by restating the motion and the statement of facts not in dispute. Assuming that they are in possession of the blank endorsed note I think that decision represents little more than a delayed victory for the bank. What are you seeing beyond that?

  77. Nope. That’s not it.

    4 judges from two different jurisdictions don’t come up with a quadruple indictment of frivolous, non-meritorious, bad faith and vexatious actions without a pretty damn good reason. Nothing whatsoever to do with Eliot v. Piersol case. Just to do with the deliberate breach of each and every procedure as to appropriateness, timing, wording and relevance.


  78. TN


  79. Just in from MO, Fannie Ma v. Conover and they just lost another case in appeal court, so we got two in two days were David beat Goliath! Writing on the wall it the “No Standing” stupid!

  80. Meanwhile CA is sitting on 60% of settlement funds.

  81. Recent article on LA TImes – “As the five-year statute of limitations approaches for the wrongdoing that bequeathed us the Great Recession, the question of why no high-level executives have been prosecuted becomes more urgent.

    You won’t find a better, more incisive discussion of the question than the one by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of New York in the current issue of the New York Review of Books.

    Rakoff, 70, is the right person to raise the issue. He’s a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan, where he handled business and securities fraud. A Clinton appointee, he’s been on the bench for more than 17 years.”,0,4386369.story#ixzz2qag4VLUY

  82. Folk we got Fannie purchasing Mortgage Servicing Right for 63,000 loan for $10.3 billion, which is $163,000 per loan for a servicing agreement?

    Folk there are rescinding these loans back as if these loan where never received with blank Notes!

  83. They wiped out an entire generation. (50yrs) Buttwipes!

  84. a MAN
    iN MY DECISIONS THE JUDGES ARE PRETTY MAD BECAUSE i pointed out and proved they are lying about the facts and they have not followed their oath to uphold the laws of the land- Elliot v PIERSOL- and the Constitution.

  85. CONST. art. VIII, § 5 provides: “The credit of the state shall not, in any …. not in any manner loan its credit, nor shall it subscribe to, or be interested in the stock.

  86. I find that remarkable: the AG has yet to go after foreclosure mills where false documents have been -and continue to be- issued by non scrupulous attorneys but she has no problem going after dishonest ones trying to cash in on the debacle.

    Where is the difference? Oh, wait a minute! Those guys did not work for a bank. That’s why. God forbid their enterprising little gig would compete with institutionalized corruption and theft. Can’t have that, now. Can we?

    This was filed by the California AG against the attorneys referenced below.

    Attorney faces 108 years in prison
    This is small-time compared to foreclosure-mill attorneys.
    CA AG. Harris said: “The conduct of the attorneys in this scheme is even more offensive because they violated their ethical duty to be honest to the courts.” The accused and their attorneys allegedly “provided factually impossible and knowingly fraudulent evidence and statements in court under penalty of perjury” in order to obtain residential properties.

  87. @marilyn – words mean things. even assuming you have a point about banks lending credit, banks aren’t states. “NO STATE SHALL”

  88. As I’ve pointed out a few times, Schwartzwald is still not a complete home run.

    Dissenting Opinion Simply and Correctly Interprets Schwartzwald
    SRMOF Trust v. Lewis

    Given that a note and mortgage are inseparable and that a party who merely holds the mortgage suffers no injury, I do not believe the Supreme Court intended to imply that possession of the mortgage alone is sufficient to establish standing. Therefore, as indicated above, I would have remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in Schwartzwald

  89. Whose credit is being lent?


  91. Oh … LOL! My own reading comprehension…
    ML… YES! YES!
    I quit banging my head into that brick wall a long time ago.

  92. Tnharry, No way, LOL!

    .. The facts and the law are on my side, I’m pounding them both! When you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.. you don’t get to keep the cookie.

  93. kc
    i SPENT THOUSAND OF DOLLARS IN COURT FEES AND PRINTING AND ALTHOUGH CHIEF JUDGE LIPPMAN DECISION STATED this is not a final decision the appellate court refuses to give me a final decision that is why I AM HERE

  94. @ ML:
    Judge across America have stolen hundreds of thousands of properties as payoffs to assist fraudulent foreclosures & they couldn’t care less about their pension funds!!!

  95. Read the Judges excuses none of them seem mad.

  96. Oy Gevalt

    come on neil and matt weidner Florida is ripe for this. How much can you take? Dont you have a large enough following to finally say enough is enough.

    Very simple.


  97. tn

  98. KC i was hoping that “this is your podium” would have gotten a response.

  99. RE; ” you tell us that you have a void or voidable judgment against you that needs to be vacated. yet instead of doing anything about it, you come here”

    ~~ I know … Right?


    try again

  101. marilyn – “no state shall” means “no state shall”. article one was all about consolidating power previously exercised by the states to the federal government. your reading of “no state shall” differs not only from the plain english meaning of those words (which alone is very odd), but from virtually all decisions interpreting constitutional law in this country.

    for me at least, this entire argument demonstrates the error of your ways. you tell us that you have a void or voidable judgment against you that needs to be vacated. yet instead of doing anything about it, you come here to push some weird interpretation of the constitution that doesn’t even help your case if it were true.


  102. tn

  103. tn
    now that i pointed out what
    ‘ no state means
    ‘ in the Constitution
    read art 1 para 10 cl 1
    and you will see the judges are ruling on ultra vire contracts

  104. @marilyn that argument isn’t compelling in the world of institutional investing. you’re talking about something that may be 10% of a particular mutual fund that comprises 15% of an overall portfolio. the numbers just don’t add up to bias levels. if you found that judge that was 100% invested in pure MBS securities, then maybe you have something. otherwise it’s just more distraction from bad facts and bad law.

    they said in law school that if the facts are against you, pound on the law. if the law is against you, pound on the facts. if the facts and the law are against you, pound on the podium. marilyn, this website is your podium…..

  105. TN
    judges and their family connections should not be allowed to invest in mortages backed securities pensions or privately and then rule

  106. tn
    if you search bback far enough you see an article written by the college president reminding journalists that it is the judges that protect their 1st amendment rights.and work as a team not wise to bite the hand that feeds you

    How many times have you seen in the media articles nationwide about the foreclosure fraud in the last five years Scott Pelley?

  107. tn

    if you search back far enough you see an article written by the college president that reminds the journalists that it is the judges that protect their 1st amendments rights and not wise to go bite the hand that feeds one.

  108. first of all, it’s CLE and training, not quite the brainwashing camp you seem to think it is and they don’t control the media as you other post suggests.

    second, and I know i’m going to regret this, but what specific part of the constitution are they abandoning? your arguments seem like they are based almost entirely on emotion rather than fact and law

  109. TN
    i’m not into black helicopters or violence. But with millions of family;s losing their homes and the judges sticking together in abandoning rheir oath to the Constitution to protect our property rights, something is wrong.

  110. the njc has an article on The Courts and the media. – seems thats why we find it so hard to get this ponzi scheme into the press

  111. marilyn – not everything is black helicopters. attorneys and judges are required to do certain amounts of continuing legal education each year. this one is tailored to educating and training judges

    and yes, there is significant talk of dealing with pro se litigants. most are nice enough and just not quite up to speed on law and procedure. others however can be quite militia oriented and will file liens against the property owned by the judges and clerks, and that’s not to mention the ones who are actually violent.

  112. i went back and looked aat the description of the classes offered by the national Judicial College. The description of how to handle pro se lit agents calmed down and changed. Before they spoke of a pro se referring to the Constitution and militia how to handle it them now it looks like pro se are sweet people who need court help

  113. OK.

  114. Neil and anyone

    Who funds the National Judges College in Reno Nevada?

    they train judges there how to rule. Since the judges pensions are invested in MBS when the Banks win, we the people lose.

    Is the NJC getting any money from the bank settlements or the judges?

  115. The Great Rescind is on as Fannie Mae is buy the servicing rights from Citi of 63,000 of its loans. Look at Gray v. Fannie Mae and you can see why this is happening because the fact is Faniie or the bank could provide the Alabama appeals court that its owned the loan or when the blank endorse Note was actually in the possession of these Notes as there is no date indicating the transfer.

    The court uses the cow & the tail, saying that the cow (Note) can survive without the tail, yet the tail (mortgage, deed or trust, security deed) cannot survive without the cow. The cow if it owns the debt can collect on the debt but it must be the “holder in due course”!

    So let take it one step further and that is that the cow (Note) and the heart (Debt) cannot live without each other and are inseparable as each dies without the other, and this is what done after the blank Notes are relinquished to these GSEs without a purchase occurring!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: