Wall Street Analysts Don’t Get It

I am not in the habit of giving investment advice and I am not about to start. But it has come to my attention that there are numerous pundits who call themselves analysts that are pumping the stock of Bank of America. I know how this works, but besides the corruption their articles reflect a general consensus on Wall Street that is based on a false premise. In 2007 are predicted that the banks would show and announce losses and then show a steady stream of profits and potential profits. This was because they were essentially stealing money from the investors and committing other fraudulent acts against investors government-sponsored entities and virtually everyone else in the mortgage foreclosure business. In the context of an exploding or imploding “securitization” market where the trading in the bogus mortgage bonds was frozen, the banks would have drawn a lot of attention if they were all reporting the money they had taken as revenue or profit. I predicted that they would later bring that money back in on a steadily increasing basis laundering the stolen cash through the mortgage foreclosure process. One of the basic strategies they employed was the creation of the inclusion of proprietary trading profits that could not be easily audited or confirmed.

 During the period of the mortgage meltdown, the banks were reporting an increase in deposits and an increase in loans. The pundits who are writing articles at the behest of Bank of America and other institutions are looking at the surface of the reports instead of drilling down and doing the analysis that should be done before they open their mouths and say something about the value of the stock.

They still don’t get that the increase in deposits and the increase in loans was completely fake. The “deposits” were really investments from pension funds and the like who thought they were buying mortgage bonds. Instead of brokering the transaction Bank of America took the money in as a deposit. Instead of sending the money to the REMIC trust that “issued” the “mortgage bonds” from the “trust” that didn’t have a cent of money or assets and no revenue stream to pay on the bonds, Bank of America skimmed up to 25% off the top and then created a fake underwriting portfolio where loans were originated or acquired to make it look like the securitization game was on.  That is what accounted for the increase in loans reported by the banks.

But to complete the fraud they issued the bonds in the name of the broker dealer (street name) and issued the promissory notes from borrowers to nominees, which was the equivalent of “street name.”  In most cases the delivery of the promissory note was never completed and certainly never given to the strawman that served as the originator of the loan and was named on the note and mortgage. The investors didn’t stand a chance. And the stockholders of BAC don’t stand a chance either because the cover-up is falling apart. Now the last ditch effort to pretend the loans were not securitized when they are in foreclosure litigation (reverting back to the original strategy in place 2001-2009) is also failing because lawyers are smelling blood in the water. When BAC comes down it will be faster and sooner than any of the pundits can imagine.


Sent from the Seeking Alpha Portfolio app. Get the app.

Bank Of America: Billions In Additional Profits Coming, Here’s How

Wed, Jan 29 | by Josh Arnold Includes: bac

Yesterday, I took a look at Bank of America’s (BAC) net interest margin as a way to gauge the company’s ability to increase earnings in the future. Today, we’ll take a look at another piece of BAC’s business, its mix of loans and leases to its deposit base. This is a key metric in banking as it compares the amount of low cost, “sticky” money to the amount of that money that is being lent…

Read more at Seeking Alpha:

98 Responses

  1. My friends, I desperately need your help. After reviewing my Assignment of Deed of Trust I noticed some things that were definitely wrong. The assignment is with Citi Mortgage. The first thing I notice is that it was dated July 26, 2013, which is really crazy because the transaction was conducted back in 2006. The second thing that jumped out at me was the Signature. It is signed by a Geraldine Ann Belinski and her title is Vice President, so I decided to track down this Vice President. I finally reached the office where she worked at Citi Mortgage and I asked to speak to Vice President Belinski. Low and behold the Gentleman that answered the phone stated that she was not the vice president but a mere processor. So armed with that information and some issues with my second mortgage with Wells Fargo, which is securitized I decided to file a complaint with the Office of Comptroller of Currency. My complaint was based on the fact that there is a Cease and Desist order against both banks to stop the robo signing. I have not yet received a response from Wells Fargo, but Citi responded by saying “Our records indicate Geraldine A. Belinski is a certified appointed signor for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.” What I need help with is, I need to know if she can in fact work for Citi and be a certified appointed signor for MER’s as they stated. Also is she signing the document as a Citi Vice President or MERS Vice President. I need to know because if this is in fact illegal Im going to keep pushing this up the Government Chain of Command until I get some answers. It makes no sense to me that they would initiate a Cease and Desist Order and not take any action when the banks are still clearly doing this. Thanks for your help in this matter James. jsmith5915@msn.com 443-677-2799.

  2. United States
    Securities and Exchange Commission
    Form D
    Notice of Sale of Securities
    section 4(6)and/or
    Uniform Limited Offering Exemption

    Name of Offering
    MERSCORP, INC Common Stock, par value $0.01

    Name of Issuer MERSCORP, INC.,

    Information requested… (and provided)

    ~Each promoter of the issuer, if the issuer has been organized within the last 5yrs.

    ~Each beneficial owner having the power to vote or dispose, or diret the vote of, 10% or more of a class of equity securities of the issuer.

    ~Each Executive Officer and Director of corporate issuers and of corporate general and managing partners of partnership issuers: and

    ~Each General and Managing Partner of partnership issuers.

    Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Mortgage Bankers Association of America .. Beneficial Owners

  3. @ JenninGA! ,

    Sounds like a xls spreadsheet of a “remittance” report you were looking at … so you found it in a 2010 report? .. while you have access download everything you can find , especially the collateral files AND MAKE BACKUPS ,,, you should be able to find a page where you can download “all files in the series” ,, go for it. ,, and not just for your lender ,, get them all.

    The remittance reports are key for another reason

    They all have disclaimers regarding the level of accuracy of data provided to the TRUSTEE (owner of the report) from the sub-servicers as being unverified… this is valuable when anyone is being sued by the TRUSTEE but the TRUSTEE is presenting SUB-SERVICER data in the notice of default… and they always do because it is actually the sub-servicer that is suing for foreclosure to sell your house to repay the advances they made. If you have the TRUSTEE COLLATERAL FILES use them to bitch slap your plaintiff… “THE TRUSTEES OWN DATA SHOWS NO DEFAULT AND A PERFECT PAYMENT HISTORY! WHO , Mr. LAWYER FOR THE PLAINTIFF… ARE YOU ACTUALLY REPRESENTING?”

    Then you have a situation where the sub-servicer has to prove standing/agency … in my case the first sub-servicer had agency ,, but the 2nd,3rd and 4th (some may be defunct) must prove agency … and we have that bankruptcy case (WF v. HLN? I Think) where WF successfully argued that the servicer advances were uncollectible by HLN because that was all factored into the companies valuation when sold …. In my case that makes the current sub-servicer who bought the servicing rights a year after my case was files SOL.

  4. jenn

    contact me at grg2615@gmail.com to discuss ttees and monthly reports further. you’re almost there.

    Bob G.

  5. I would agree that the trusts were unfunded prior to 2010.

  6. What Note?
    The FC is the conversion, to hide theft of the Title to the Estate prior to default.

  7. Just saw Lawsky stopped Ocwen from buying some WF loans.

    Thinking about the Ocwen settlement…and how both Ocwen and Litton misrepresented things…

    Bob G and KC – the trusts are not really real….but the nice monthly reports – who are they for? I called the “trustee” and followed up w/ a certified letter – they replied but tell me they don’t really know anything and can’t confirm anything and direct you to the servicer….I am not sure the Trustee read the monthly reports for the Trust – since my letter asked if either of my loans had been removed, traded out or marked paid in full and instead the trustee just said they are both collateral for the trust…

  8. Nope.

  9. Conversion and Cover Up

  10. Kc
    So what do u think happened and why do they say they transferred the notes to the trusts?

  11. Exactly Bob!

  12. We reached a settlement agreement with BOA to move out on or before September 15, 2013. Cash settlement with a DIL. They were to have completed the DIL on or before we moved out. Never received the paperwork. Getting bills as well as the continued to process us as a foreclosure. We have been dealing with the attorneys with this on-going harassment and trying to get the title out of our names. Finally in early January 2014, we get a package of documents from a law firm we have never heard of with a new Estoppel Agreement which would basically set aside the Agreement we reached in July 2013 as well as a DIL backdated two years ago they wanted us to sign and have notarized. This pretend DIL did not even contain the correct information and contained information from the refinance that we did in 2010. It also directed us to confirm that we were given proof of a satisfaction of payoff for which there was no such attachment. The story gets more weird but, once again, I can’t find an attorney who will or can help. Not only did they breach the Agreement but have left us in a position of great past, current and future liability. It seems to me that they obviously can’t process the DIL for whatever reason and this should certainly be a case in which a court should grant a quiet title action as there doesn’t seem to be any other way out of this for us. Much of what has taken place is exactly like “Yarney vs. Bank of America”, with a few more added twists such as requiring us to commit forgery and a few other little minor details. I thought I saw and heard it all after two years of litigation with them, but they just keep getting better and we will probably never be rid of them from our lives.

  13. Your loan isn’t in a trust. Never was.

  14. @neidermeyer

    I have not checked the site in months. I did print a lot. I may not have been clear in earlier post – sorry – what I was trying to ask you was in the monthly distribution report for the month in 2010 when one of my loans was charged off – I found my loans – they are listed by original loan numbers – the report included the charged off loan in a spread sheet titled “Realized Loss Loan Detail Report-Loans with Losses during Current Period” which matches what info I was told.
    BUT further back in the report I found it listed also in a report that lists all the loans in the trust that have ever had a mod – this Report is called “Historical Modification Detail”. Both of my loans were modified in back 2008 -both appear in this report the other loan shows “No Action” as the status in this report. The “charged off” loan shows in the status column “LOAN PAID IN FULL” .

    In the monthly reports after my loan was charged off- they still include the loan in the “Historical Modification Detail” but from then on the Status for that one is listed as “Inactive”.

    I have a theory – that Litton made a claim against my title policy (I had a closing issue/error)- and I want to ask : how would I get that information? Would I call the Title Policy company – I also paid for a policy for myself – as homeowner would I have the right to know if a claim had been paid?

  15. @ JeninGA! ,

    I can’t answer you for certain ,, but I have seen “paid in full” for payoffs and refi’s … I would think that a true mod would certainly be listed as “paid in full” ..

    Do you currently have CTSLink access?


    WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAY FOR THE COURT GRANTING JUDGMENT AGAINST defendants as having failed to procure a proper judicial foreclosure,


    For Executory Contracts, Contracts of Adhesion and or all other agreements in perpetuities.

    ` Defendant claims are for a transferred asset the Plaintiffs loan, sold on or about November 21 2008 for value.
    ` Defendant knew at the time of making the transfer that the purported mortgages was not enforceable, but he did not disclose this fact to the grantor and Plaintiff.
    ` Defendant made the transfer with intent to defraud plaintiff.

    (Notice the Statement “transferred asset.. the Plaintiffs loan)

    ~~~ I was not a borrower under the Note

    Scratching a Butt Yet ….. ?

  17. V.
    SMITH, INC. f/k/a BANC OF

    ` Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. is and at all times herein mentioned a Corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina with principle offices located in the City of Charlotte, County of Hillsborough .
    ` Defendant BANC OF AMERICA MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., is and at all times herein mentioned a Corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina with principle offices located in the City of Charlotte, County of Hillsborough .
    ` Defendant MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC. f/k/a BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES LLC is and at all times herein mentioned a Corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina with principle offices located in the City of Charlotte, County of Hillsborough .
    ` . Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES I through 10 inclusive, and therefore sues BofA , defendants by such fictitious names.
    ` . Plaintiff “ will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
    8. Plaintiff is informed and believes as fact, and thereon alleges as fact that, at all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants sued herein was the agent and employee of each of the remaining defendants and was at all times acting within the purpose, and scope of such agency and employment.

  18. Banking products are provided by Bank of America, N.A. and affiliated banks, Members FDIC and wholly owned subsidiaries of Bank of America Corporation.

    Investment and insurance products:

    Are Not FDIC Insured
    Are Not Bank Guaranteed
    May Lose Value

    Are Not Deposits
    Are Not Insured by Any Federal Government Agency
    Are Not a Condition to Any Banking Service or Activity

    Merrill Edge is the marketing name for two businesses: Merrill Edge Advisory Center, which offers team-based advice and guidance brokerage services; and a self-directed online investing platform. Both are made available through Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (MLPF&S).

    Merrill Lynch Wealth Management makes available products and services offered by Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated.

    MLPF&S is a registered broker-dealer, Member SIPC and a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation.

    Insurance products are offered through Merrill Lynch Life Agency Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and/or Banc of America Insurance Services, Inc., all of which are licensed insurance agencies and wholly-owned subsidiaries of Bank of America Corporation.

    Bank of America, N.A. Member FDIC. Equal Housing Lender
    © 2014 Bank of America Corporation. All rights reserved.


    Track yours … click on the red box to find the servicer and Owner of your loan.


  19. May G-d continue to give Neil Garfield and company Health Strength and Courage.

  20. vL also applies to a lawfirm and its partners carrying that liability separately and jointly i believe.
    LAy opinion of my understanding of my research.

  21. Jg i think what you refer to is called vicarious liability.
    Lay opinion of course

  22. Hate to be disagreeable, but MERSCorp is hiring-assigning someone to work on behalf of a MERS nominee, with an already “limited” capacity as a storage space? How’s that working? IMHO worth the fight, every minute of it! Just me…and FYI: I am not in the situation currently.

  23. If MERS is still on many mortgages today, which they are, I believe we are wasting our time…..

  24. Corporate negligence can come in many different forms. Generally speaking, it occurs when a corporation or its representative breaches a particular duty to a third party who suffers some harm due to the breach. The acts of a member of a company’s board of directors who does not observe his or her duty of care in operating the business may commit this act if there is resulting harm to the company — and by extension, the shareholders.

    Additionally, anyone acting on behalf of a corporation who causes some harm to a customer may be held liable for corporate negligence. The legal concept of vicarious liability holds liable not only the person who committed the negligent act (robo-signor), but the company itself will also be liable if the negligent actions were conducted in the course of his or her job.

  25. Imo, we need to agree who is the correct party to assign a dot, whether he does it himself or has his agent do it if he has one (by written agreement). It isn’t the current note owner. It’s the last note owner, assuming he were himself assigned the dot. If an agent is empowered to execute an assgt, he has to be the agent of the last note owner. His agency with the current note owner as to the assgt of the dot is good for nada, because the current note owner has no right to execute an assgt himself; in order for an agent to execute an assgt, he has to be the agent of the last note owner. Even if he is also an agent for the current note owner, he still has to get that marching order from the last note owner. I’d like to see where “MERS” ever got such a missive. To my knowledge, the only way MERS would even know if an assgt were being done is the payment required to use its name. Given that MERS had (still?) no employees, hard to imagine who might have done diligence on the millions of assgts being done in its name.

  26. “The “duty to monitor” [fn16] has been litigated in other circumstances,
    generally where directors were alleged to have been negligent in
    monitoring the activities of the corporation, activities that led to
    corporate liability………See In re Abbot Laboratories S’holders Litig., 325 F.2d 795 (7th Cir. 2003); In re Caremark Int’1 Inc. Derivative Litig., 698 A.2d 959 (Del.Ch. 1996); In re Baxter Int’l, Inc. S’holders Litig., 654 A.2d 1268 (Del.Ch. 1995).” As far as I know, there was no corporate resolution for the current iteration of MERS for Hultman to appoint people as MERS’ “officers”. However, it would prob be argued that the corp ratified his appts, dropping the liability of any fraudulent act of those officers right in MERS’ corporate lap – in my lay opinion. (MERS could hardly disclaim knowledge and by the duty to monitor, they had a duty to know. It’s further my understanding that members asked Hultman to appt non-members as MERS’ officers (bad enough to appt member-employees) so they could out-source the execution of assgts and foreclosure-related tasks – and that he did so, including those we have come to know as robo-signors.

    Are these people really MERS’ officers? Isn’t that just a guise? We call them straw officers – they don’t’ work for MERS, aren’t paid by MERS, and if MERS in any way oversees what they do, it’s news to me. Imo, MERS never had any intention of following thru with what the borrower was led to believe in the dot. It’s m.o. from day one – in black and white – was to lay that job on the servicer, whose interests may well conflict with the party for whom, if MERS is an agent, MERS has a fiduciary – the lender. The servicers then asked Hultman to let them lay the (alleged MERS’) rights on yet other people, by way of a Hultman resolution appting people at f/c mills, including some who couldn’t spell fiduciary on a good day, as some here know all too well.
    However, whatever they are or aren’t, it was MERS’ intent that their acts be taken as legitimate and relied on by borrowers and courts alike.

  27. Just ask that Corporate Officer who writes their paycheck ..
    MERSCorp member ……

  28. Yes…. the “same” Corporate Officers.

    Yes! Yes! Yes!

  29. JG here how MERS works is they have these non paid Assistance Secretaries of some other names they go by, and in this one St Louis foreclosure mill law firm the head of the foreclosure dept who is an attorney and is also one of the non paid MERS employee.

    She creates and signs the assignment of DOT but she does not have possession of the Note or she is not the beneficiary for WaMu who is the last party on the Note, and they skip back in the chain of title to the originator of the loan, and pertain as if they had not sold the loan, and act as if Wells Fargo has purchase the loan, but misleads the local court by saying that Wells Fargo is the legal holder of the Promissory Note. However Wells Fargo is only the holder of the Note as the custodian of record, and therefore cannot submit to the court to be placed into the lien position.

    So MERS and Wells Fargo made the court believe that the were this owner of the debt, and knew the court would not ask for the Note when transferring ownership. Next Wells Fargo administratively foreclose. In the case of these WaMu loans after Sept 25, 2008 (even before) WaMu not the holder of the Notes so they cannot be in the lien position, and after they were seized they have not working relationship with the “failed bank”!

    WaMu could not perform any bank business so MERS cannot be their Representative! MERS and Wells Fargo lied to the court as the non owner of the debt cannot present itself as the owner and process as such!

  30. Draper and Kramer Inc ….

    Draper and Kramer provides a single source of real estate-related counsel.

    Draper and Kramer Mortgage Corp., dba 1st Advantage Mortgage (IL:MB.0004263 …

    Do you see a connection

  31. Exceptions to Shareholder immunity:

    “Implied Knowledge”

    You may have encountered situations where a court, in trying to determine whether or not a party had “actual knowledge” of an illegal circumstance, is willing to “imply” such knowledge merely from the factors surrounding the situation. In the case of shareholder liability, it is not entirely uncommon for the court to imply knowledge of certain illegal acts to major shareholders who are in a position to (and have shown the proclivity to) assert major influence over the firm.”


  32. Exceptions to the general rule of limited liability for corporate officers and shareholders: reasons Corporate officers and shareholders, of MERS or Joe’s Garage say, could be nailed personally (aka piercing the corporate veil):


  33. KC so this legal team is filing claims that somebody a long time ago has already filed in court? Do you work for free? Do you get mad at how much Bill Gates makes? He made like $20 billion last year.

    There is nothing that I learned from this site as over 1 1/2yr ago I can to this site making this claim, but if everybody here is not in it for the money what are they here for? The homes were illegally sold so what the amount owed?

    My goal was to collect billion of dollar for the US Taxpayers and that will be accomplished!

  34. “For the purposes of criminal liability, what must a corporate employee do to be considered acting within the scope of employment? **

    To act within the scope of his or her employment, the employee must have actual or apparent authority to engage in a particular act.

    A corporate employee is said to have apparent authority if he or she engages in conduct that a third party could reasonably believe he or she as the authority to perform.

    Actual authority is that authority a corporation knowingly and intentionally delegates to an employee. To put it simply, if a rational relationship can shown between an employee’s criminal conduct and his or her corporate duties, chances are the corporation will be criminally liable for the employee’s conduct.”

    from this article by law firm Lorandos Joshi:


    still looking for material on corporate liability for the acts of its “officers”
    (v employees, as none of these robo-signing officers were MERS’ employees.)

  35. KC stop hating on the claim as someday you just may need a job. Nobody submitted something as you can see with JPMorgan that the Government said it been decade they been committing the crime they have. However I already never from the US Attorney Office no one had submitted this claim at the time I submitted as the Federal Government was not working on any case like it, as of Jul 2011!

  36. KC I don’t give a rat ass if you like me, however if the amount of the claim is not large then the bank don’t care about you are me. However that we expose this crime we can get everybody back what they are owned. What the claim is that the party in Wells Fargo has “No Standing” but I said that a million times already.

    But what my motivation is, should not matter but that I am getting back the taxpayer money. In 2000 I set out to learn how to do government insured loans because I knew there was better financing for people and being a former Military guy I wanted to make sure that I took care of my brother in arms. I never ripped off my customers even when you knew that these people were easy targets.

    I been trying since 2005 for a National way to deliver fair government loan for people. Now I know with money that I can effect more lives than being some broke clown trying to help one person at a time. Why do you work? I am working for what the government program is awarding for getting back US taxpayer dollars.

    If I am responsible for recovery $10 billion plus the treble damage of 3 time the amount the award is between 10%-30% should I not want that monies? I wrote to the President in 2005 when Katrina happen to put forward a plan were me and my ex-military buddies could clear out all the debris and help rebuild the properties there and with all the donations we could pay for the homes and then put low interest FHA mortgages on the properties, and those payment would go for the next disaster.

    I had many ideas I put forward but without money people don’t listen to you. So don’t like me, as I don’t really care, but I will be able to help in the future while you still talking like I was only talking until I had a nickel in that dime. I did not set the limit as to what the rewards amounts are as these amounts have been around since people were recovering lost treasuries at sea and the Government was sharing what was recovered.

    People grow food for profit and build homes for profit and cars for profit, so I don’t get were you are coming from about whether I want money or not!

  37. KC, on February 4, 2014 at 12:36 pm said (and which case was this?:

    “Montana reverses the trial court’s summary judgment for MERS……

    The Lenders argue that MERS received a “benefit” from the DOT even though MERS did not lend the money and has no right to repayment.

    ** The alleged benefit is title to the property in the event of
    foreclosure.** ”

    Really? Perhaps they’ll tell us more. I’d really like to hear all about that. Is MERS taking title as a nominee? Is MERS taking title as an agent, and if so, of whom? If it’s as agent, it’s 1) still the title of the principal and 2) the principal is still “doing business”, just thru its agent. MERS et al wanted the benefit of a nominee (a separate and distinct party to foreclose and take title to foreclosures, that is, “do business”) but tried to endow the nominee with the strings attached to agency to preclude MERS from having any interest (at the same time it wanted MERS to take title so it doesn’t have to). If they had called MERS an agent, then the trust (or whomever) is “doing business”, just thru its agent. They sought to avoid the trusts being seen as doing

    “The common law principle in operation is usually represented in the canon law maxim, qui facit per alium facit per se, i.e. “whoever acts through another does the act himself”.

    And the court was right when it said if MERS receives a benefit, it’s not one created in the dot. It’s from the zillions of dollars members pay MERS to act in its name, for which MERS is liable, and other stuff.

  38. RE: People are creature of habit, and Szymoniak got away with it once, but not this time!

    Your right she wont … someone beat her to the punch along time ago.

  39. Read Szymoniak original claim that she got paid on and the client she got the information from they did not know that Ginnie Mae pooled loans were involved in this matter. I put those dot to together for her as it was MERS who created the forgeries in my case.

    You cannot trust these people as far as you can throw them, on top of my whistle-blower case is a letter to the Northern GA US Attorney Office outlining what my Qui Tam was about!

    This is crazy but the amount is so great, and these numbers I gave plus the amount of claims involved can be tracked back to the 800,000 government insured loan not modified under the HAMP during 2009-2010. It easy to prove because as I said 1005 of the loan still will have a blank Note in the Ginnie Mae files that can NEVER be transferred. If the loan were originated by the lender foreclosing it will look as if they are the rightful party in title but the Note reveals the blank endorsement and the Ginnie Mae file show the date the loan were transferred into the pools separating the Note and Debts. Ginnie Mae form GMM211B and the MERS form Milestone.

    People are creature of habit, and Szymoniak got away with it once, but not this time!

  40. Charles .. don’t talk to me. I don’t care for you or her!
    Its very obvious to me what you two are out for .. yourself!!!

    Money Money Money ….

    You cant even state a claim … how their actions Harmed You!

    Tell Bob G, the status of your FC.
    cough cough
    You didn’t even appeal.
    cough gag snort

    Sir, I been Whistling Dixie years before you showed up on this site, and guess what? I didn’t ask to be rewarded for doing the right thing.

    Go to the back of the room and Hush!!!

    Achoo ….Excuse Me, .. I’m Allergic to BS,

  41. RE: MERS swears these guys are their officers. Okay.

    When you say MERS ..
    do you Mean MERS
    or MERSCorp
    or MERSCorp Holdings?

    Who is MERSCorp?

    Weeee are sooooooo Screwed!!!!

  42. Szymoniak did the same thing to the guy who is suing her now for the DocX claim. I told her how much this was going to produce. The JPMorgan was the tipping point of this matter because they admitted to committing fraud.

  43. KC I looking at the email I sent to Szymoniak on Sept 4, 2012 about this and I also talk with her on the phone about this case but she said she could not help and I told her how this was taking place. Some like what she did to the guy who told her about the DocX situation where she sold his idea, plus I called her legal team also about this, around the same time!

    I hope it a good thing I already submitted this to the SEC whistle blower program and have a tracking number!

  44. from KC’s material :
    “The Palm Beach, Fla., plaintiff’s lawyer alleges the 22 banks, mortgage servicers, trustees, custodians and default management companies created fraudulent mortgage assignments and submitted tens of thousands of false claims to HUD.”

    Each and every one of those assignments alleged to be fraudulent were done in the name of, and apparently sanctioned by, a corporation called “MERS”. Why isn’t that company named, I’d sure like to know.
    Corporations are liable for acts done in their names, so wth? That corporation, more than anyone, has liability for those acts. Does anyone doubt this? MERS swears these guys are their officers. Okay.
    Suppose I own Lucy’s Lawns and I send Ricardo over to your place to trim and clean up your yard. He cuts down your prize roses and trashes the kids’ tree house. Would anyone take his grievance up with just Ricardo?


  45. In this last segment, I want to touch on recorded assignments (or the lack thereof) and what that means for potentially quieting the title to your property. I speak of this from a paralegal’s point of view. If you have an issue with my thought process, you are certainly encouraged to toss these ideas out to a competent foreclosure defense attorney and get his take on it! I would recommend someone who has actually succeeded in doing a full-blown quiet title action in the quasi in rem realm.

    I speak of this process in the sense that in today’s times, with the advent of this so-called “agent place card business model”, the Lenders get to screw over every county recorder and register of deeds by not recording assignments after the original Lender sells the promissory note. This, in effect, has turned the entire quiet title process into a quasi in rem scenario in favor of the homeowner and against the place card agent and any future lender touching its business model.

    First … the just desserts …

    The problem with the state legislatures is that many of them succumbed to taking “private donations” by the bank lobbyists in exchange for passing legislation to allow “place card agents” to enter into the system with a business model that is proving itself to be full of flaws. The arrogance of it all, right?

    I hope every single one of those legislators out there that voted for this piece of crap business model end up with their titles (to their own properties) so screwed up they won’t ever be able to sell them without having to go through what we’re all going through! (*sigh*)

    I know, I know … why am I so cruel? Why am I coming down on the blind electorate?

    If you had to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees fighting a foreclosure against a lender who you knew didn’t have the note, you’d be cheering at your computer right now! These legislators gave this business model the impetus to operate in all 50 states and the courts seemingly turned a blind eye to the whole affair based on the misrepresentations of the attorneys representing the “agent”. All I have to do is point to the behaviors of the foreclosure mill law firms who come in with “new and improved” assignments to bolster their claims and believe that they actually can hoodwink a judge into believing the assignment is legitimate! The agent’s attorneys must think the judges are really stupid, huh?

    Further, the county recorders and registers of deeds have been filing suit against this “agent” to no avail. There are only a handful of law suits left at this point (by county officials) that are still in play. The elected county recordkeepers are losing because they are suing the agent. Not only does the agent “wear the emperor’s clothes” … the agent has no money. The agent’s attorneys tell the judge that the judgment-proof agent gets to do whatever it wants because it claims it’s a party by contract. Seemingly, the agent has gained ground … but for every suit it wins, it loses another.

    But what happens when you’ve been regularly paying your mortgage loan and you know that the “agent” is involved? Would it surprise you to know that your loan was sold multiple times BEFORE you even signed the note and mortgage at closing? That’s the way this “agent’s game” is played folks! Off the record!

    This is where the fallacy of this business model comes in.

    For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    In many instances, the original lender went belly-up after making thousands of predatory, subprime mortgage loans. The way these sham lenders were set up was by design. So let’s just (for the sake of thought and not ordering you to act on these ideas) think on the following:

    Besides the obvious solution (which would be walking away from these types of so-called “agent-based mortgage loans”) is to take on the belly-up lender and see if he shows up in court. After all, its agent can’t have assets because having assets would violate its corporate charter, right? If the agent is bankruptcy-remote, that means it has no assets or liabilities, so it can’t be a candidate for reorganization really. If it’s just an agent, why would it need to be sued? It is only on record as an agent, right? Not a lender, right?

    However, its parent is a money-making entity that hauls in over $2.5-billion annually in revenue and it now reports to 5 federal agencies in lieu of a consent order (April 13, 2011) that states the agent must tell these federal agencies: (1) which one of its clients is being sued at any given moment; (2) whether someone is suing the agent or the agent’s parent itself; and (3) how much money it has in its war chest to fight these lawsuits. The average person on the street would see this as the “government circling the wagons” in favor of a private corporation that is not statutorily regulated, statutorily mandated or internally monitored to detect what shenanigans the agent and its parent are up to. When you look at the bigger picture though, the current U. S. Attorney General seems to be protecting the agent and its parent because he worked at the DC law firm that represents the agent and its parent. Talk about the government being in bed with private enterprise?

    The fact that the “agent” has gotten away with so many court decisions tells this author that: (1) this has fostered arrogance among the agent, its alleged “members” and its counsel; (2) that the agent and its counsel are going to let this arrogance rule its decisions to appeal certain cases; and (3) that if the agent is only an agent and has no personal “interest” in the property (especially YOUR property), why should it be included in the suit to quiet title at all? Many attorneys I’ve spoken with that have launched successful quiet title actions agree. “No recorded assignment” may be wonderful for the lender saving money during the life of the transaction in recordation fees; however, with no recorded assignment, three (3) things happen:

    (1) There is an obvious concern that unknown intervening assignees have permeated the property’s chain of title; thus, these mesne assignees became unknown defendant-claimants who must be served by publication;

    (2) The original lender probably sold the note into the agent’s so-called “system” and no longer has an interest in the note (has been paid in full on the note) and thus will probably disclaim its interest anyway (if you could manage to serve it with process); and

    (3) Whoever the real party in interest is has no perfected, recorded interest constructively noticing the world of its lien right (because it’s hiding somewhere within the confines of the sinister agent provocateur’s database). The lender has been told by the agent that its (the agent’s) business model allows it to save money by screwing county recorders out of their recording fees.

    Thus, with no real lender “of record” … and the original lender gone bust … there’s no one else to serve with process (outside of the Secretary of State where the original lender used to hang its corporate charter). Thus, the quiet title action would appear to run its legal course without challenge to TITLE! Any agent attorney attempting to challenge it later would never get a do-over (at least that what some of these cases already adjudicated appear to indicate).

    Why anyone would even reason that this agent should “have its cake and eat it too” is beyond me! It’s a private corporation for God’s sake! It was founded and run by other private corporations who are in business for one thing and one thing only:


    For the agent, it’s all about: (1) making money; and (2) helping lenders who don’t have a provable interest in the loan steal people’s homes by obfuscating the chain of title and using inter-agent processes to hide their real activities and dummy up documents to bolster their phony claims!

    When the agent’s “player” wishes to “update” the chain of title, they simply record an assignment (when they’re about to foreclose) and we’re all just supposed to believe that the “place card” preserves the agent’s contended interest in this folly of a business model. I know of at least a dozen cases where this business model has either been taken to task and lost … or every one that it didn’t challenge was left out in the cold and the title was quieted. It appears this QT model is fine-tuning itself and there’s not a damned thing the agent can do about it, especially if 250,000+ dutifully-paying mortgaged homeowners take action before there is even a foreclosure or a default in their payments … and thus … no recorded assignment exists!

    Imagine what life in America would be like with 250,000 quiet title lawsuits all being filed at the same time … every month?

    This is what the U. S. judicial system gets to entertain in exchange for giving the “agent” (provocateur) the opportunity to screw with the real property records of over 3,000+ counties in the United States of America … and get away with it. With that, I make three key points here:

    (1) For every securitized mortgage loan, there appears to be a deficient chain of title. The solution? A chain of title assessment (COTA)! The COTA digs deep into the players and formulates issues for attorneys to consider when filing the suit to quiet title (who to consider serving and who NOT to consider serving with process). With enough issues present (accompanied by enough decent case law), it makes it easier to read “the full story” of how the chain of title developed over time, or didn’t. Many competent QT attorneys rely on the COTA to win their cases!

    (2) For every securitized mortgage loan, unless there’s a pending foreclosure, there’s no recorded assignment … thus, in most cases, the chain of title is disrupted at the point of the originating lender. With no recorded assignment, who is the homeowner supposed to serve with process? If the originating lender has gone belly-up, how can there be an agency relationship with an agent? The real question is … why bother serving the agent when the originating party-in-interest isn’t there to create the agency relationship that this whole scheme relied on in the first place?

    (3) For every securitized mortgage loan, a quiet title action does not challenge the NOTE or the chain of custody thereof … the quiet title action challenges title to the Property and who owns it … YOU or the agent? In other words, where is the agent’s name on your title in the real property records of the county your property is located in? If the agent owns anything, it violates its corporate charter. It’s bankruptcy-remote, right? Thus, what “interest” can it have in your title?

    Could the agent’s claim to hold legal title be held to some standard of liability? Could the agent’s claim to hold legal title represent a tangible interest that gives the agent the right to represent itself for unknown assignees that aren’t present in the land records? I think not … but that’s my take on it!

    I’ll tell you one thing … New York Bankruptcy Judge Robert Grossman (in his original ruling in In Re Agard) was not wrong about what he wrote about the “agent” in his order. The emperor has no clothes! The arrogance of it all, right?

    Let the agent sue? It has all this money, right? I personally don’t believe there are enough foreclosure mill attorneys out there versed in defending that many quiet title actions at once, do you? Hmmm … 250,000 quiet title actions a month couldn’t be all that bad for the economy, could they?

    If the courts don’t allow quiet title actions, do you think that would be a precursor for anarchy? Then let the games begin! Let it start with a COTA! Read Clouded Titles for more information!

  46. If your house was foreclosed. Shouldn’t you still get a mortgage of satisfaction if foreclosure was paid in full at sheriff sale with a surplus..also if it was paid in full, why would credit report have to Show as foreclosure. Seems no different than selling the house thru a realtor

  47. Banks, Mortgage Companies Defrauded HUD, Veteran Whistleblower Says








    A whistleblower with a track record of wresting large settlements from banks is suing 22 companies for allegedly filing fraudulent mortgage documents with the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    Lynn E. Szymoniak, famous for her 2011 “60 Minutes” interview on the robo-signing scandal, filed a lawsuit late Monday against the companies, including Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. The Palm Beach, Fla., plaintiff’s lawyer alleges the 22 banks, mortgage servicers, trustees, custodians and default management companies created fraudulent mortgage assignments and submitted tens of thousands of false claims to HUD.

    The lawsuit is a stark reminder that banks still face massive litigation and potential settlements for wrongdoing from the mortgage boom and financial crisis. On Wednesday, JPMorgan Chase acknowledged that it violated the False Claims Act and agreed to pay $614 million to settle claims that it improperly approved Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Affairs loans that did not meet underwriting standards.

    HUD oversees the FHA, which reimburses servicers for losses and fees when government-guaranteed loans go into foreclosure.

    Banks can be held liable for treble damages under the False Claims Act if they are found to have “falsely certified” that mortgages met all FHA requirements. The act also gives whistleblowers the right to file suit on behalf of the government.

    “It’s been very difficult to uncover how fraudulent documents were created and spread through the system,” says Reuben Guttman, Szymoniak’s attorney at the firm of Grant & Eisenhofer. “Lynn Szymoniak did the original analysis, looked at documents and put the pieces together in a way that nobody else did.”

    The new lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in South Carolina. Several of the defendants, including Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo, said they are reviewing the lawsuit and could not immediately comment.

    In 2012, Szymoniak helped the government recover $95 million from the top five mortgage servicers, as part of the $25 billion national mortgage settlement. She personally received $18 million for providing information on the filing of false claims on FHA loans.

    The suit also seeks to recover damages and penalties on behalf of the federal government, 16 states, the District of Columbia and the cities of Chicago and New York for the financial harm incurred in the purchase of private-label mortgage-backed securities that allegedly used fraudulent documents in foreclosure filings since 2008.

    As investors in mortgage bonds, the government and others paid fees and expenses for services such as reviewing all mortgage documents put into trusts that were supposed to be performed by trustees. The federal government bought mortgage-backed securities with missing or forged documents through several avenues, including the Federal Reserve’s direct purchases and Maiden Lane vehicles, and the Treasury Department’s purchases through public-private partnership investment funds, the suit states.

    The complaint does not specify damages but Szymoniak says she expects them to total around $10 billion.

    The fraudulent mortgage documents were created because the original loans documents either were never delivered to the securitization trusts, or they were lost or destroyed, the lawsuit states. Many of the documents were created years after the trusts’ closing dates and showed the trusts acquired the loans only after they were in default.

    Servicers “devised and operated a scheme to replace the missing documents,” the lawsuit states, and to conceal the fact that the trusts and servicers never actually held the mortgage notes and assignments, which are needed to initiate a foreclosure.

    Szymoniak was also instrumental in uncovering fraud and forged documents at DocX, a now-defunct subsidiary of Lender Processing Services. She worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigations and U.S. Attorney’s office in Jacksonville, Fla., that ultimately led to the conviction of an LPS executive, the closure of DocX, firm, and various settlements by LPS, which is now owned by Black Knight Financial Services.

  48. Title is Transferred by Deed.

    If its transferred by a Trustees Deed .. the Trust Agreement Must Be Recorded.

    I know .. I cant get the dag gone Trust Agreement from the Seller Trust to insure title!! They only filed the Trustee Deed.

    And the Trust Agreement (under this mortgage on its face) is NOT sufficient… They have to file the Deed!

  49. JG, The Trust Agreement Alone (filed) is Not Perfection.

    No more than a Trustees Deed filed without the Trust Agreement is perfection.

    There has to be a Transfer by Deed to the Strawman in order for him to issue MBS.

    MERS holds bare legal title my Butt!! Show me the Title!

  50. RE: . I would say that a trustee’s deed is or has become more akin to a QC deed (have to read one again).


    Trustees Deed ….But then they get you to sign a Warranty Deed transferring the Ownership to the Strawman on the Note.

    He is the one who issues the MBS in his Street Name.
    He does not file the Warranty Deed in public record until after FC. He doesn’t want you to know he has been gambling with your assets and keeping all the profits.

  51. JG, the Judge got it Right!

    The problem for the Strawman is … his beneficial interests are limited. Considering he buys only 20% of the Stock in MBS he issues.

    He can only collect what he is owed.

  52. Poppy I here what your saying and it is the assignment, Note and debt that I am attacking as every single Ginnie Mae pooled loan is exactly the same. The thing about the government is things are uniform and it the reason I have spent 100% of my time dealing only with Ginnie Mae and not the other two quasi government companies.

    If we take 1 million loans Ginnie Mae currently or in the past have been in the pool they will all have a blank Note forever as it cannot be changed, because the endorser does not put a successor on the face of the Note, and after the fact they already relinquished any financial interest to Ginnie Mae.

    The problem is that Ginnie Mae is prohibited by law in purchasing any mortgage loan debt at all. So what going to take place in 100% of all the Ginnie Mae loans, is that 100% of the loans have the wrong parties listed as the lien holder. If Ginnie Mae could possess the debt they would be in title as the lien holder in every single case.

    Look around the entire country and you will find that Ginnie Mae is not the lien holder in place on a single home loan. In 100yrs from now every one of these Notes must still be blank. So Wells Fargo is the perfect target because they lied about being the owners to the WaMu loan and we know in every case where the forgeries is and who created it, because Wells Fargo already admitted that they are not the Lender!

  53. There’s no “warranty deed” involved in a dot, although the borrower may warrant certain things, like that he owns the property and there are no adverse claims which could be senior to the lender’s or cause trouble. A warranty deed conveys all, not just equitable or legal title, and the grantor warrants these are his to grant. A quit claim deed conveys whatever interest the grantor has. No interest = nothing conveyed. The grantor in a quit claim deed warrants nothing, including that he has any interest to convey. I would say that a trustee’s deed is or has become more akin to a QC deed (have to read one again).

  54. Charles, I agree with much of what you say, BUT in a preliminary hearing, you must attack the assignment, recorded docs, deny the note and question behavior, otherwise you will never see a trial. IMHO. The nuances belong at trial and you must get there…is all I am saying. Strategy…file at the last minute, respond at the last hour, file in Federal Court with your claim and District with your title and Lis Pendens, variations…all loans are NOT the same and each court has different rules and JUDGES! The only thing I know for sure in my case: I have followed the money and it leads over and over to the same place….this is only my situation and frankly, I cannot use the info some give me, because I have tried some of it, it did not help me. It was too complicated, too soon!

    It is my opinion: all the information here is valuable, at the right time. But if you do not know your case inside and out, they will bury your ass.

  55. KC, I’ve read two of the three links of yours to DK’s stuff (so far). MERS doesn’t allege it owns any form of title to the real property. Rather, MERS alleges it holds legal title to the interests created for the beneficiary in the dot. There’s no such thing, no such legal situation or dynamic, which the WA court recognized in Bain when MERS laid that legal fiction on them. Let’s say you and I enter into a contract. Now my Uncle Joe comes along and says to you he owns legal title to either the contract or my interests created therein and he wants to enforce, on that basis, my rights and interests. You’d tell him to jump in a lake.
    I could have made Uncle Joe my agent to deal with you (which generally requires notice to you), or I could have nominated Joe, who would then be me, basically, in the contract. Uncle Joe might even be my nominee for the contract for me and also be my agent. I could say “Uncle Joe, I’d like you to be my nominee in this contract with KC.” And I could also say to UJ, “Here sign this. I already signed it. I want you to be my agent, also.” What I would have done is made UJ my nominee and then my nominee subject to the privileges and duties articulated in the agency agreement. I would likely retain the right to 86 him as both my nominee and agent. If Uncle Joe is my nominee, and you have no notice Uncle Joe is my nominee in a contract with you, you have no reason to come looking for me: Say you want to buy Hank’s land and have been trying for 15 years. Hank doesn’t like you, so he won’t sell to you. So you hire Martin to approach Hank and buy his land. Your written deal with Martin is that he’s your nominee. Hank does the deal with Martin and Martin now owns the land, but as your nominee. Eventually, Martin will deed the land to you. Because of your contract with martin, he holds legal title (til then) but you hold equitable title.

    As an agent, MERS, or anyone could take title to real property for someone else. But there’s no title in a dot granted to anyone else except the dot trustee available to take, and MERS doesn’t claim to own that, at least in dots (v mtgs), which as I’ve said, I’ve avoided. The beneficiary receives no form of title in a dot. The dot trustee is granted an equitable interest aka equitable title in the property to hold in trust for the ben. Not only does MERS not claim to hold legal title to the property, the equitable interest is held by the trustee. The ‘deed’ in dot is this equitable interest held by the trustee for the beneficiary to secure the loan he made. The ‘trust’ in dot is what the trustor, the borrower, is exercising – he in entrusting the dot trustee with equitable interest in his home in exchange for the loan and concurrently granting that trustee the right to take his legal title, to quiet all title in the ben’s name (or successful bidder at sale) if the borrower breaches the deal. (Now that I think about it, the borrower may own both legal and equitable title to a portion of his home, like if his loan is only 80% ltv. He would own both as to the 20%.) The trustee, and no one else, is empowered to quiet title in a non-j foreclosure. The successful bidder , by the trustee’s deed, acquires both equitable and legal title. These days, a trustee’s deed should be a warranty deed, but I think it’s effectively more of a quit claim deed, granting whatever interest the alleged ben and the borrower have. Imo, if the trustee can’t or won’t warrant good title (etc), he shouldn’t oughtta be issuing a deed.

    I may have digressed (?), but I’m trying to show that MERS (or anyone) can’t have “legal title” to a contract. There’s just no such thing. Someone may have the benefit of a contract or be the ben of a trust, but they don’t own “legal title” to a contract, esp without an economic interest in its subject. There’s no agency created in a dot and as I’ve said, certainly not by the borrower’s signature even if there were agency literally expressed. The court in one of these recent cases said the membership agreement expresses none, either. That makes MERS, if anything, a nominee, not an agent. And in context, this nominee resembles a novation but for the problem of not naming the lender as the ben to novate. That’s why I’m personally troubled by Steinberger – the court assumes that since MERS is no one, that make the unnamed-as-ben lender the ben. WA (Bain) stopped short of such as adjudication, saying it wasn’t before them. Courts may be able to support such a proposition appropriately, but imo, they have to apply some law to do so and also imo, that hasn’t been done.
    lay opinions as always

  56. I posted this on an old post – sorry to also include it here – hope to get a reply. Feel free to give your opinion if you know mush about ctslink that has the trust info for trusts where WF is the Master Trustee!

    From “Unconscionable and Negligent Conduct in Loan Modification Practices
    Posted on January 31, 2014
    neidermeyer, on February 3, 2014 at 12:30 am said:
    Dear Wells Fargo….”

    @neidermeyer – you seem to know much more than I do about the site you mention in your post. I was there – found my loans – printed the pages. I have a weird issue and wonder if you might know the answer? 2 loans in same trust but in different tiers. One loan I was told was charged off in in 2010. When I check the report for that month the loan that I was told was charged off is included in the Realized Loss Loan Detail Report-Loans with Loses during Current Period. Later in same report when the loan is listed in the Historical Modification Detail – the loan has “Loan Paid in Full” listed under Status. Question #1 Do you know if that is normal for them to sho that status for a charged off loan? I ask because I had a title issue and was in FC w/ other loan and think it is possible a claim was made on my Title Policy. This year – got a tax 1099C for cxl of debt for the loan after a lien strip motion that was granted in CH 7 – (done in GA). I just wondered if you noticed in the trust docs – do they always list “paid in full” for status for loans in trust that are charged off? It seems to me “paid in full means – paid in full” Question #2 – how does one go about asking the Title Policy company if they paid a claim on a title policy for one of our loans? Do you just call them? Would they have to tell you?

  57. Poppy,
    that’s what happens when you have two separate agreements with two different parties.

  58. So Poppy let look at what happen yesterday and that was that JPMorgan admitted to defrauding the Federal Government out of $204 million and with treble damage paid $614 million. Now that 20,400 loan they falsified documentation to insure these loans. Now this goes back starting a decade ago. So how now did the Goovernment come to realize that this was being done? Plus they are currently suing Wells Fargo Bank for the same thing but for 100,000 loans.

    So you just think now the government knew what loans were corrupted or was it someone that tipped them off? My evidence show that from the beginning of the Ginnie Mae mortgage backed securities program the loan were never secured correctly titled because Ginnie Mae was in possession of the black Notes as required in order for the lender to participate in the selling of the securities.

    So if the lenders were bold enough to falsify the loan in the first place, what make you think they would not falsify the documentation to receive the insurance settlement! Why are you falsifying on the front end and not on the back end.

    You already got the founder of DocX (Lorraine Brown) who currently in jail and has admitted to creating 1 million forgeries and all the large banks were buying these forged assignment from her, and it been exposed by Szymoniak who been paid $18 million, and Sherry Hunt was paid $31 million for turning in Citi for approving bad FHA loan, but let not forget that BOA with the Foreclosure settlement of Jan 2012 paid HUD $1 billion for if defrauding of FHA loans.

    One thing about the banking industry is that the personnel moves around and shares these corner cutting operations. This is why Wells Fargo will in the next couple days will fold, and the Justice Dept worked with JPMorgan to be the example (they got off lite) as is seen by Jamie Dimon $39 million bonus for last year. When the last time a man was settling a total of $20 billion loss and received $39 million for a bonus!

  59. Yup…my original filing 12 pages, now 13 and counting. Signatures do not match, backdated, ledger from 1985, WHAT? etc…on and on!

    This is what I am trying to get at: the behavior is telling…

  60. I don’t do Business with Buttwipes…

    I requested payoff via attorney and offered full tender.

    But because they offered something they couldn’t deliver .. they couldn’t comply and didn’t reply.

    How many years does it take flush a buttwipe?

    SOL for claims on Title … READ!!

  61. I’ve collected half a dozen different statements from asking for accounting records. They all conflict with each other and mine.
    So done .. I offered tender and they refused the offer.

    I have three copies of the Note and Mortgage.

    1. The Blank Copies prepared and given at closing.

    2. Photocopies of the Signed Originals , I requested before leaving the title office.

    3. The Copies filed with the recorders office after closing.

    4. The copy they filed with the court Nov 08.

    Now …

    The Kicker .. the set we signed at closing “The Originals” had my middle initial wrong, I had to strike the J and initial every time I signed at closing.

    The ones filed are Prrfct. …

    The Typo J ( M.I) went MIA in the filed copies. below the signature line .. no strike and initials. Different Signature Page/Notary Acknowledgement.

    Scratches Butt …… because the blank copy does not match the signed copy (had different terms) and the signed copy does not match the filed copy.

    Ring A Round the Rosie …

  62. I have found the judges are inept at some level…they all know, but break the law. It is my opinion strategically: YOU must know your enemy, seriously. Dirty fighting IS allowed. Playing by the rules “can” be toxic…it is their rules you are playing by and they are better funded, more equipped and have plenty of players!

    The things they don’t have, ingenuity, they do the same things over and over and “do not know your case like you” that, IMHO is my advantage.

    I can only go by the results and what I see in many other cases. We cannot believe what we have for paperwork, nor can we always trust what we see! Profound stuff, KC

  63. Tried the title in District Court, lost big time. No lis pendens, QT…the judge kicked our ass and handed it to us…we even appealed, again lost!

    This time making traction…don’t know what to say! Needed a different tactic…better this time! FYI: we have a ledger in addition to all the other shit…from 1985, they refinanced the G-damn thing from a deceased party. There’s a lot…but trust me, we tried the title thing, that in and of itself, not good enough, 2 Fed judges and 2 District judges…so far! Had a lawyer for part of it too…

  64. They have to be Identical Twins,, fraternal twins don’t cut the mustard. They deflate elephants thou …. 🙂

  65. Poppy, its the title that gives you the right to bring the action at the state level. Don’t get me wrong … the money trail and the title go hand in hand like TWINS.

  66. And the title is extremely important, but I am laymen in title issues, I cannot fight that issue like KC could…I need to pick what I know to be true, follow the money trail and talk my ass of! Then read more and study rules of procedure…over and over and over!

  67. FYI: Charles…cheating investors is not your claim, sorry

    And the mergers with BOA mean dead corporations cannot assign things or bring court actions, Jeez!

    I am no lawyer….but I have this in court and it sticks!

  68. Fee simple

  69. Paramount title is the best title in Fee simple available for the true owner. The person who is owner of real property with paramount title has the higher (or better, or “superior”) right in an action to Quiet title. The concept is inherently a relative one.

  70. In property law, a title is a bundle of rights in a piece of property in which a party may own either a legal interest or equitable interest. The rights in the bundle may be separated and held by different parties. It may also refer to a formal document such as a deed that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. In many cases, both possession and title may be transferred independently of each other. For real property, land registration and recording provide public notice of ownership information.

    In United States real estate law, typically evidence of title is established through title reports written up by title insurance companies, which show the history of title (property abstract and chain of title) as determined by the recorded public record deeds;[1] the title report will also show applicable encumbrances such as easements, liens, or covenants.[2] In exchange for insurance premiums, the title insurance company conducts a title search through public records and provides assurance of good title, reimbursing the insured if a dispute over the title arises.[3] In the case of vehicle ownership, a simple vehicle title document may be issued by a governmental agency


    The main rights in the title bundle are usually:
    Exclusive possession
    Exclusive use and enclosure
    Conveyance, including by bequest
    Access easement

    The rights in real property may be separated further, examples including:
    Water rights, including riparian rights and runoff rights
    In some U.S. states, water rights are completely separate from land—see prior appropriation water rights
    Mineral rights
    Easement to neighboring property, for utility lines, etc.
    Tenancy or tenure in improvements
    Timber rights
    Farming rights
    Grazing rights
    Hunting rights
    Air rights
    Development rights to erect improvements under various restrictions
    Appearance rights, often subjected to local zoning ordinances and deed restrictions

    Possession is the actual holding of a thing, whether or not one has any right to do so. The right of possession is the legitimacy of possession (with or without actual possession), the evidence for which is such that the law will uphold it unless a better claim is proven. The right of property is that right which, if all relevant facts were known (and allowed), would defeat all other claims. Each of these may be in a different person.

    For example, suppose A steals from B, what B had previously bought in good faith from C, which C had earlier stolen from D, which had been an heirloom of D’s family for generations, but had originally been stolen centuries earlier (though this fact is now forgotten by all) from E. Here A has the possession, B has an apparent right of possession (as evidenced by the purchase), D has the absolute right of possession (being the best claim that can be proven), and the heirs of E, if they knew it, have the right of property, which they cannot prove. Good title consists in uniting these three (possession, right of possession, and right of property) in the same person(s).

    The extinguishing of ancient, forgotten, or unasserted claims, such as E’s in the example above, was the original purpose of statutes of limitations. Otherwise, title to property would always be uncertain

    Equitable versus legal title[edit]

    At common law equitable title is the right to obtain full ownership of property, where another maintains legal title to the property.[4] Legal title is actual ownership of the property. When a contract for the sale of land is executed, equitable title passes to the buyer. When the conditions on the sale contract have been met, legal title passes to the buyer in what is known as closing. Legal and equitable title also arises in trust. In a trust, one person may own the legal title, such as the trustees. Another may own the equitable title such as the beneficiary.[5]


    In countries with a sophisticated private property system, documents of title are commonly used for real estate, motor vehicles, and some types of intangible property. When such documents are used, they are often part of a registration system whereby ownership of such property can be verified. In some cases, a title can also serve as a permanent legal record of condemnation of property, such as in the case of an automobile junk or salvage title. In the case of real estate, the legal instrument used to transfer title is the deed. A famous rule is that a thief cannot convey good title, so title searches are routine (or highly recommended) for purchases of many types of expensive property (especially real estate). In several counties and municipalities in the US a standard title search (generally accompanied by title insurance) is required under the law as a part of ownership transfer.

    Paramount title is the best title in Fee simple available for the true owner. The person who is owner of real property with paramount title has the higher (or better, or “superior”) right in an action to Quiet title. The concept is inherently a relative one. Technically, paramount title is not always the best (or highest) title, since it is necessarily based on some other person’s title.[6][7]

    A Quiet title action is a lawsuit to settle competing claims or rights to real property, for example, missing heirs, tenants, reverters, remainders and lien holders all competing to get ownership to the house or land.[8][9] Each of the United States have different procedures for a quiet title action.[10]

    However, most personal property items do not have a formal document of title. For such items, possession is the simplest indication of title, unless the circumstances give rise to suspicion about the possessor’s ownership of the item. Proof of legal acquisition, such as a bill of sale or purchase receipt, is contributory. Transfer of possession to a good faith purchaser will normally convey title if no document is required.

  71. Okay Charles, you win…the contract, origination, funding, doesn’t matter. good Luck Charles.I sincerely mean that…cause I can tell you 100%, had a case against BOA, 3 1/2 years, settled it! They had to pay “all” I mean all of the back stuff and fees…No Ginnie, and friends, Nada. didn’t matter, their behavior did, however.

    All the theories that roll around here are fabulous and VERY, very helpful, finding your way, but no one here has been successful, just saying? And I could not have been as astute without many here, but the road the loan travels is not as important as where it is now, how it got there, your “paperwork”, procedure and strategy…cost them tens of thousands, with time, paperwork, court appearances, energy, Charles, be creative, eff them! Simply put

  72. Hi Neil The analysts who get it. Are really getting it.


    Neil congrats on new radio show. Be Strong and Courageous

  73. Bob if you notice I only have talked about Ginnie Mae because I was not as well versed in Fannie & Freddie as there were two many moving part, but I figured the “investors” of those program would fight that battle.

    However as Ginnie Mae are FHA, VA & USDA loan of mostly low income people and only really one “investor” in the Federal Reserve Bank, you have only a handful of people in the entire world that knew or know how Ginnie Mae works.

    Understand that Szymoniak got paid in Apr 2012 for her Jun 2010 Qui Tam (which she stole) but as you read the entire complaint she does not know how Ginnie Mae was effective by the this crisis, but she does mention that the securities are effected because of the forgeries by MERS.

    Now I have direct notice of the Wells Fargo Bank handling of the WaMu loan, and nobody on earth but Wells, FDIC and the bums at WaMu knew that these loan were not involved in the JPMorgan sale or if in fact that Wells Fargo may have purchase these loans! The fact is that neither JPMorgan or Wells Fargo purchase the loan because Ginnie Mae did not buy them and could not sale them.

    Now those are the facts!

  74. PS Bob so the correspondence I been receiving from the head of the SEC Whistle-blower program is nothing? At least its first hand evidence of a submission! But it the head of the program and not some lower level employee!

    I am sure the head of these agencies are replying in blue ink signature letters?

  75. Bob how did I know you would come back with your answer? I do have inside information as I originated some of these loan for WaMu, Wells Fargo and the bank selling loan to most of the banks.

    And your wrong about only before me blowing the whistle because we checked with the US Attorney office prior too. I know how the crime were committed and in every single case there is the common thread.

    Before I started writing about the Ginnie Mae (ONLY) securities there was no one even talking about the fact that Ginnie Mae does not in fact own a single loan they have in their pool.

    So its funny how you know the stats of the new SEC whistle blower program which I was the first person or one of the first to submit a claim as it only open the day I first submitted my claim in Aug 2011!

  76. I hate to rain on your parade, Charles, but that is yesterday’s news. Unless you have personal, inside knowledge about the false claim, you are going nowhere. And you’re not the first guy to try and make this claim. The govies do not like to pay out on these things. Research the cases and you will see what’s required…and how the govt tries to weasel out of paying by claiming they already knew about it or could have found out about it from public sources and prior court filings.

    To make any money, you would have to have personal knowledge and inside info about false claims in hundreds of cases. I’m pretty sure that you do not.

    Just sayin’

  77. Bob I was going to submit the Qui Tam but instead after the mistrust of the attorney handling the case, I filed a whistle-blower claim with the SEC back in Aug 2011.

    The whistle-blower claim is for the same thing as the Qui Tam was going to be, and that was False Claims against the FHA & VA insurances by lenders that were not the “holder in due course”!

    It ready to pop as there no stop the ball from rolling down hill now. Wells Fargo Bank was the blueprint of claim with there illegal foreclosing of WaMu loans.

  78. Charles

    What’s your qui tam action based on? The legal theory?

  79. Poppy loans are placed into these pools within days and week of them being first originated. So almost immediate Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie are granted the blank Notes and are supposed to owner of the Notes, but they are not owner of the debt which is their problem. The debt is not recoverable!

  80. “BOA got the same problem that other bank have with these mergers”

    Charles…please read the merger and subsequent docs…BOA bought ALL of CW’s serving platform only! At that time Freddie, Fannie and Ginnie were not in play, that came later. Seriously. IMO

  81. Oops- unauthorized practice of law is a crime in PA.

  82. Charles Reed- my last invention was stolen by an attorney, and after a couple of minor changes has been manufactured and distributed nationally for almost 15 years. So it is within the realm of possibility that your Qui tam case was stolen from you as well. I also had unauthorized practice of law in my last brush with foreclosure, which is a crime in Pennsylvania. Reported on all national media and blogs such as this one. So Currently leery of attorneys. Plus a dozen or so local attys with whom I’ve spoken haven’t got a clue as to this fraud. Not even a piece of a clue. Sad

  83. Should I take my half of the Loot and move on or Keep My Feet Firmly Planted in the Ground?

    Decisions .. Decisions ..

    Call me a Homegrown Country Gal .. who has sewn her seeds in the ground and shall reap her rewards. Grandchildren are the Greatest!

  84. The terms of the note and security instrument are different.
    The security instrument is VOID and the Note is Voidable against me and my heirs who hold equitable and beneficial interests. althou we don’t hold legal title (its in trust to protect us from my husbands creditor … hahaha ).

    Hit the Road Jack .. And don’t come Back! 🙂

    To much coffee?

  85. The Creditor turned debtor.
    (The estate under the security instrument becomes the borrower)?

    This half of the Corp says …..

    No Refi! No Loan Mod! No Signature! …


    Just taking care of business as entrusted to us as Trustee by the State..

  86. Bob what I figured with this massive crime was that I only had one bite at the apple and what I had was worth the bank, but as we see writing here 5yrs after the exposure are biggest problem been the Attorneys.

    I had this legal team that was allegedly going to file a Qui Tam, but something did not smell right with the amount of information even in just copy form I was able to retain myself. It to me was a set up like Szymoniak did to her client and stole his information and filed under herself, and she was awarded $18 million!

    Who to trust when everyone is out for themselves?

    Now Bob I get what your saying about Neil who one day is swing one way and then the next it amount, but that because I believe he is old school, were the victims should not get that much for damages anyway, and the reality that people are going to get homes and are full restitution plus damaged!

  87. New Legislation in Washington State Foreclosure Fairness Act Mediation Program to help homeowners; I thank the Committee and testify that more is needed. And I started out with the whole securitization issue.

    And speaking of winning, as noted in this journal entry, there was a MAJOR victory in WA on nonjudicial Trustee not being neutral:

  88. Bob G, you are right on Target.. ” Foundation, authentication, personal knowledge”. However your brain and your mouth were not playing well together this morning …. Coffee 1st!!

    Welcome Back Christine!

    Charles, start with the separation of the note and mortgage first (the break in chain of title as per the security instrument), then move to the separation of the note and the debt.

    This is where it gets tricky. … The Corp created by the Estate.

    The Corp .. The Creditor

  89. Bob here is were I am at is I am waiting on what I predict soon is that the whistle-blower claim is coming on the heels of the JPMorgan $614 million settlement yesterday for the FHA and VA decades of fraud. I was going to tried filing but with so much information jumping out every other day, as to what I already delivered to the SEC, I find it impossible at this point there not going to pay this claim. Once they pay the claim for the bad securities of at least Wells Fargo handling of WaMu, my personnel case is a foregone conclusion!

  90. Charles

    What’s your foreclosure litigation status?

  91. As I been saying that they are settling these claims to rescind the securities agreement, because if they don’t the separation of Note & Debt shows there were no debt owed, as the blank Notes gave the physical possessor ownership of a document that not enforceable because it no longer exist in the manner it was originally created for.

    The problem these banks are having is this crime was so wide spread and there now is an internet (different from 1929), so it brought fools from every corner of the country together loosely but openly as to what the industry has done.

    BOA got the same problem that other bank have with these mergers, but as we see with JPMorgan the loan were never purchase because they were entangled with Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie as the loans were already alleged to the underlying collateral for these securities!

    The proof is there in JUST LOOK AT THE NOTES, and there is this additional insurance settlement amount on the bank customers accounts, which is most likely how the banks are laundering the money back into the system!

  92. “We can’t go into court with this stuff.” Sure you can: it’s done all the time, mostly by pro se who don’t understand the system, get nailed on practical and procedural issues and get their noses out of joint when they fare poorly. Good attorneys don’t tread on it or use extreme caution and they know to back off when it backfires.

    Use it at your own peril and don’t expect to win with it…

  93. Yawn, yawn…more sensational conclusory allegations without any hard evidentiary fact to back them. We need hard evidence, not unsubstantiated allegations, Neil. We can’t go into court with this stuff.

    Foundation, authentication, personal knowledge…sound familiar, Neil?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: