Bank Lawyers Beware!

I know from past experience that the prosecuting attorneys at bar associations tend to move in packs. There is actually a pretty good reason for this. Certain practices by attorneys are emulated by other attorneys and spreads from state to state. Based upon a recent decision in New York State, I believe we’re going to see some serious prosecutions against attorneys for the pretender lenders.

In this case the censured attorney, David A. Cohen,  and his Long Island firm was trying to collect debts from people who weren’t already pay their bills or were not the ones who owed money to the firm’s client – creditors. I will concede that this is not the case against a foreclosure mill. And I think there is still political resistance to going after the lawyers  who represent the pretender lenders. But if you look at the reasoning in this case, it is not hard to see where the New York State Bar Association is going with this.

There were voluminous complaints about the firm spanning a 16 year period. That suggests that in cases where the homeowner believes that the attorney representing the pretender lender is violated ethical rules, or where the attorney for the homeowner believes that to be the case, a grievance should be filed.  But I caution people about doing this because they  frequently don’t know enough about the facts to be sure if a violation occurred.  It is unfair to attribute unethical conduct to an attorney who was merely advocating on behalf of a client and taking positions with which you do not agree. False filings will also create a paper jam in which the real filings for real violations get lost. SO don’t take this article as a green light to pepper the Bar Associations with vague grievances.

Cohen and his firm received numerous admonitions about his firm’s practices.

The court concluded in Matter of Cohen & Slamowitz, 2008-10218, that Cohen and Cohen & Slamowitz “engaged in a pattern and practice of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” under the Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(5)(223 NYCRR 1200.3[a][5]. The judges said an attorney does not necessarily have to have personal knowledge of the specifics of his firm’s misconduct to be held responsible.“Even if the individual respondent lacked personal knowledge of the particular client matters … the pattern and practice of misconduct established at the hearing, which were pervasive within C&S [Cohen & Slamowitz] since 1996, were sufficient to impute such knowledge to him as senior partner of C&S,” [e.s.] the panel held in its per curiam ruling. The judges added that not only was Cohen personally advised in 2002 to “exercise caution,” “supervise [his] staff adequately,” and put in place “appropriate and reasonable procedures” that could be monitored, but he and his firm also received numerous letters of caution and admonition. The court said Cohen & Slamowitz has about 300 employees, including attorneys, paralegals and other staff.

Among the problems noted by the court was an attempt in 2005 to collect from a debtor identified as “Ghulam Mujtaba” of Flushing. The court said that Cohen & Slamowitz mistakenly pursued collection from Dr. Gholam Mujtaba of Corona.
 Given the various settlement and OCC consent decrees that have been entered against virtually all of the major banks and servicers, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which the lawyers have not been put on notice of the existence of major defects in the claims of their clients. Unlike civil litigation, lawyers are held to a higher standard of behavior in connection with their practice of law. The ethical and disciplinary rules make it clear that the lawyer should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Here in this case, the court opened up the possibility for imputing knowledge to the attorney even though there are attempts to create compliance departments and other organizational tools that are meant to isolate the actual licensed attorneys from the illegal conduct perpetrated by their firm.
 If a bank came to me for representation in the foreclosure properties based upon loans that are subject to claims of securitization, I would make absolutely certain that there were procedures in effect within the bank to make sure that we were naming the right plaintiff, naming the right defendant, that a default was definitely present, and that we could account for the balance due. I would ask the bank “are you actually owed the money on this loan?”
 The use of professional witnesses that are hired specifically for that purpose is somewhat understandable given the volume of foreclosure litigation. What is not understandable or forgivable is hiring people specifically for the purpose of giving false testimony based upon records that were specially prepared for trial and not prepared in the ordinary course of business. It is improper and perhaps perjury to state that the entire business record is present when it clearly does not show the original loan transaction, all the transactions that occurred between the time of the loan closing and the filing of foreclosure, and all the transactions that occurred as disbursements to trust beneficiaries or other third parties. It is improper and perhaps perjury to state that the entire business record is present when the witness cannot state from personal knowledge or with the use of business records that qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule, that the record of disbursements is also present —  including all payments received by the alleged creditor.
 Some attorneys haven’t thrown under the bus, but there are dozens of other law firms that may be involved in the production or proffering of false, fraudulent, fabricated or forged documents.
 On the other hand it should be stated that withholding evidence is not necessarily a violation of the code of conduct for attorneys —  unless the withholding of that evidence results in making prior testimony or evidence subject to a charge of perjury. I don’t think that attorneys can or should be held to a standard in which their conduct is subject to variable interpretations. Any grievance filed on these grounds must be very specific as to what is being alleged is a violation. I publish this article merely as a prediction and warning that certain behavior which is now condoned in the foreclosure mills can be and probably will be imputed to the partners, regardless of how well they think they have insulated themselves.
 One of the things I wonder about is the practice of asserting in court that the attorney for the foreclosure represents “everybody.” The risk here is twofold: first that might include the trust beneficiaries that his client is screwing; second that might include the borrower because some of the parties included in “everybody” have a fiduciary duty to the borrower. I wonder if there are potential trap doors for the attorneys who are representing pretender lenders that include not only disciplinary complaints but perhaps joinder as defendants in a lawsuit filed for negligent undertaking.
 As always, nothing in this article should be interpreted as a definitive statement on the law. Pro se litigants should consult with an attorney licensed in the area in which the property is located before making a decision or taking any action. Attorneys should do their own research and make their own decisions as to what constitutes a breach of ethics or a breach of the disciplinary rules.

65 Responses

  1. Correction … They are Debt Collectors.

    There is No Servicing on Private Placement Securities.

  2. They being the Debt Collectors/Servicers ….

  3. Has anyone noticed a pattern here … they offer you a loan mod to collect a payment and that payment reinstates the debt with them relieved of any liability? Then your kicked down the road again.

    Don’t sign anything?

    Shtt builds up … and rolls back down hill alright Deb.

  4. Neidermeyer – got me – seems like there is none. I think this whole mess called the “subprime mtg crisis’ or the “housing crisis” or like that is most appropriately called the “AIG Insurance Crisis”. Many roads probably lead to, cross , or connect to the insurance path of AIG – globally.. Just a reminder: AIG put terminals in lenders’ offices so lenders could “write their own”. I just can’t imagine justification for such a business plan. And why would anyone insure a subprime mortgage? ‘And’ some more – just because they came up with an alternative name for an insane loan doesn’t mean it’s
    not really a predatory loan incognito. No one to my knowledge is being prosecuted for the crime of making predatory loans – on people’s most valuable assets. It’s really nuts. I guess as an alt to the AIG Insurance Crisis, we could call it the Predatory Loan Crisis. What a swell time we all had for a few years, but what a price to pay.

  5. During a hearing on one of my cases, opp. counsel said I had no right to object to the fact that Ocwen was now servicing my loan because a letter with RESPA compliance was sent to me when Ocwen acquired my loan. Huh? No documentation whatsoever about how they actually acquired the Note/loan. If you know something about debt collection scumbags and their complete BS, you know Debt Collectors buy a note/loan for pennies on the dollar. They do not acquire the essential documentation WHATSOEVER. They just assume the alleged borrower will cave to their terrible deeds and harassment and pay them for the FULL amount of the debt. Sometimes they negotiate as to the value of the debt repayment, but not that often.

    Now, my neighbor is also serviced by the pondscum, Ocwen. He receives every month on his mortgage statement an “inspection fee” which he does not pay. I am pretty sure, they will come back at him for the full amount of the fees as some time so they can try and send him to foreclosure. He had a loan mod, and you know what that means–foreclosure.

    Actually, this is what I believe is done and somebody can correct me if I am wrong: They set out an Excel spreadsheet with the loans listed on it with amount of the Note, address, owner, arears, loan mod or no and loan number, etc., then the pennies on the dollar is paid and, guess what, the new scumbag servicer is now servicing your loan that has no basis in reality.

  6. @ Johngault ,,

    I’ve gotta rush ,, leaving for work …

    re: 3rd party payments .. I was keeping the discussion to the AIG payout ,, but it could also be the documented sub-servicer payments in the trustees colatteral files.

    The BAC claim of ownership that must have been made to receive the AIG payout makes for many problems … since either the assignment (forged in 2013 by OCWEN) from O-One to WF and supposedly done at or just after the closing will be seen to be an obvious fake or “innefectual” and if BAC was the owner in late 2007 who bought the trust assets and when?

    If O-One used BAC money and surrendered the note as payment to BAC (didn’t happen , O-One shredded all notes per my local branch manager) ,, then where is the BAC sale to WF as trustee?

  7. Neidermeyer, you said:

    “…and the AIG v. BAC lawsuit which documents that the table funder (BAC) was the recipient of the insurance funds and not the supposed owner (WF as Trustee) …. BAC obviously never “sold” the notes to the trust …

    jg: right – either BAC retained an insurable interest (non-delivery looms large as a reason- and a wicked one- in order to possibly retain an insurable interest *) or AIG, a reg’d insurer, insured non-interests. I don’t see any other choice. do you? Why would aig or anyone waive subrogation? Two reasons and only two I can think of: 1) they charged more to do so or 2) – actually and or – the investors had paid monies for notes they never received and their security interests would be senior to any AIG subrogation rights so why bother. Plus if AIG had tried to subrogate, it would have outed the actual insured sooner than later.

    *insurance isms may differ from the UCC, which imo would find one who has been paid for a note but not transferred it with no interest, at least as to enforcement because he’s already been paid for the note.
    That’s a distinction that I would think even art 3 would acknowledge as to holder provisions: one may have possession, even of a bearer note, but if he’s already been paid and owes someone a delivery, I don’t think he has a right to enforcement against the maker.I believe the note buyer has a sec interest.Now what if the bum who sold but didn’t transfer has a wh line himself expecting payment? Who’s sr?
    The rube or the wh lender? I think that’s when hidc rules really come into play and that’s going to be the determiner (as applicable).

    ” they were the table funder” – okay

    “and they are the owner of the trust that was created in the “originator/lenders” name.”

    jg: sorry, lost me….?

    “….Moreover how do they answer the documented third party payment issue…”

    jg: by third party do you mean B of A as the funding entity at the closing table? Or do you mean that it’s documented that aig (or someone) has paid a claim on the note? If you mean the latter, my take on the UCC is no matter how they choose to answer, the UCC says payment is payment, certainly when there are no sub rights. If AIG paid B of A when another party had a security interest in the note, then to me 1) the note is paid dollar for dollar and 2) the sec interest holder has a hefty claim against B of A. I think the secured party might “involve” aig if he could demonstrate aig knew or even should have known “whaddup” (which imo is at least somewhat demonstrated by AIG foregoing subrogation). But I have to point out my info on insuring financial products is “rather” limited. Is that(waving sub?) the norm, do you know? My only real frame of ref is pmi, which as you know, insures a relatively small percentage and doesn’t involve subrogation that I know of.

  8. Neidermeyer
    Bac is not the owner of the trust that was created in the “originator/lenders” name. They table funded the loan forward sold it before closing therefore AIG becomes the third party who supposedly is the undisclosed party/owner. Who owns what? A very good question. How do they unscramble the egg? Another good question.Moreover how do they answer the documented third party payment issue…they don’t. After 5 years litigating the only affirmative defense that stands with teeth for me is that we do not know whothe lender is…

    We had a bank in Texas who acted as strawman forward sold loan before closing transferred loan on the day of closing to lehman this table funded loan was never recorded in county….aurora sold the junk 18 months ago and for 9 months we have been waiting for the substituted plaintiff-nationstar to show their hand …tomorrow is yet another hearing wonder if they will submit anything.

    I did not read the case you refer to, but I don’t see how you think the strawman is the owner of the trust. That doesn’t make sense perhaps if I looked at the case I would see something else but at face value the strawman is long gone via a quick exit …like way before the ink ever dried at least on our note. Actually there was no ink…just rubber stamps ….well it’s depends on what note you look at…in my case there are four different versions all growing limbs out of one closing….a scrambled egg indeed! And quite overdone I might add.

  9. @ JOHNGAULT ,

    ********************** YOU SAID ***********************
    That agreement provided that CW would fund and purchase loans originated by Joe’s. It also provided that CW would underwrite and approve any loans prior to funding and its purchase.

    That’s where I’m going ,, BAC was the table funder and according to AIG they gave a thumbs up / thumbs down on all loans … the supposed “originator lender” had no role … they didn’t use their own money … they didn’t approve or deny any loans … the “loans” were pre-sold into a trust ,,, they were NOT A LENDER in any sense of the word. And the AIG v. BAC lawsuit which documents that the table funder (BAC) was the recipient of the insurance funds and not the supposed owner (WF as Trustee) …. BAC obviously never “sold” the notes to the trust … they were the table funder and they are the owner of the trust that was created in the “originator/lenders” name. Who owns what? and how do they unscramble the egg. Moreover how do they answer the documented third party payment issue…

  10. @neidermeyer re: your question to gene:

    If the table funders are 100% legit and the trusts did receive the physical notes where is the repayment of the advanced funds from the table funder documented?

    Obviously I’m not gene, but I think it’s apples and oranges…UNless it were the investors funds used to table fund the loans. Table funding
    was done by way of a contractual agreement between Party A and Party B. Party A, Joe’s Loan Brokers, had a contract with Party B,
    CW Home Loans. That agreement provided that CW would fund and purchase loans originated by Joe’s. It also provided that CW would underwrite and approve any loans prior to funding and its purchase.
    CW basically provided a warehouse line to Joe’s, but Joe’s couldn’t use it freely. Joe’s could only use it for loans which CW had underwritten and approved (or as in the very old days, if there were direct agency approval (fha and va). Joe’s either owed CW the loan or the funds used back. Joe’s, and all the Joe’s, wanted their name on the loan docs for various reasons not really relevant. After closing, the loan (note, dot, etc) was delivered to CW; therefore, there would be no dollar repayment. The endorsed note paid off the table funding.
    Now in the case of Neil’s supposition, where investors funds were funneled down to the closing table, that’s a diff matter imo because, first of all, the investors never agreed that their funds could be used to fund loans, which also imo makes that embezzlement or conversion if not theft – theft if the loans weren’t delivered somewhere where the investors received the intended benefit. Secondly, as you know, in order for the trust to receive the tax benefit sought, or for the trust really just to exist, the investors funds had to go into the trust as dollars, and not as funded loans. Those dollars had to be used to purchase assets, not create them. I’m not trying to speak for gene, but I don’t think he means to say that using the investors’ funds to table fund loans was okay. I think he’s just saying that the scenario re: Joe’s and CW isn’t illegal.
    Neil says using the investors’ (embezzled, converted, or stolen) funds makes the investors the lenders. I’m not so sure about that and have asked him to support that proposition. Maybe equitably only. If I am entrusted with your funds for purpose X and instead use them to make a loan to Carl, I couldn’t say that you’re Carl’s lender / creditor nor that a court could or would. But of course, the biggest problem if that were done and if the loans were then delivered to “the trust” is that there is no Trust (or there’s one with no funds to purchase), just a bunch of guys with shares in a pool of loans and even that requires some hefty juggling (because as I said, not sure that makes those guys the lender) There’s no PSA, either (because one party to that agreement didn’t exist and or had no assets / funds with which to perform pursuant to the PSA); The PSA would be with a non-existant party – a non-existant and or empty trust, if investors’ funds funded loans instead of those funds going into a trust for the trust to buy loans. imo.

  11. gene,

    If we are using the PSA, we are then alluding to “the trust”…REITs and private trusts are not bound by those contracts. Now, if a trust opens at the beginning of a month and closed by the end and the loan is defaulted within 60 days…how was that a viable note for this trust? And further, the loan closed, supposedly, 7 months prior to allegedly going into the same trust mentioned herein…with a zero balance entering he servicers account And IT IS DATED 1985, REALLY?

    Why would anyone put a non-performing note in a trust? And whom would buy it, unless there was the lie about the solvency-integrity of that note?

    This situation has many tentacles….it is not just about “the trusts” but of actual funding, characters of the loan-sustainability, how long it took to get into a trust and what type, whether or not there is a suspense account imposed, where the payments went, who has been assigned to collect and their authority to do so-how, and whether or not the “contractual” issues are with standing. IMHO

    Foreclosures are “not” all the same, in spite of the fact ALL of the paperwork appears to be. Again, IMHO, these guys weakness is the trustee being used to facilitate a NON- Judicial foreclosure, with minimal paperwork, poor; if no diligence, lack of proper transfers and the inability of one to concisely, precisely present the necessary documents and contest what has been presented to the magistrate. In essence, IMHO, you are testifying against yourself, right from the beginning.

    BTW: I have won a rather large settlement with BOA, with this as a defense…one MUST know their case from beginning to end and have prepared for anything that is submitted….but we are back at it, with CW-AWL and Ocwen now in 3 courts, 2 jurisdictions…they do not learn! But they do have Billions to throw at the problem. With little or no monies invested, it is a zero sum game for them, IMO And again, this is not just about title…there is a more, but the time it would take, take up the entire blog…

    No lawyer here, not trying to incite…actual paperwork in hand!

  12. iwantmynpv your talking about the Great Western Bank out of CA, I am talking about the Great Western Bank out of NE (totally different banks) that is still around and is now owned by the National Australian Bank.

    I think you folks are confused by mortgage companies with warehouse line of credit and you think that a wire coming in means the lender is actually someone else. However because a mortgage company is not a bank they are going to have a bank send the wire for the closing because the mortgage company does not have bank ability and does not have cash on hand, as it not a freaking bank.

    Gene and Neil are confuse by this funding but every single loan funded will have a different bank wire come in from the bank that is the mortgage company’s bank!

    The Federal Home Loan people are the warehouse loan people and are not the lender to home owners but to the bank. Bank financed the auto business but they don’t own the cars, banks gives grocers money to fill there selves and they cans of corn are not the collateral, as the financing is different.

    Hospitals are financed by bank and the patients are not the collateral! Understand the game.

    IndyMac loan that were already in the Ginnie Mae pools could not be sold because the Notes were already relinquished to Ginnie Mae , plus another bankruptcy remote procedure in the HUD11711A is signed by the lender/issuer that conveys any and all financial interest in the loan to Ginnie Mae.

    And you wonder after 5 or 6yrs we are still dealing with this crap, and it because the attorney still don’t understand banking!

  13. A valid contract contains a meeting of the minds.
    The promissory note was a contract and a ‘meeting of the minds’ was violated when it was destroyed and securitized.

    A valid trust would not have you as grantor with assets and someone else come and liquidate you from your assets as a beneficiary under fraud.

    In the county filings a county clerk told me the ‘grantor’ is the seller and the ‘grantee’ is the buyer.

    Then I see the ‘grantee’ hire a substitute trustee who files fraudulent documents claiming to be owed a debt, not having the debt instrument and accelerating the purported loan, and they acted as trustee for a defunct entity.

    B wants A’s assets so it substitutes the trustee and claims the substitute trustee is a trustee for A to accelerate the loan, then passes the theft to Fannie Mae and goes back into court claiming to represent a GSE and stating I need to get off property they purchased.

    I stand there dumbfounded because at the dog show of a foreclosure sale, the real creditor was not there, and the substitute trustee placed a credit bid on their behalf and none of the documents used to steal from me had anything showing they had a right to do anything.

    Yes it was a lot of documents, but I could file a lot of recipes and do what they did if I was part of their ‘clan/group/gang/mafia/extortion unit’.

    My answer was clear. They are suing the wrong party.
    Judgment in their favor, and my option it to now go and fight to get back what was stolen from me?
    I’m not going to contract with a ‘hired hand’ under extortion to fight people I don’t even know to get my property back.

    It takes a certain energy to fight, and some of us do not have that energy, nor will we be spiritually responsible for paying someone to do what we aren’t going to do.

    Peaceful people deserve peaceful enjoyment of their shelter/homes.

    If I had to do it all over again, I’d bring my own document to the table, and it would not be called a home that could be stolen, it will be called my shelter, and there would be a clause that upon full payment whether it occurred before or after I signed the document, they are to issue me a certificate of title.

    It would also indicate all words are as described in Webster’s dictionary which is the common comprehension of the English Language in the land.

    Had many things revealed now, been revealed at the creation of the agreement; I doubt people would purchase for 30 years to be a tenant and have their co-creations/posterity/offspring disenfranchised by papers claiming title to the property.

    The people who by some oath, affirmation, or contract (I will call racketeers in the Black’s Law definition of the word) collectively stole our assets went to war with us, and that’s treason in every sense of the word. The people are the state. The people are the creditors for the United States corporation, and the racketeers robbed the creditors, and in doing so impoverished us by preventing access to things that belong to us, and ruined the credit of the United States corporation.

    One thing the racketeers can’t change, is the people, the state, will always be the creditor.

    Now one must wonder, if the racketeers are within the corporation of the United States why would they steal from the creditors of the United States, and if they are outside of the United States corporation, they are foreign to it and it’s a foreign invasion as they pilfer and pillage the United States corporation creditors.

    If they are dual citizens, their allegiance lies somewhere else and they still stole from a corporation they claimed to be willing to be governed by.

    The consciences knows the moral turpitude created from all of this.
    The all seeing eye is upon them.

    My will is that we collapse their ill gotten gains and remove them from the rest of society. Racketeers are guilty by association (BAR). That same claim has been put forth on members of gangs in the streets. The judgers ask, “if you knew the gang was a corrupt organization, why did you stay in it?”
    Knowing totally that they took an oath to be in it for life or death.

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    They are public servants, they do not create the laws, they were, to our comprehension and overstanding, supposed to follow the rule of law.

    The racketeers owe us, we do not owe them.
    We are the creditors. We ARE the creditors.
    We funded the loan, that was called a debt.
    It was paid by someone on our behalf, but we funded it be cause we exist and it exists for our benefit.

    Only the living can generate the energy to create things.
    We created the funding for the loans and by our will (we signed a document to create the funding), the payment was made.

    And whoever the racketeers serve, I think of the bible story about Cain and what got him in trouble with his LORD God.

    Imagine a similar situation where the racketeers approach their Creator and their offering is a bunch of stolen assets.

    Oh yeah, just imagine.

    p.s. Remember the OCC settlement included over 4 million checks for the ‘I made a mistake and took your home’, mostly giving no consideration for $300. We are under no contract to accept an offer that does not have consideration.

    A contract contains a meeting of the minds, and I didn’t appoint anyone trustee over my assets to negotiate $300 for all the energy I expended for 10 years to get access to a further debt instrument to hand over every month for an entity that knew the ‘note’ was not payment, but more debt.

    I expended energy for 10 years in the upkeep and upgrade the shelter. I cut the grass and plant landscape and provided general maintenance and care for the property. The dishwasher stopped working within 10 years and was replaced, I had equity in the property and it was stolen with my equity.

    Where is my jus compensation?

    No I will not learn to speak their language in 21 days and no I will not pay someone to fight in a battle I don’t comprehend.

    Peaceful enjoyment is just that, peaceful enjoyment.

    notwithstanding all laws, codes, federal or state, which violate their constitution and enumerate our unalienable rights are void.

    A judge has no legal nor lawful right to create the law and then adjudicated according to the law they created.

    Their justice system is known for letting things pile up and then adjudicating. You let them pile up their thefts and judgments when you know they know better, and then you approach them with their own personal ‘book of life’. How many will claim it was a mistake.

    When they knew they made a “mistake” when did they try to fix it?

    Uhn Hmmm.

    They will not seek mercy but their future has plenty of it.

    Their Creator with its piles and piles of stolen assets.
    There’s enough deception to walk upon someone and get them to give it to you, than to steal.

    The rules were ‘thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not trespass, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors property, thou shalt not go to war with the peaceful inhabitants, thou shalt not violate another’s free will.” and so on.

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

  14. @ Charles Reed – What are you talking about. Indymac failed on July 11, 2008. The OTS closed, and stripped the bank form its bank holding company, IndyMac Bancorp.

    The 13 billion in portfolio loans were actually funded by the Federal Home Loan Bank, San Francisco. They were looking to rake possession of the notes pursuant to the funding agreement. that is why the FDIC was forced to operate the bank until it was sold to IndyMac Ventures, LLC.

    Great Western had no money – they were known as a 100k bank, and since it was going FHA – it did not matter who wrote the check at closing. The money came from a warehouse lender, and your loan was underwritten to be securitized.

    Inside of a mortgage securitization pool, there is an entire tranche cut out for HUD insured loans, GSE loans, sub-prime loans etc…

    Certain investors would only purchase certificates for insured loans. Now as far a GNMA being a lender, or taking physical possession of your note – never happened. As far as your loan being illegally table funded, they funded the loan in their name with some other entities money – not illegal, except there is not a chance that Great Western acted as an originator for a pool, thus they sold the loans to a different party, who then sold the loans to the Depositor. I would never accept a warrantee or implicit guaranty from Great Western, a glorified mortgage broker at best.

  15. Gene your saying in your theory that other are funding the loan who are not listed on the Notes, and that not illegal. So the loans started out as an illegal contract under your theory and we don’t know who these people are who are allegedly the money man but are they license to practice home mortgage lending?

    You and Neil and other are avoiding the issue as to how does a entity practice medicine or law without a license or home mortgage lending without a license?

    If the money source is a bank why need the middle man? I am not talking about brokers because they in a sense are working as remote salespeople for the larger bank and the loan is actual originated in the name of the bank and funds are wired in.

    But because attorneys did not have any training in this area or experience, and are late to the game and as all the things we been bringing up the courts are now ruling in the way we have described. However we got these folks now saying give up because you don’t know what your talking about for the last 3yrs but there is a $50 billion settlement on the table for what? Because the bank were correct?

    If investors received loan in pools as Fannie & Freddie did and there is a procedure to accept these loan in loan quality control, but as much as a decade later the investor receiving settlement because of faulty loan underwriting and falsified documents but who on the front line of the underwriting and falsifying documents? It the borrowers who are also abused.

    Contracts are not one way but they involve two parties, but the borrowers are being totally discounted as if they underwrote the freaking loan themselves and knew this alleged phony funding (if) was t the borrowers knowledge. Don’t come now saying the money was not actually the banks but it was the trust that funded the loan! When did the trust prior to the loan closing underwrite the loan?

    Everybody Gene i telling you to quit as he does not know the situation we have brought to the table, but he knows that these servicing agreement are correct, but some or all the loans have been falsified to get into the pools, and the servicing agreement mean what? If you falsified the documents I sure you would falsified the servicing agreement as Ginnie Mae cannot accept any mortgage loan payments!

  16. So Gene we are suppose to take your advise and simply move on, or listen to you and take a couple thousand dollar or nothing while attorney get paid for not actually winning.

    In case you have not notice its the investor being paid not some trust. You guy are theorizing the loan are not actual funded by the bank, and if they were not and the loan are illegal because only a register mortgage lender can lend, and everybody else would be like a loan shark and not entitled to any repayment at all because its criminal for them to lend. NY law are very strict loan sharking laws and most of all these trust are base out of NY and plus is where all this trading is taking place.

    I don’t think bank are wanting to cop to illegal funding!

  17. Gene the fund that funded my loan I hand carried the check to the closing that came from the Great Western Bank account. I was a mortgage loan officer at the bank.

    So I think you need to get it straight. I locked the loan. I closed thousands of loans and whether at Great Western Bank or Wells Fargo they funded the loan and not another entity.

    At Great Western Bank except for my loan I closed the loans myself and not some title company so there were no wire going into the bank because we funded our own loans.

    Now my loan got mess up because the builder had their closing company (Buffett people) handle the loan and they screwed up!

    Gene do you understand Ginnie Mae pools. A Ginnie Mae pool needs to have possession of the blank Note they have not purchase at all time or the got nothing because the Note does not name them at all and they don’t have any proof of purchase.

    The servicing agreement is between WaMu and Wells Fargo and not Ginnie Mae (WaMu=”failed bank”), and as Ginnie Mae not the holder of any home mortgage loan debt on earth they cannot have a mortgage service agreement because they are not authorize by law to collect the payment!

    Now with WaMu they must have felt the lender was going to go bust and allowed the transferring of service and if the bankruptcy got a hold of those blank Notes and Ginnie Mae had no physical possession they had not claim. The loan properties are suppose to payout the “investors” in the event that the lender get into trouble and the loan with are already in the possession of Ginnie are conveyed (not actually needed) to Ginnie Mae through HUD11711A.

    Why do you think Szymoniak got paid and why she submitted this recent complaint for Ginnie Mae loans? It because the Federal Government been damage! Qui Tam are to recover monies the Federal government loss and look at all the other large settlement from BOA & Citi it was the government that got paid not some trust for False Claims. Not trust is covered under the FHA & VA insurances as the FHA & VA are buying these properties at the foreclosure sales!

  18. @ GENE ,

    OK , ‘Splain me this ..

    If the table funders are 100% legit and the trusts did receive the physical notes where is the repayment of the advanced funds from the table funder documented? Are they paid after each loan is accepted? When the trust closes? When the syndicate finishes selling the certificates? When the syndicate buys the certificates to resell? Were there two sales? Table funder paid at closing AND trust paid pretender/strawman? or did the trust (master servicer) pay the table funder directly? And where did the physical notes go? In my case I can document the notes destruction at the local branch of the “lender” (strawman for the table funder). In my case the table funder (Bank of America) also had a role in the selling syndicate and (documented) collected funds from AIG although how they asserted ownership status is not yet known.

    As to the servicers being authorized to foreclose ,, that is a right given to the master servicer … typically the master servicer hires a sub-servicer and offloads their responsibility to advance payments… My case is typical with 4 distinct sub-servicers since inception.. only the first was hired by the master servicer , first one went bk , two sold assets (the servicing rights) to escape the business… Who must show what to maintain the right to foreclose..and what survives of the claim to the prior advanced funds when the company sells out.. the only case law shows that the claim to advances is “lost” as a recoverable item to the purchasing servicer and is part of the selling price paid.

    But the biggest question.. Sure the master servicer can foreclose ,, and even a sub-servicer if the right is documented… but lets face it … The borrower has no contractual relationship with the sub-servicer, the sub-servicer is thrust upon the borrower and the sub servicer is AN UNSECURED CREDITOR TO THE BORROWER…. The Master Servicer and the Trustee both know that at their level there IS NO DEFAULT as payments have been advanced. This is documented by the Trustee in various ways in their reports to the investors… Why is the sub-servicer donning the mantle of a secured party by pretending to be the trustee when they file suit if not to deceive the courts of their unsecured status? Why does the trustee allow this fraud to occur in their name?

  19. A class action would fly there are common issues. I refuse to believe the things I am dealing with and what was done to me is an isolated case.

  20. I know of an attorney who admitted she had to alter an instrument so that the county recorder would record it. The document did not say exactly what the attorney needed the document to say in order get a foreclosure going. She crossed critical words out out and wrote what she wanted between the lines, long after execution of the instrument by someone else. Altering an instrument after execution is FORGERY.
    Altering an instrument after execution and then recording it in order to deprive a person of his real property, by using the false documentation, is a criminal offense. Ethics??? What ethics?

  21. “This foreclosure case is not removable because it does not arise under federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441. The well-pleaded complaint rule followed by a majority of the District Courts in this circuit and elsewhere around the country requires that the federal question be presented on the face of the complainant’s properly pleaded complaint.”

    Taken from the motion to remand to state court, which resulted in the Order at no. 1 below. This is the motion:

  22. There is also appeals court decisions/orders, 49 state attorney general settlement, Supreme court decisions, there’s a lot of information being disclosed.

    There is no way they can say they didn’t know.
    Bet they stop laughing then, so will their family’s stop smiling when they find out what they did for a living.

    A serial thief is in dishonor as soon as everyone knows what they’ve done.

    Electronic documents make it easy to see the criminal activity.

    Not worried that people are enjoying someone trying to figure out how to stop being robbed.

    not worried at all about what they think of us.

    Trespass Unwanted.

  23. let them laugh.
    No one can convey a right they do not have.
    No one can transfer property they do not own.

    There is a paper trail, and there is a judgment against trespass, no matter who your Creator is.

    Every game has rules if you had to cheat, you were losing.
    Cheaters never win.

    It’s only property, real fun is when their property (their real estate, their corporeal body) is taken from them by those they serve for violating the rules of the game, thinking they are winning.

    The meek will inherit – their interference.will be removed.

    There is already push back on those stupid criminal charges where there is no victim. Used to be a scarlet letter on the ‘independent thinker’ who didn’t comply with their force or perceived power.

    They are as pretend and the lenders, and the information is being disclosed of their crimes.

    OCC, Federal Reserve,CFPB, SEC, Delaware Corporation and Texas Corporation Fiduciary responsibilities, Constitution, Federal Rules, Federal Codes, etc.

    First you put the information out there so people can’t say they didn’t know. You put it out there as a reminder.

    Then you remove the offending people who think they are somehow greater than their equal.


    An equal has no power over an equal.

    Let them laugh.
    Thou shalt not steal.

    The all seeing eye is turned on them now.
    There has to be someone to remove, it’s their time now.

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

  24. Charles, you need to read the PSA and Mortgage Servicing Trust Agreements among other things. They detail possession of the Notes, and provide the servicers with authorities to foreclosure with the custodian maintaining all documents.

    You are buying the line that the Trusts are the original lenders. This is b.s. If you understood how the loans were funded, TILA and RESPA statutes that cover this, then you would know that table funders are legitimate. Also funding under warehouse credit lines.

    Your theories are pure bunk. Nothing but ill conceived speculation with no reality.

    There are legitimate issues with what is going on, but the endless garbage that gets discussed here does no one any real good.

    Ever wonder why it is always the same few that post here? Arguing the same garbage that never goes anywhere? Then to explain the failings, it is all a giant conspiracy beginning with the bankers, wall street, the courts and everything else.

    The fact is that everyone involved in the real foreclosure defense industry, and on the other side, all look at this website and get good chuckles.

    I post to try and clear up things, but like tnharry who understands this stuff well, no one wants to hear reality.

  25. IndyMac “fail bank” WaMu “fail bank” with loans they screwed up and relinquish but did not sell, and they nor any other entity has a legal claim to the properties as there no counter party for the debt.

    So at the end of the day when what happen in the dark come to light, what going to go down?

  26. Charles I dont hate you. Please dont put words in my mouth.
    I wish you all the luck in the world.


  27. Folks: we live in illegally occupied territories here in the United State of America!!!

    Excellent parallel to mass illegal American foreclosures is a related film posted in VeteransToday last week, by a singer and author Johnny Punish:

    To better understand what foreclosures are, spend a weekend watching the four episodes of “THE PROMISE”. Although the last one may sum it all up but best is to watch them in sequence:

    shiploads of Jewish insurgents sent to Palestine since 1930’s were secretly armed by the British in preparation to invade the homes of defenseless Palestinians who were abandoned by the British after end of WW2.
    Massacres of Palestinians followed and homes were stolen by Jewish insurgents.

    In this country lenders, as insurgents, gave fraudulent loans to the public with the built-in feature to default so they foreclose, and steal the homes. Then the lenders’ paid agents (lawyers, courts & sheriffs) performed the film’s insurgents’ jobs as it happened in Palestine by throwing defenseless people out of their homes at gunpoint, even when the banks themselves had gone bust & no longer existed!!!

    Peter Kosminsky The Promise Episode 04 Full‬

  28. Defendants’ loss of its investment and loss charged off on their taxes?

    Hello.. did you hear me? I am Surety.



    Who are you again?

  29. RE: county recorder is a hoot as if he don’t care what goes on (whether legal or not) as long as they record something

    Really? Well they did to! And got shot down..

    Hence … only the party with injury caused by the fraudcording party has the right to bring a claim, I refer to it as a PRA.

  30. @The A Man (I realize you hate me) that was a great piece out of CA and that what I am talking about with this crime. FDIC screwed up and this case is what I been telling folks is the when the bank was declared a “fail bank” the government loan were in the Ginnie Mae pools with black Notes, now these clown know they cannot file something with a blank Note to whoever pretending it purchase that Note, but is in the court 5yrs after IndyMac died wanting to now record a assignment.

    It impossible now for IndyMac to record anything as it does not exist and cannot ever represent itself today. There is no way to verify what they recorded that the team found. This show the lack of a fear of law enforcement and the county recorder is a hoot as if he don’t care what goes on (whether legal or not) as long as they record something!


    Sale Terms: This is an “AS IS” sale for “CASH”. The successful bidder must deposit 25% down by certified funds; balance, by certified funds, within 24 hours. NO REFUNDS. The subject property is subject to general real estate taxes, special assessments or special taxes levied against said real estate, water bills, etc., and is offered for sale without any representation as to quality or quantity of title and without recourse to plaintiff. The sale is further subject to confirmation by the court. Upon payment in full of the bid amount, the purchaser shall receive a Certificate of Sale, which will entitle the purchaser to a Deed to the real estate after confirmation of the sale. The property will NOT be open for inspection. Prospective bidders are admonished to check the court file to verify all information. The successful purchaser has the sole responsibility/expense of evicting any tenants or other individuals presently in possession of the subject premises.

  32. This posted today here locally ….
    I removed the names of the homeowners and replaced them with husband and wife.

    Any Comments?









  33. Gene is correct about one thing that in order to take a loan out of the MBS is the full amount is needed to do that. Now in the case of Countrywide or WaMu do you think BOA and Wells would paid full price for loan in these pools that we know back then properties value were already dropping because the subprime loans started to default and were being foreclosed.

    Nobody buying something for $100 that worth $80 and in 2008 and the loan losses are coming from Countrywide? Country wide and WaMu are bleeding all over the place. The FDIC was clever to made it look like JPMorgan purchase $308 billion in assets for $1.9 billion but WaMu had 1.3 million government insured loan being serviced by Wells Fargo and at a average $100,000 loan balance that $130 billion dollars that needed to be paid to Ginnie Mae if these clown purchase the loans, and we know $1.9 billion does not cover that amount, and Wells Fargo already admitted they did not purchase these loans.

    Ginnie Mae cannot have a trust own the loan because the loans are the underlying collateral from the securities and is why they are relinquish to Ginnie Mae. read Ginnie Mae regulation!

  34. Did everybody forget? The trusts did not accept any more of the mortgages/loans/debt after ninety days if they wanted to be a REMIC under the rules of the IRS. That’s it, no more loans into the trust. If you get a chance, look at the PSA’s. They have the rules and that is what the atty on the other side of my case did not want me to know. Atty for the SEC and opp. counsel indicated the PSA was no longer available on the SEC website, which was a lie. I found it later. So, ergo, the PSA has many important facts to impart. Do not take No for an answer.

  35. Goolge Foreclosure Fraud and read BONY v Romero break down from yesterday update!

    It will explain why the Notes are never actual physical turned over in most cases with large lenders, exception is WaMu transferred to Wells Fargo the Notes it was servicing. Fatal mistake! IndyMac also in the class of fatal mistakes!

  36. “Trusts not being traded anymore”- S&P rated over 44,000 MBS offerings. As of mid -2013, Fitch was rating only 1,420 different MBS. Whatever these two numbers mean, it Is a good indication of where things stand.

  37. Gene understand if in the case of a blank endorsed Note the loan debt is not owned, because the only thing that gives the ownership is physical possession UCC3.

    A trust is not regulated to lender and these loan Note are not actually ever physical released, and only in saying they are release just as what was found out in the Conutrywide case, where the employees testified that no Notes where ever transferred and is why BOA is having the problem.

    You source is wrong as you could tell this was not the case a BOA paid $1 billion for the False Claims in Jan 2012. If these trust owned the loan they would be not be the situation that the bank are in court oppose to the trust.

    Stop and think about it every thing you do as a corporation you must be regulated to do it and these trust are not regulated to lend in a home mortgage industry. Ginnie Mae is the best example because they are the insurer for the MBS that 100% guaranteed by the US taxpayers to the “investors” who purchase the MBS and not some trust.

    The insurances that are being paid and the Federal government is receiving these settlements from JPMorgan and they have Wells Fargo in court now is not about a trust but the lender defrauding the taxpayer.

    You cannot sale cars out your house without being license as you need to have a service center to be able to service the car. Now in some states there is a limit to a person selling car out there home. You cannot sell food out your home without a license.

    The may have sold a slice of these loan in a scheme but they cannot own a loan unless they are a license lender. Why do you think that these agencies are buying the properties at the foreclosure sales? Doctors, Lawyers, Dentist, Electrician, Plumber, Mechanic etc have to have license and must be able to service their clients.

    A trust cannot lender a borrower money and cannot service the loan. The loan 100% of the time must be service and the trust cannot hire a surrogate to do what they cannot do! Did you here of a trust being brought up in the modification of loan or foreclosing or buying forgeries from DocX? Why would the bank being paying the fines and settlement if the loan are not theirs!

    Gene stop listening to this expert because its costing you money. Nine bank are in the process of a $50 billion settlement!

  38. I never refused to pay and always offered tender .. I just disagreed with what we owed. And BAC .. refused the payment every month and offered us a loan mod every month. Every month .. I told them there was no hardship and we didn’t need a loan mod. So we go see an attorney and he advises us to reinstate. We did and some extra (just in case).

    At the same time BAC set up a hearing under the left open Fraudclosure case filed by CWHL Nov 4 07 set for May 2010.


  39. After we closed ( purchase on thison this property), the servicing was transferred to CWHLS with our 1st payment due Jan 2008

    The amount BAC claimed due as of Jan 1st 2009 and demanded we pay the full amount of….,

    that amount was equal to one years PIE (less not yet due tax credit).


    Where did my payments Go from Jan 1 2008 thru Jan 1 of 2009?

    Why was BAC …. trying to recollect our 1st yr of payments after we already paid them to CWHLS ?

    It wasn’t BACs problem … they said.

    I suspect I was supposed to take it with CW?


  40. Heres one Who do I believe Gene and Charles or any of the others on this side of the blog? Or and ex FDIC banker with over 30 years of experience?
    KC this one is for you.

    It doesnt take King Soloman’s wisdom to figure that one out. Also watch the end of the video regarding the DA in Santa Barbara.


  41. Amend ….. file a MSJ …..?

    state as a fact that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the suit?

    Get Legal Advise where your property is located?

    Just opinions as always.

  42. It was exhausting getting that other group of wanna be Trustee/Lawyer shouldn’t bees’.

    Man have them boys got Balls!
    That covered up those Lil Peckers!

    Once I nailed those lil peckers down one at a time … and had them all lined up in a row.

    It was curtains up and Time for a Clown Show.

  43. @ ALL ,

    What are the best strategies for preventing the Plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing a case?

    All I can come up with are counterclaims that must be adjudicated…

  44. Oh How Many Ways can I count Title Problems?

  45. Oh and the release (dated Nov of 2011) was filed in Feb of 2012 ..
    … it was on behalf of a party that didn’t exist.
    A party mentioned NO where in title or loan.
    A party who filed a Lis Pendens Nov 4 2008.

    A party that didn’t and doesn’t exist transferring rights it doesn’t have in Sept 2011 to BOAna and cancelling LPs just a few weeks later.

  46. Charge two … KC the neglected client had to wait almost 3yrs, to receive hers before she could file it with the county recorders office.

  47. The Trust bonds are being traded daily. That is factually proven. Why would investors be trading worthless paper. Granted, the MBS has been discounted from prices in 2006 and 2007, but that is not an issue.

    Charles, the loans are owned by the Trust, and held in the name of the Trustee for the Trust. There are only certain conditions whereby a loan can be removed from a Trust, and if done so, it must be at the current face value, i.e. amount due. It is not at fair market value.

    The reason that the loans are failing after modification is that the process for modifying loans is flawed. Net Present Value does not take into account many different factors relevant to a loan performing. As a result, about 30% of all HAMP mods fail within 2 years and Private Label is even worse.

    You are wrong when you say that the loans that are non GSE are owned by the lenders, unless you consider the Trust/Investor a lender. Lender owned loans within the industry are Portfolio Loans.

    These issues are so complex, everything from securitization to mods to foreclosure, that there is no “standard argument” for any of this. I have had in depth meetings with two of the top ten class action law firms regarding class actions, and it was decided that the details of each individual loan were so unique, a class could not be put together with commonality among other things.

  48. I stand corrected .. she made both statements.

    There are trusts that were within trusts …
    I got confused witch one she was talking about.


  49. Gene let look at the last goofy looking 60yr old Fraud Investigator solve the DocX thing, (over look where she got the information from)!

    As far as these loans, they are being sold and the loan are only modification and you cannot take away a owners right to sale, and if the lender who purchasing feel that they are wanting to call that Note due, I don’t see where the borrowers have a leg to stand on.

    It not a new loan but an old one, and as she said the modification were worded as optional and is the reason out of 4.2 million files, only 500,000 modification were given and 140,000 of them have already failed but why?

    These are loan owned by the lenders and if they not government monies received in making them, and they are not government insured loans, the lender can do whatever they wish to do. This is the bank’s capital not the Government. The can sale what there at any time!

  50. Gene, I believe what she said was that these trusts were not being traded anymore.

    I think there is a big difference .. feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

  51. The former FDIC woman is in error in many of her statements. For example, she claims that B of A sold the loan servicing rights to get out from under the Mortgage Settlement Statement. This is a false claim. The loans are being sold as a requirement under Basel III. If she does not understand this, then she knows nothing.

    If she had read the Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights Purchase Agreement, then she would know that the sale of the Servicing Rights did not negate any need to abide by the NMS. In fact, the Agreement purposely states that Nationstar will continue to abide by the Agreements.

    Though this will not be a popular statement and will be contested here, she is absolutely wrong about the Trusts being closed and the loans sold back to lenders or servicers. I have seen the documents for many trusts, and the payment histories and know the trusts are still functioning. This is another Internet Myth that keeps getting claimed, but has no factual basis.

    She mentions about 100 loans being done, and that all were fraudulent in some way or another, but makes no representations about what was really wrong. What are her claims of wrong doing? Without knowing the claims of fraud, her statements mean nothing

    She is accurate about Harris and the NMS not helping the homeowners, but the question becomes as to what she expected Harris to do?

    She is accurate about the lenders doing the release of liability but it is not lawful and the borrower cannot be held to it.

    Her other allegations about Wells and the ownership of the particular loan, it is all based upon her representations, and without her providing actual proof, it is only her perspective.

    Since she was a “Fraud Investigator”, it would be interesting to understand what type of fraud she was looking for. And to only have reviewed 100 loans is nothing. (It would be curious to know what she views as fraud.)

  52. Not withholding evidence …. he knows his client has.

    Because it would disclose his client (whom he is a LLC or LLP.. thee/he/they)?

    Stuffs like … PSAs and PPMs and such other Agreements?

    A written instrument which the beneficial interest held in a PRIVATE PLCEMENT MEMORANDUM (“PPM”) ?

    That Said document that is binding amongst the successors parties in the formation of certain Limited Partnerships, formed as a Limited Liability Corporation or “LLC”s ?

    That parties under the PPM form amongst themselves the understanding and contents of the party’s right to claims to the Estates title ?

    To Many Questions?

  53. Does anyone know if you can have an attorney defending US Bank as Trustee disbarred/sanctioned for pursuing a homeowner for foreclosure? By their own admission, they are not permitted to engage in any part of the foreclosure process, but not limited to declaring default. See their website.

  54. How about when attorneys file attorney affidavits? There is no excuse. They know it’s wrong, A first year law student would know it’s wrong. And they know the judges won’t care. That’s what makes me sick and leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths. It’s time for consumer rights’ attorneys to get some guts and go after the bad attorneys, otherwise you are just part of the problem.

  55. Everybody involved is a lawyer including the judges ad Neil conflicted as to what they help create. How many of these bank owners including AIG Hank Goldberg is a lawyer!

  56. Your link does not work ..

  57. (Atty Harris) More Attorney acting in conjunction with the crooks, and they don’t call reach other out but the retired female attorney. Another female attorney (not practicing) Sen Warren is also on to these clowns!

  58. Here we go again as Neil is conflicted and instead of saying attorney like other crooks should be prosecuted to the fullest, he putting clauses in his statement. The one that kill me is that the attorney are just representing their clients, but if it take these illegal tactics to foreclose, why are not these attorney and bank put in jail?

    Going through a situation were I have the forgeries this law firm comment under the cover of MERS, and is repeated on other involved in the WaMu cover up where the company was investigated by Congress and the CEO along with his executives reach an agreement to pay a fine, but so much damage been done to the entire Nation.

    Neil does not want to go after the attorney who are the main characters in court doing the damage, but it like the police and there code of blue silence, but doing an internal investigation of police brutally.

    You don’t even have law enforcement going after crimes as the attorneys working for the state are conflicted! You cannot fight this battle with is to the death and we got part of our army feeling sorry for there infantry!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: