PICK-A-PARTY — BOA – RED OAK – Countrywide Merger Revealed in all its “Glory”

Maybe now I will get something other than a blank look when I referred to anomalies in what appears to be the merger of Bank of America with Countrywide. For about 18 months now I have been saying that there is something wrong with that report, because the documents in the public domain show two things, to wit: first, that BAC was merely a name change for Countrywide;  and second, it appears to be a merger between Red Oak Merger Corp. and Countrywide.  My conclusion was that Bank of America was claiming what it wanted depending upon the circumstances and disregarding the actual transactions. In fact, in various court actions ranging from foreclosures to investor and insurer lawsuits over bogus mortgage bonds, Bank of America was submitting documents referring to agreements that referred to fictional transactions.

This behavior should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the actions and statements of the major banks throughout the financial crisis.  The various positions asserted by Bank of America in court actions around the country contradict each other and are obviously intended to mislead the court. It is for that reason that I have maintained the position that any benefit claimed by Bank of America by virtue of its alleged merger with Countrywide should be tested thoroughly in discovery.  Lawyers, judges and borrowers should stop assuming that if the bank says something it must be true. My position is that if a bank says something it probably is not true or it is misleading or both.

This is not merely some technical objection. This issue runs to the heart of our title system. There are many of us who are sending up warning flares. Judges, attorneys, title agents, and other experts have examined this issue and concluded that we are headed for a crash of the recording system that will undermine the title and priority of owners and lenders.

Thanks to one of my readers, I obtained the following quote and link which requires substantial study and analysis to see how this will impact any case in which  your opposition is Bank of America.

BAC is not just a “shareholder” of
Countrywide, as it argued to the Court at the outset of the case.
Then from Charles Koppa on the idiotic practice of allowing a controlled company or subsidiary be substituted for the trustee on the deed of trust on record — namely in this case Bank of America (AGAIN) who owns and controls Recontrust. SO in this case, like nearly all of the non-judicial situations, pick-a-party: the beneficiary on the deed of trust vanishes and is replaced with a “new beneficiary” by fiat more than anything in fact. Then the new beneficiary effectively names itself as the new trustee on the deed of trust. THIS PRACTICE SHOULD BE CHALLENGED AND NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO DO IT. THE COURTS ARE GETTING WISE TO THESE ANTICS.
From Koppa:
ReconTrust is “owned” by Bank of America Corporation.
Bank National Associations are governed by The Office of Controller of The Currency.
Anything on ReconTrust, NA?  It should be Governed by OCC, part of the US Treasury Dept (NOT the SEC)?
If ReconTrust is a subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation…. This is NOT Bank of America, “NA”or “BANA”.  So, which are THEY??
How can one “NA”= National Association, own a second “NA”.  Looks like self-dealing to us whistleblowers! 
Jes Thinkin: Who receives proceeds of lien foreclosure sales conducted by ReconTrust  which become REO re-sales of Land Titles @ 100% profit??
Who receives proceeds from Trustee Sales to third parties where “bid purchase proceeds” are delivered to ReconTrust @ 100% profit (to WHO)???
OPINION 1: Add common ownership by BANA of LandSafe Title for “corrections” on all ReconTrust foreclosure land title transactions; means possible crimes of “Conversion”.  Borrowers real property Trust Deed/Mortgage (a hard record asset) transfers via MERS/REMIC and off-balance sheet accounting into purported RMBS Products via Bank of America Securities, etc. as a non-transparent new soft asset class, which funds lien security investment credits without reference to the borrower.
Opinion 2: Countrywide/BAC converts “loan obligations debt” with homeowners… into pre-funded aggregated “securities credits” assigned to affiliated servicers by the Sponsor of the SEC Prospectus (Like BANA).  Upon loan default servicer changes hats and squires foreclosure liquidation of the fabricated “lien security” (under SEC).  This delivers “huge profits” beyond the REMIC Trust —- via BAC Home Loans and “controlled servicers” named by the Shadow Sponsor.  Affiliated servicer names ReconTrust as a self-substituted Foreclosure Trustee which seems to be clear of all regulation and criminality!!
Opinion 3:  Double income on a single transaction = “Embezzlement”.  20% Real Estate Equity is confiscated into the RBMS via “identity theft”of innocent homeowners using proceeds to the REMIC via the FED discount process! 
Opinion 4:  Vertical integration of all steps accomplishes “conversion for purposes of embezzlement”, which violates Anti-Trust Act, RICO, mail/wire fraud, etc.  What part of organized crime might IRS, OCC and SEC regulators actually understand when the California18 brings legal action via the evidence against ReconTrust prepared in vain for CA-AG Harris a year ago?
What is your opinion?
Charles J. Koppa 760-787-9966, www.TitleTrail.com

108 Responses

  1. T.U., 401ks and pensions are BK remote (not that they didn’t try to change that to).

    Ha! Now they found another way to seize our pensions and 401ks!

    With an Avg National Balance held in account …. We figure we are even. Set Off …

    Taxes? We didn’t ask for a modification, didn’t apply for a modification/refi, a principal reduction or debt forgiveness ….. and we don’t plan to.

    I don’t care How Big of a Bully You Are!

    It’s Time Granny Brought you down a Notch or Two ..

    Back to Grandma Duties, …. Its Story Time.

    Many Blessings to All!

  2. I wanted to take out a loan myself in early 2010 .. to much BS.

    But the title didn’t pass snuff …. I couldn’t use it as collateral as to the terms to be met prior to Ins policy being issued.

    No Trustee Agreement
    No Warranty Deed
    No WAY to prove MERS was paid off? Huh?

    I was just trying to get a Fraud LP released to clear title so I could use it as collateral to take our business elsewhere.

    So I contact BOAs … Title Leagle Butties Dept.
    Then my Attorney ….

    Round and Round We Go ….
    Round and Round Goes the Hand on the Clock …..

    Round and Round We Went …..
    Round and Round Went the Hand on the Clock ….

    Tick Tock

  3. Do you see the problem with who granted us the Warranty Deed?

    Do you see the problem with a photo copy of the original Trustee Deed being altered with white out and presented at closing as an original?

    Do you see the problem with an altered photo copy of a Trustee Deed being filed without the Trustee Agreement?

    All the way back to the beginning ……..

  4. Keep in Mind the deceased Seller Estate had paid off the mortgage years earlier and held the Title Free and Clear for years.

    No Mortgage.. No Liens .. No Debts

  5. Good Morning Sunshine,

    JG, speaking of legal and equitable title … this is what we got at the purchase closing …

    1. Trustee Deed granted to hubby and ( a law firm whited out ) filed (without the Trustee Agreement) .. granted form the Seller Estates Trustee (trustee/daughter/beneficiary). Legal Title

    2. General Warranty Deed granted to hubby and me from the “Capital Asset funding corp” but never filed. Equitable Title

    Deceased parties Revocable Trust still open in 2010.

    How can both trusts (theirs and ours) exist holding the same Equitable interest in the title?


  6. I am obviously tired and tongue tied tonight because I meant to
    …. if you clicked on the link I posted below..

    Good Night & Many Blessings to All

  7. Ohh.. if you didn’t click the landsafe like I posted below … you should notice the “Federal Tax Lien”.

    And that is where Christine and I part ways on the Tax Issue.

  8. JG, you finally have signing capacity nailed. YEAH!

    Now … how does that connect to the conflict of interest between the Estate and the debtor, i.e. why my Attorney could not represent my husband?

    Why my Attorney and I wanted to know who authorized our friendly MERS nominee to slander the estates title … AGAIN!

    How appropriate .. RE-CON…… Don’t trust them!

    LandSafe .. Keep your Land Safely maintained, insured and the land taxes paid and YOUR LAND IS SAFE

    Don’t let some con .. re-con you again.

  9. What good is an assignment of a DOT with no note? I love the language and it is important…a “nominee” on the DOT and they can assign other nominees at will? How many times, to whom…and they have never defined what the nominees role is and its limitations….Good gawd

    Let’s me see if I understand: a beneficiary: so, my son takes out an insurance policy and makes me the beneficiary and I decide to make someone else the beneficiary without his permission….does anyone here think the insurer would pay that, without a “legal” document for my designation to another, without the purchaser (my son) agreeing to it? Answer: a resounding no.

    All hogwash, IMHO

  10. I agree T.U.!

    Everyone all the way around has been Snookered.

    If you withdraw from your 401k or pension early to pay off the house …they really stick to you!

    So you are left liquidating assets…
    (in heir or in un recorded docs) HA!! unrecorded. 🙂
    … to satisfy the mortgage.

    Now you are all set to and want to satisfy the mortgage,
    get the lien released …
    but they wont let you.

    Are you flippin kidding Me?

    Is there is Trust or Not?

  11. RE: “MERS” is not acting for the original lender; it’s alleging to act for an unknown principal, if it’s alleging to be acting for another ……

    ~ a Trustee who failed paying taxes, ins, maintenance and occupancy requirements?

    Substituting its self as Trustee?
    As allowed by the Trustor as its nominee.. if need be?

  12. KC, on March 4, 2014 at 7:44 pm said:

    Does anyone want to jump in and take a Wild Guess at how these securities got a rating of AAA?

    I’ll bite that one.

    It got an AAA rating because people sign up for investments in their 401K and some of those investments are Real Estate (Real Estate Investment Trusts – REIT).

    Since people rarely manage their 401Ks unless they are losing money, they do not know the REITs are empty, so every month a large amount of money pours into these trusts that claim to be performing because money is coming in ‘all the time’, but no one is telling the people they are paying for NOTHING!

    It’s Madoff in a different scheme, because as some retire, some see the performance and get in, and the numbers look good and the value of the assets look good, but we didn’t realize how much emptiness was worth because we didn’t peel back the covers.

    Since the REIT has a good record of maintaining its investors, and maintaining the cash flow on a monthly basis and the investors leaving per month is less than the investors joining, and there’s a chance more investors join as more people move money around in their 401K and they move from stocks or bonds to trusts, well, the ratings company gave them AAA for consistently receiving funds and keeping customers and drawing in customers and having the same assets (which aren’t there, but no one pulled back the covers to see someone ‘stole’ them and have them sitting on their books and they were never in the trust).

    That’s my opinion and since I know nothing and made it all up, I’ll stick with it.

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

  13. I said that “MERS” (generally read servicer or law firm employee or f/c mill employee ) doesn’t execute assgts as an agent would. Despite what I call the willfully misleading language at the beginning of these assgts, imo MERS is attempting to act in its own right as a sub’d party (“nominee), not as an agent for anyone.
    There was a recent case in which it was decided that MERS couldn’t represent the original lender because that company was out of business (no kidding?) First of all, I couldn’t imagine that “MERS” claimed to represent that company since it’s impossible (don’t know if they actually got nailed down on who they claimed to represent as imo they should’ve been, but it must’ve been that out of business company given the court’s ruling). These guys are this and that, but they’re not stupid. They know an agent isn’t an agent of a company that’s toast.
    Apparently they would rather get such a ruling than give the name of the party for whom they really are allegedly acting (and find themselves with a righteous and long-overdue precedent). “MERS” is not acting for the original lender; it’s alleging to act for an unknown principal, if it’s alleging to be acting for another at all, which I don’t believe it is for a number of reasons, a glaring one being the manner in which assgts are executed: they’re executed in the assignor’s OWN right (despite the misleading lead-in in the assgt, just like the misleading lead-in in the coll instrument. Whether or not MERS is this or that, there’s just no mistaking that the actual execution of the assgt is done in the own right of the assignor. Further, if the alleged principal is known and that’s the guy meant to be bound by the asst, why not be transparent? What’s the big deal? That lack of transparency, the failure to name the party being bound, fails to bind that party; the only party being bound is MERS, and as to the effectiveness of an assgt in conveying interest, that’s only good for anything at all if MERS IS the ben (which is what the dot says). And what about the consideration expressed in the assgt (which I really think is about the note)? If MERS is an agent of X, so it’s really X’s dot merely being held in public record by MERS, why must X pay money to MERS for its own dot? Even if MERS charges money, which it or MERSCorp does for let’s call it “shipping and handling” to assign the dot to its principal, that wouldn’t be recitated in the assgt of the dot as if it’s consideration for the assgt (and the note), which is exactly how it’s recited. That consideration is a big tell and what it’s telling us is that MERS isn’t an agent (that or for some reason MERS is being paid for the note it’s purporting to assign).
    lay opinions

  14. I admire Christine, she jumped out and took the bull by the horns.
    I wanted to also .. but my attorney wouldn’t let me.

    I had to look at things differently … I am the Bull and My Horns are Shiny and Sharp … (Opps my Halo fell off?) Two Hats?

    Any way I was worked up fuming mad,………. kicking up the dirt just daring that Fella playing games with me to step outside his protection zone.

    He squawked and squawked but he was Chicken and would not leave his safe Zone and take me on Head to Head in the Arena.

    Then the buzzer went off … And the Game was Over.
    He could never come back …
    Hit the Road Jack .. and don’t come back No More!

  15. He got caught ….. with his hand in the Cookie Jar …

    Glory, Glory Halilluya. … title=”abstract halilluya

    Glory Glory Haliluya
    The Teacher … hit his hand with a rulerrr ……
    He got caught, with his hand in The Cookie Jarr …
    That .. was Taking It to Far!

    My Cookie Jars ….


  17. Nice Come Back Neil, .. redeeming yourself that is! Congrats!

    Its been a Great Debate! Thank You!
    Mr Koppa appears to be your best kept Secret Weapon!

    I Like Him! 🙂

    p.s. … If I was in their britches caught with their pants down .. I would NOT take the homeowners (whose identity they stole) to court either. Thus no Litigation, …. just a lil Mr Clean on the Title.

    I had a Great Attorney!

  18. Opinion 4: Vertical integration of all steps accomplishes “conversion for purposes of embezzlement”, which violates Anti-Trust Act, RICO, mail/wire fraud, etc. What part of organized crime might IRS, OCC and SEC regulators actually understand when the California18 brings legal action via the evidence against ReconTrust prepared in vain for CA-AG Harris a year ago?

  19. ~ via “identity theft”of innocent homeowners

    ~ security investment credits without reference to the borrower.

    KC is not a borrower … but they want KC to do a loan mod?
    On What? Fraud?

    Who is the Master … The Master Servicer!


  21. Opinion 3: Double income on a single transaction = “Embezzlement”. 20% Real Estate Equity is confiscated into the RBMS via “identity theft”of innocent homeowners using proceeds to the REMIC via the FED discount process

  22. Opinion 2: Countrywide/BAC converts “loan obligations debt” with homeowners… into pre-funded aggregated “securities credits” assigned to affiliated servicers by the Sponsor of the SEC Prospectus (Like BANA). Upon loan default servicer changes hats and squires foreclosure liquidation of the fabricated “lien security” (under SEC). This delivers “huge profits” beyond the REMIC Trust —- via BAC Home Loans and “controlled servicers” named by the Shadow Sponsor. Affiliated servicer names ReconTrust as a self-substituted Foreclosure Trustee which seems to be clear of all regulation and criminality!!

  23. Javagold I agree with your comment of getting together, as we are all coming from this thing from different points of views, but we all have the same enemies!

  24. Neil, have you noticed how this article is not getting any debate from the Pro’s that drop in here … TnHarry, Master Servicer, Bob and even the New Gene (with a better disposition on life).

    Hey Guys …. How about some input?

  25. The investors whose money funded the loan … was an intentional beneficiary of (rents) flow thru future payments of the Estate?

  26. OPINION 1: Add common ownership by BANA of LandSafe Title for “corrections” on all ReconTrust foreclosure land title transactions; means possible crimes of “Conversion”. Borrowers real property Trust Deed/Mortgage (a hard record asset) transfers via MERS/REMIC and off-balance sheet accounting into purported RMBS Products via Bank of America Securities, etc. as a non-transparent new soft asset class, which funds lien security investment credits without reference to the borrower.

  27. The Title to the Estates Hard Assets are deposited into the depositors account?

    The Note is deposited as an Asset to fund the Estate? setoff?

    Then the Estate is converted to Soft Asset (securities)?

    Illegal loans 2002-2007 7ys = 7yr Genpact Deal ?

    Questions, Questions, so Many Questions?

  28. Speaking of MS. Where has he been ? Hope is ok.

  29. As far as understanding what is posted….no one frustrated me more than MasterServicer….So after 2 years of getting pissed off at his posts, I decided to call him out on it…..he took me up on my challenge and called me, we spoke 4-5 Times and wouldn’t you know, I understood what he was saying over the phone (well 95% of what he said)…….I….So what I am saying unless everyone here meets up in a conference room and speaks face to face , to understand each individual situation, the pieces of the puzzle will never be put together.

  30. johngault MERS is a employeeless, paperless unregulated outfit that has no realist way of physically verifying the documents that it is acting upon. Let take a foreclosure mill in St. Louis creating a assignment of Deed of Trust however the document is located in Milwaukee.

    Now the MERS Assistance Secretary located at the foreclosure mill in St. Louis does not have access to the original file, but is acts to file at the court that lender Z is now owner of the debt of a loan that in the Ginnie Mae MBS where the blank Note been relinquished to Ginnie Mae without a sum of money and have not and cannot relinquish the blank Note to bank Z because bank A who last endorsed the Note in blank is dead and cannot act for itself, because it is a failed bank.

    MERS who is not a mortgage bank and has no financial interest in any home mortgage loan, cannot act for a failed bank as the failed bank cannot act. However what we know for a fact is that Ginnie requires the possession of these Notes because it is the underlying collateral for the MBS which Ginnie is the insurer of the MBS.

    Without the Notes in the possession of Ginnie they agencies does not have a claim to the properties in order to cover any bad loans or entire bad pool, so the Notes must be always in the possession Ginnie. However as Ginnie does not purchase the loans they cannot meet the burden of proof that they are “holder in due course”!

    MERS cannot function as some electronic registry that allowed to submit assignment, when it got no access to the Notes and destination some bank company employee as a MERS non-paid employee to assign the security instrument. There is this conflict of interest when the dual quasi employee is stating that there bank is the holder of the Promissory Note not HIDC and submit this crap tricking the local land recorded that holder is hidc.

    One more thing is in the State of Washington, the article yesterday in Stop Foreclosure Fraud showed the abuse of the 5810 form to state to the court ownership of the debt. There is no way this thing does not blow up!

  31. John Gault- very succinct explanation of MERS. Your shortest one yet. Hard to describe all this fraud and criminality in just a few words, isn’t it? It was designed that way I’m sure. Anyway thanks for that. And Charles reed knows what he knows, just has a hard time putting it into words.

  32. charles – fair enough. ps – you can ask me to explain anything anytime and I’ll try. I AM interested in what you want to tell us ftr. Very, actually.

  33. One last stab. Okay, at least for now: Let’s say mers is a sub’d party in the collateral instrument. Does anyone think they would write a dot which says “MERS is a sep corp and is substituted as the beneficiary in this collateral instrument for the convenience of your lender and its successor and or assigns. As the sub’d beneficiary, MERS is going to hold only legal title to the rights created in this instrument (don’t bother asking just what that means), but has no beneficial interest.

    As the sub’d ben, MERS has been authorized by your lender to perform all acts of foreclosure upon default of the note this coll instrument secures. Neither MERS nor your lender has to sign this; MERS and your lender have an agreement and that’s all you need to know. This is the only notification you will get. In the event of your default on that note and subsequent enforcement of the debt obligation, a court may or may not determine MERS’ status as sub’d beneficiary bifurcates your note from this instrument, and if a court does, your lender is your beneficiary and MERS its agent,as well as agent for its successors and assigns. All that’s needed to create either the substitution or agency for your lender and others is your signature below! MERS and your lender (at least the party who’s named as the other party on your note or its sponsor) have such an agreement and that’s also all you need to know about that. By signing below, you acknowledge that you have been informed of these provisions, even if they’re fictional or unlawful or should and would or otherwise lead to a loss of rights by your lender.”

    PS -” MERS has no employees, so it intends to appoint 20,000+
    officers throughout the land to execute any and all documents in its name with no or next to no governance by MERS. Members (or sometimes even non-members) of MERSCorp, the parent of MERS, have agreed to pay any cost associated with taking your home if you don’t pay, regardless if a third party should happen to. Additionally, those people will have to pay MERS for the use of its name for any reason whatsoever. Yes, there’s another agreement which spells this out, but again, it’s not your concern as the borrower. No one is sure if any board of any relevant corporation has made a resolution allowing such appointments by “MERS”, but that’s not your concern, either, nor is the legality of this plan unless, as you’ve been informed, a court objects and we’re then an agent. An agent – get it? If a United States agency takes issue with our m.o. and everyone has to stop foreclosing in MERS’ name pursuant to any Consent Order, that makes MERS an agent.”

    PSS – “MERS unfortunately can’t stand by the veracity of entries into the database it maintains (or is maintained by its parent corporation, MERSCorp, Inc) because those entries are made on a totally
    voluntary basis by the MERSCorp’ members or maybe by non-members (about which you need to know nada). Nonetheless, MERS will allow its ‘officers’ (who are not MERS’ employees) to perform tasks in MERS’ name if they will pay MERS to allow them to do so. After all, this deal took some effort and though MERS itself has no employees, its parent does, and someone has to pay for this deal; it’s not a non-profit. Neither MERSCorp nor MERS intend to be licensed in any regard regarding mortage loan activity. Since no one can stop you, the borrower, you may try to determine whom, if anyone, regulates MERSCorp or MERS, the sub’d party in a home loan transaction or an agent regarding real property interests.
    Further, if in the future you hear of MERSCorp’s or MERS’ seven-year contract with a company called “Genpact”, that most decidedly does not concern you.”

    Nah, they wouldn’t have said such things.

  34. johngault don’t take this wrong but you may write better than I do, but I don’t read everything you write either, because you like me don’t particularly write in sound bites. I realize that everybody here seems to be in our own worlds, and have a certain amount of knowledge in what we are trying to get out, but it would take a book to do it in a manner we could actual understand one another.

    I realized I don’t write that well, but I do know I get a lot of people asking me for advise. Your problem is not my and my problem is not your, so your no trying as I am not trying with what your trying to say either.

    So I could ask the same of everyone, for them to breaking down what your talking about.

  35. charles, please don’t take this wrong. I’ve always said I don’t know what you’re saying and to be honest, sometimes I don’t read what you’ve written here. It started a while back because it gave me a headache trying to figure out what you’re saying. When you say something ‘else’ now, I can’t follow for not deciphering some time ago. But, I think other people here get it. fwiw, I’ve always thought you, like carie, had something to say we want to hear. I just couldn’t figure it out and trying, besides the headache, takes time.
    everyone else: if you know what charles’ ‘deal’ is, I would really appreciate it if you would explain it to me.

  36. I like to think it’s only sometimes that I’m just too thick. Of course the banksters had to explain mers presence in the dot. yes, they could have done it in a separate doc and had the borrower sign it concurrently with other closing docs, but that would be cumbersome to get into public record (which is where they wanted it). Whatever is in the dot is a notification (if anything); it’s not itself an appointment and it sure as hey isn’t the creation, the instrument of, an agency appointment. imo.

  37. Buffett was a large shareholder in Moody’s! Just as the LIBOR was rigged, there not that not rigged by the monies these people have!

    Obama just submitted another form of Buffett tax bill in his new budget that got no chance in heel of being passed!

  38. … AAA rated securities.

  39. Of course we never thought as investing our retirement funds in AAA rated bonds was a gamble. It was a sure thing … Right?

    Does anyone want to jump in and take a Wild Guess at how these securities got a rating of AAA?

  40. johngault what I think needs to be done is what I did, and that was to use the Federal agencies to get at the answer you need. The reason I believe Ginnie Mae is the key in cracking this thing open is because it involves taxpayers dollars because I don’t feel the general public want to concern themselves with other people problems, but if the money is on the table in the form of recovery, all the want is they money back.

    We must ask question we already know the answer too…..So I knew by law that Ginnie Mae did not and could not purchase a home mortgage loan at all. I knew the loan was placed into the Ginnie Mae MBS on Aug 6, 2003 by WaMu and I knew the Wells Fargo started servicing the loan from the Jul 31, 2006 on Dec 1, 2006.

    So the Ginnie Mae rules are that a lender/issuer must relinquish the endorsed in blank Note if they want to participate in the sale of Ginnie MBS, and that loan must be free of any lender debt (not homeowner loan) in order to place the loan.

    Now unlike most other cases where the lender/servicer is also appointed the custodian of records, so physically the Notes never actually physically leave the hands of the originators. Now under UCC9 the originator in possession of the Note does not have to provide proof of ownership, which makes sense if you think about it, or the property would not have been purchase or refinance amounts paid off.

    However in the case with WaMu and Wells Fargo, not only did the loan get placed into the MBS but the servicing changed and with it the physical exchange of the blank Notes as Wells purchase the building the mortgage servicing is conducted in Milwaukee.

    So we know out of that building that 1.3 million WaMu government insured placed loans, have had the Notes physically transferred.

    As I asked Wells Fargo through the OCC to send a current copy of the Note it was as it should have been and the was blank, and the follow up question was how did Wells own the loan that they said they did with the assignment of Deed of Trust. Wells Fargo wrote a letter to me and cc the OCC that they were not the “lien holder” and that they were under the impression that Ginnie Mae was, and so next I sent that letter to Ginnie Mae after receiving my file from the OCC and Ginnie through the Freedom of Information Act.

    Ginnie Mae wrote that they were not the “lien holder” and Wells Fargo must have been mistaken because Ginnie does not buy or sell home mortgage loan at all.

    This is a done deal because we know exactly the path that every government loan travels and why Ginnie Mae cannot transfer the underlying collateral for the securities to another, for the same reason the blank endorsements are performed in the first place and that is a bankruptcy remote processure.

    I asked the question I knew the answer too, because that what Perry Mason did when I was a kid coming and watching him!

  41. Apparently the thief who stole our names and credit … And Title to our Life Estate (past ,present, future assets) at closing ….

    Gambled with them in the SHADOW banking market.

    What? Gambling has RISKS, I don’t Gamble, and had those RISKS been disclosed to me …. NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!


  42. ****** In the case, the homeowner claimed the financial institution trying to take his home didn’t have the right to because the loan was improperly transferred to a securities trust.”

    **** the financial institution 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.

    **** the financial institution made the transfer with intent to defraud

  43. Most if not all of us have alleged lack of standing, but does it really say “this claimant has not demonstrated jurisdiction-invoking injury”, the key to the court’s attention, because we think it’s good for nothing, having seen bankster after bankser make off with our property on the basis of alleged poss of a bearer note and a “MERS” assgt. The good news for some of us is that there’s something we can do about it. We can say it. We can support the lack of demonstrated injury with law and case law. The courts hear issues of controversy, controversy which arises singularly out of one party’s injury. Without it, there’s just no jurisdiction, even though courts routinely fall for the Article III right to enforce provisions. I don’t know if courts make an assumption that the claimant is a hidc. If they do, these days they shouldn’t. These yahoos can’t meet the elements of hidc because they can’t demonstrate they took the note for value. If they didn’t take for value, they can’t demonstrate injury. But, if courts make that presumption, that the claimant is a hdc, even tho it’s bananas, it may be on the opponent to demonstrate why it isn’t a reasonable presumption these days. That or ask for the reasonable more definitive stmt: is the claimant claiming as a holder or a hidc? (of course, the bankster will argue it isn’t relative. Yes it is; they need to assert that they’ve suffered injury which is not necessarily so for a ‘mere’ holder – and one is only a hidc to the extent of actual payment).

    I’ve said that a note alone, even for a hidc, is not a claim at all, at least in states which mandate security first or if the loan agreement mandates SF. (this is stuff we have let courts ignore as if the UCC, specificlly Art III of the UCC, is the bomb). That means the “MERS” assignment needs attack.
    We know that courts have found that an assgt by a corporate officer (abbreviated) binds the corporation. Okay, but this has been grossly misconstrued to mean the corp had anything to assign.

    1) Where is MERS authority to assign to be found? 2) IF MERS is an agent, why aren’t assgts executed as such? * (other commentors know I believe it’s because mers is not an agent – it’s a substituted party which is NOT assging as an agent) 3) IS a servicer-employee or like that an officer of MERS even if we weren’t on the third iteration of MERS (for which there is no known corp resolution authorizing such “appt”, at least to me, and Hultman actually had authority to appt those people MERS ‘officers’?) It’s a load, say I, and so did one of the only known courts to actually consider the issue, Koontz (Ind). Yet something keeps us from making these arguments. Many of us haven’t made arguments we could’ve made imo and so we have the additional burden of tryiing to introduce them when, at a glance at procedural rules, we should have already made them. Luckily, there’s usually an exception to everything with good reason. The reason there’s an exception is a good reason, and the reason to seek the exception has to be a good one. If courts want to do justice to the equity they claim they’re courts of, it’s hardly equitable to let someone make off with someone’s HOME because someone biffed. these aren’t drill bits we’re talking about here. The bankster isn’t prejudiced by late arguments imo because it had nothing to lose in the first place.

    *courts have construed the language in the dot as an appt of mers as an agent. Not. No way. It’s really informing the borrower that another party is thee ben, if anything. Why did they chose to inform the borrower that another party is the ben? Probably they figured they had to, and if so, the fact that they did is probably or at least maybe not negligible.

    **So I don’t have to type it again, this contains my idea of how an agent executes a doc for its principal – can’t miss it if you don’t care to read the whole thing:

    Had to take the link at sourceoftitle out – LL won’t allow the link.
    It’s under Who may assign even if mers has authority -something like that in June of last year.

    Now, say I’m right. If you don’t agree, look it up!! If I’m wrong, kindly let me know. But here and now, let’s say that’s how an agent signs for its principal. So why isn’t “MERS” executing that way? Some will say it’s so that the principal remains a mystery. I say it’s because MERS is not an agent, and if it were an agent, it has to identify the principal it intends to bind. Further, MERS status as a ‘nominee’ is ONLY binding on anyone else in the entire world if MERS is a substituted party since no one may make someone someone else’s agent.*** If MERS is an agent of the original lender and or if MERS is the agent of the successor or assignee, that agency must be found in another document and even that doesn’t 86 the true way an agent executes for its principal.

    *** they haven’t argued this yet, but they could argue that MERS as agent is a covenant in the dot, but I don’t believe it would hold water
    because there’s no agency created in and by a dot to make a covenant about. They could possibly – key word – make both an agency and a covenant with MERSCorp’ members by separate agreement, but if that were done, they’ve kept it a secret from homeowners and courts alike.
    Hope I haven’t made too many errors – computer ate it and I had to write it again. yawn. And shuckey darn for me because this is only the second half of what I would like to say.
    everything I ever write is a lay opinion – ask a lawyer

  44. I’ll give you time to chew on it while I go put fresh sheets on the bed.

  45. I just had a thought … lol!

    They could both exist if within that same instrument that created the Estate was also the creation of a Mortgage in the form of an Installment sale contract .. between the Estate and the debtor .. ?


  46. RE: But, if I follow some of what you said, you said they figured the h.o. would never be in a position to want or demand title quieted in his favor, that is, get a reconveyance because he’d paid off the note. And btw, if that’s what you mean, that is just purely evil, wicked on their part;

    The encumerance filed on title in big black bold letters say MORTGAGE, but there is no lien.

    Because THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT THAT CREATED THE HOUSEHOLD ESTATE transferred/conveyed/warranted free and clear of all liens and encum IRREVOCABLY into a Living Trust.

    Both can not exist at the same time … unless sumbutty was double dippin from both ends.

  47. Anybody looked up lately? http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org

  48. KC, I really don’t know what you mean by that estate and title stuff. Wish I did. But, if I follow some of what you said, you said they figured the h.o. would never be in a position to want or demand title quieted in his favor, that is, get a reconveyance because he’d paid off the note. And btw, if that’s what you mean, that is just purely evil, wicked on their part; it means the loan had to fail. if it didn’t, at least on someone’s books, it would have to be put in the infamous false default. One problem which crops up for me in such a theory, the entirety of which I don’t see, is that at least in a dot, the borrower’s conveyance is held in trust by the dot trustee, not by the lender. What I don’t see is what you think the bankster did with that title. I don’t see it – and – 1) it was conveyed to the dot trustee, not the lender 2) all that was conveyed was one of the two forms of co-existing title, equitable or legal (in a dot). Now after seeing a post- 2000 mortgage” (v a dot) and seeing the words of conveyance, which as I have said horrified me because I always thought a mortgage was not a conveyance of any kind and merely created a lien, it may have been easier to do whatever it is you mean with a title which was conveyed in a mortgage. I think you’re saying they managed to benefit wrongfully from that total conveyance in a mortgage, but I don’t know how. They’ve got us in one regard, that’s for sure. I can decipher ‘this’ and others among us can decipher ‘that’ but there isn’t anyone vocal among who can decipher all or articulate it. And by the time we uncover ‘X’, an element of the scheme, they’ve made their next strategic move and or defense to “X”. For us, it’s like playing chess without knowing how a bishop of a knight can move, for example. But they know, and they know how those pieces have already moved and if they moved improperly, they have an argument at the ready. After Glaski, I predict their next ploy will be to allege the assgts were done but unrecorded. It will be cheaper to pay recorders than not in states which mandate recordation of assgts. Who know, tho, really. They may just as likely pick another claimant and have that rationale down pat. I mean, if all they need is a bearer note and a “MERS” assignment, there’s nothing to stop them.


  50. louise if a Note is endorse in blank and handed out to another that did not purchase it, there is not legal way to ever again sale that Note because there is a gap in debt ownership. The blank Note is forever non-negotiable and because it no longer contains a debt that is collectable it not even a Note any longer!

  51. Prankster Banksters – Numerous trustees, servicers and agents acting as IF THEY were the true investors.

    AS IF…

  52. Just for Laughs …. Thanks Koppa

    Bad Guy Terms

    Sam’s Integrity Movement (SamIM2.com) Names a “Pejorative* Cast”!

    ….Principals, “Middlemen “and Activities Hunkering Somewhere

    Between Real Borrower/Debtor and True Creditor/Depositor

    1. Dream Schemes – Wall Street and Congress (CFMA-2000) allow MBA and ALTA to convert loans into securities and back to Real Estate via Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) & Lender Processing Services (LPS).

    2. Sorrower Borrowers – Homeowner Emotions after foreclosure Notice Of Default on a mortgage loan approved at inflated values after signing almost any loan documents placed in front of them.

    3. Soaker Brokers – points of initial trust in finding a lender or investment placement to make both the borrower and the creditor happy to close a loan transaction at maximum income for loan originator or bond security seller.

    4. MERS Curse – an inexplicable tool of “automation” without fiduciary responsibility to the unidentified creditor or the borrower who unwittingly accepted their “MIN” identifier on the Deed of Trust and mortgage.

    5. Pretender Lenders – non-bank conduits, notaries, originators, packagers, processors, servicers, trustees and underwriters of Residential Mortgage Backed Securities backed up by “risk avoidance” under CFMA-2000.

    6. Crank Banks – often complex legal entities comprising a myriad system of intermediaries between investors and borrowers; including institutional investors, pension funds hedge funds, SIVs, conduits, money funds, monolines, investment banks and other SPE non-bank financial institutions often selling securities without a license.

    7. Risk Friskers – Credit Rating Agencies controlling the Wall Street Bond Valuation processes to favor bond investors and financial services conduits at the expense of all borrowers and their neighboring homeowners.

    8. Wheeler Dealers – accountants, advisors, attorneys, auditors, collateral managers, counter-parties, fiscal agents, hedge funds, insurers, issuers, investors, rating agencies, swapsters, trustees and underwriters.

    9. Prankster Banksters – Numerous trustees, servicers and agents acting as IF THEY were the true investors.

    10. Jester Investors – agents, attorneys, brokers, depositors, enhancers, financial advisors, issuers, obligors, originators, servicers & trustees, who transact mortgages or toxic bond securities without risk.

    11. Nervous Servicers – Non-Fiduciary intermediaries who convert tangible, non-fungible real estate collateral into intangible, fungible bond certificates using mortgage loans as trading collateral (with no title to the Real Estate Asset).

    12. Fabler Enablers – Third Party associations, educators, lobbyists, politicians, risk managers, standards writers.

    13. Confusion Fusions – Intervention of FDIC, FED, FHLMC, FNMA, HAMP, OTS, TALF, TARP, TREAS, etc.

    14. Lusty Trustees – representatives “in trust” gaining income by “un-neutrally” representing collections and shirking fiduciary responsibility to track formal, legal & practical paperwork at any stage of transfer, succession or ownership.

    15. Sham Auctions – Courthouse sales that allow untitled transfer of unconscionably discounted mortgage notes“back to beneficiary”, who is a party of interest (not bonfide buyer) NOT publicly identified until AFTER the Foreclosure. Events that did NOT publicly disclose minimum bids at least 2 days before Trustee’s Sale

    16. Messiah Pariahs – Fraudsters promising to save foreclosee homes in exchange for cash or Deed Assignments.

    17. Auction Hawkers – Investors with cash and knowledge of local properties to be “stolen” when auctioneersreduce the minimum bid by 45-55% below the published NOTS “obligation” amount without advance notice.

    18. Squishy Beneficiaries – Bankruptcy remote asset managers, house accounts, intermediaries, investment trusts, and off-balance sheet activities hidden during the loan payment cycle and the foreclosure process.

    19. Gurney Attorneys – Foreclosure Mill law firms as substitute trustees & “debt collectors” conducting “auctions”.

    20. Purist Jurists – federal, state and local enforcement agencies who believe that any paper created by thirdparties “claiming” pure title to property have greater standing than representations of the sorrower borrower.

    21. Rescission Fissions – Undercurrent from foreclosees who learn that real estate mortgages, securitizations and investor FRAUD may now allow rescission, recovery and restitution of unjust losses due to unlawful foreclosures.

    22. Cute QT’s – Promises to recover from “unlawful foreclosures” by a legal judicial action called “Quiet Title”.

    23. Rent or Tent – Final options for millions of homeowners ultimately unable to survive this “Pejorative* Cast”!


  53. It would be nice to find and prove just one of the notes that was sold more than once. If the mortgage and note are moved to the trust, that is it. They cannot go any further, but we know better. I have seen something on the Internet about notes that can NEVER be resold, but somehow I do not believe it.

  54. >>>>> UPDATE:
    Citizens have lost their right to due process as 96% of all foreclosures go uncontested because of forged documents. IT MUST STOP! “The integrity of land title records and the rights of the public now hang in the balance. It’s time to occupy the Recorders office. We need to identify and develop our own candidates to challenge bank-owned incumbents.”



  56. When the broker dealers were sued here for setting up bad loans …. their attorneys response letter in effect said…

    The Fed kept requesting more and more …. and apparently some mistakes were made, but it was the FED …..

    Shocking … Right?

    Where was the watch dog for the investors? for the taxpayers?

    Where is the Help for Homeowners?
    A Great Place to start is to pick up the phone and call Koppa and get yourself a title abstract and request plem title ins policy to be issued upon future sale (if any).

    The Dirty Little Secrets are hidden just beyond site of the Dirty Deeds.

    No More Dirty Deeds! Restore our Land Records!

  57. OK JG, I figured out how they swindled the titles from the homeowners on the mortgages, the only thing I can think of for the DOT is if its revocable your ok and if its irrevocable then you have a problem to.

    I suspect they anticipated you would never pay them off and they would profit in the trillions and keep it all covered up?

  58. Fraudulent Inducement? Sure it was .. just for starters.

    Fraud on the Face of the Contract … now that is successor liability BOA can not avoid!

  59. Looking at the last press release from the JPMorgan $614 million settlement brought by a whistle-blower and the $13 billion JPM paid as a result of lawsuits against the bank, partially by Fannie Mae as to badly loan sold to this Mortgage Giant that was discovered a decade later?

    What are these attorneys waiting on? Let wait until the last shot to be fire before you get into the fight. Let the billions get awarded while these guys here maybe find a couple with no money that are winning in court for the right to get a modification? How much money is made in that deal? So maybe they get thrown out there home and a couple dollar in there pocket to move on. In this what winning is about?

    If a bank is settling a case admitting bad underwriting and falsifying document, how is there not a class action suit just base on the cases admitted too. If the loan were not qualified to be in the FHA or VA pools it was never approved for the consumer!

    This is not about the customer saying yes to the loans as the loan is suppose to be a authorized loan and not a portion of the loan product. The borrower is paying insurance FHA MIP payment and in VA upfront fees for insurance, and if the insurances were not in play how likely would there be a foreclosure and the lender only be able in some areas to get 50% back at the foreclosure sale instead of the insurance pay outs?

    What make the loans if the term are not meet? The loan is properly underwritten to receive insurance because the program determines the risk of failure and failure has come. If it was know that insurance could not be obtain make the loans un-purchasable by Ginnie Mae. This is a car without wheel making it not a car!

  60. The instrument that creates the trust is an encumb (not a lien),
    but it is irrevocable.

    And that is why the Mortgage is unenforceable.

  61. Charles. Sheriff sale 100% paid mortgage , fees, etc….PLUS had a surplus overage !!!……so where/who is mortgage of satisfaction ??

  62. JG,
    RE: – “free of encumberances
    Okay, and just what those encumberances were which were avoided.”

    KC … the liens held off title?

  63. Charles, I have been at this for almost 6 years…the house is moot at this point. It is the principle and the damage.

    I have no “illusions”…in my world thieves are punished, in theirs not so much! The “joke” was over a long time ago.

    The goal posts are in sight and as I have stated so many times before, win, lose or draw…they will not take my soul, my honor or my pride…they cannot afford it. These thugs have no courage…no character…no remorse. People give them far too much credit. They are not smarter or better, the game IS rigged. They are liken to the cowardly lion in OZ. When you pull back the curtain, you find the remnants of what was once a person; broken, alone, stripped of dignity, decency….the list is long. They hide and mask themselves, and have not the decency to do their own dirty work and face you. Then the puppets that do Their bidding, have a lifetime of atonement. I know the philosophy may not mean much, but the karmic scales are a reality and I have seen it first hand. Money only takes you so far…

  64. All joking aside, I like the weather forecast….partly cloudy with light rain and falling bankers.

  65. Javagold I would not imagine that at a Sheriff sale that most if any foreclosure are paid in full, leaving a balance owed.

  66. JG, Check, Thank You!
    Speaking of finding a way around the seasoning requirements..

    Private Placement Securities have no seasoning requirements,
    no servicing either.

    I suspect seasoning is also bypassed with installment sale contracts.
    I also suspect its the ISC being serviced at the Creditors Request.

    Any Thoughts ?

  67. If a house is fraudclosed, BUT the mortgage is paid in full @Sheriff sale….shouldn’t there still be a satisfaction of mortgage delivered to the fraudclosed homeowner ???

  68. johngault I just don’t know about Buffett a guy who is 85 and still that hungry for money and the dude has got $60 billion. Being originally from Omaha, Buffett was the man and everybody idolizes him, but over this period of financial crisis to me his has shown his true colors.

    I think that the dudes is involved in so many banks with Wells Fargo being his largest investments in the bank stock, if I had to put money on it these loan would be somehow connected with them.

    I believe these guy got together and used Obama because he was this outsider who did not have these connection, and at the beginning of his first term, not only did Buffett have stake in the banks but he loan soon to be a bank in Goldman Sachs $5 billion with a $5 billion option on their shares at some low fixed price back in Nov 2008, plus he knew Goldman was going to get that money from AIG plus be able to borrow at the discount window.

    Buffett at the time was also the largest share holder in UntiedHealth when the healthcare bill was being negotiated, and was right there by the side of Sen Ben Nelson at the meeting in Omaha. NE got a sweetheart deal and Obamacare was born.

    The dude is Mr. Potter with a better PR firm behind him. He rolled over on Hank Greenberg and three of his officers over the rigging on financial statement that AIG and his Insurance firm was doing, but of course Buffett and Greenberg did not get any time!

    Buffett also brought and sold BOA shares in like 2011, plus he got US Bank shares and all are involve in some type of tom foolery!

  69. KC re: the Miranda warning. That’s a stitch for sure, but it misses the mark because while it’s mailed to potential defendants in a potential lawsuit, it’s not in public record and doesn’t attach to the home. Were it in a proper format (cover sheet entitled “NOTICE”, parcel no. in left hand corner, PA, legal description, and respecting recorder’s margin requirments) in my strictly lay opinion, it might do some good. Happy you’re on it. I was just thinking, no kidding, that you’re slacking! Haven’t seen any hot case out of you for a week or so…… I know someone commented here about you linking other blogs’ material, but speaking strictly for me, I appreciate it because I don’t have time to get to them all. To be honest, what irks me is when something is linked with no “linker’s” comments about what we’re going to find. But still, if what’s linked is a gem, the link is better than a sharp stick in the eye.

  70. louise – seasoning: that would mean they couldn’t shuffle unseasoned loans off to Buffalo in a NY minute. pun intended. They would have to build a portfolio of loans and cool their jets while the loans became seasoned by Borrower payments and no else’s. .
    The 90 days is only in ref to the start date and the closing date of the trust, not from the date the loan was originated. They could put loans into a trust which were five years old (which would’ve been a hell of a lot better) as long they did so by the closing date, the 90 days from the formation of the trust. If this doesn’t answer the question, let me know and I’ll try again.

  71. charles, looks to me like Ross and Buffet worship at the same church. I was ghastly disappointed when Buffet picked up those loans from ResCap’s (Ally? RFC’s) BK. Guess it was too good a deal to ignore. Color me ignorant and naive as heck, but I actually thought he, Buffet, might be doing something philanthropic.
    And I still want to know why, if all these loans were securitized, they were available to pick up in some company’s bankruptcy – and – “free of encumberances”. Okay, and just what those encumberances were which were avoided.

  72. Diozack if you were you neighbor what could you do? They don’t really know what people are going through because they did not know your financial situation, as we who have got problems here are only 10% or so of the housing market.

    Talks to President Obama because he laid the ground work to allow this to continue without real investigations until now that are forced by people with money who been screwed.

    People are afraid for their own financial security to be worried about our problems, so they not wasted the time to understand all of this mess. Sorry to say that if we were not in this stop at 1:30am we would not be writing to some form.

    There are these crooks and we got to expose them as best we can, and you not alone so keep fight and don’t give up, as you closer today than you were yesterday as long as you keep moving forward!

  73. Who Cares, I am bored with this Whole Thing, Bank Of America can fall off the face of the earth. I hate this corrupt organization, there robbing me of my sanity, my health, my cash, my home, and whatever else. Why dont they take my toothbrush too.
    Sick of the whole thing, I would bet most of these people just standing by, watching there neighbors lose everything, will end up in fire lake with the rest of them.

  74. @neidermeyer I remember W Ross buying like a $1 billion in loans for $400 million or something like that in 2009 or 2010, but the guy made like he was going to refinance all the loan that I figure the guy could have easily, however it would make for a thief to foreclose at the 20 t0 25% loss at the time and take $350 to 400 million in profit. This dude was cleaver and I see how he made those billions.

  75. For those that haven’t been following WL Ross’s exploits here’s why I said that in the prior post.. (dates approximate , working from memory)

    2008 WL Ross buys into O-Ones failed servicing business ,, BAC finances the $1.2B deal , BAC gets almost $700 back immediately as they are owed that from O-One (what does Ross get??)
    2009 (or was it 2010) WL Ross sues LPS over poor quality forgeries that were causing him delays and failures in court.
    2012 O-One (now Sand Canyon) sues AHMSI (Ross) over Ross making origination data on notes available to investors in the notes ,, helping investors build cases against O-One
    2012 SEC sues O-One over misrepresentations in several of their last MBS products , Ross excluded FOR NOW.
    2012 WL Ross bails on servicing biz , sells out to OCWEN
    2013 AIG sues BAC and makes BAC underwritten O-One notes their centerpiece (suit dropped) but brings up question , how BAC claimed ownership of notes to get insurance payout ,, and were they bought by Ross?? Seems like the case… where are the assignments?

    WL Ross’s deal with O-One only ever made business sense if he screwed the investors. He has pissed off everyone he has dealt with and they have the documents needed to fry him. I see a multi-billion$$ class action either from the investors or by the borrowers that had a lying skunk for a plaintiff party that with the tacit allowance of the actual named plaintiff (in most cases , deep pocket bankster WF) did prosecute with no injury or standing on Ross’s part.

  76. Neil ,

    I think we will see sooner rather than later that WL Ross & Co. , LLC didn’t just buy O-Ones servicing business but that 95% of his purchase price went to buying the rights to already failed notes in O-Ones foreclosure pipeline which he through his AHMSI subsidiary did in fact foreclose upon and retained 100% of the proceeds with nothing going to the investors. This fits perfectly with his prior business experience in buying written off credit card account collection rights and filing fraudulent claims with the courts ,, made him a billionaire.

  77. Hey Poppy reading your post for the last few days, seem as if your going through what we all been through in the past few years, and your seem just a little different than most. However stay in there keep education yourself as much as you can on your case, and I think at the end of the day they will have to at the very least negotiate some term that will benefit you.

    What seem to be a crazy statement I going to make is that it almost better if they do foreclose because there going to be a clear damage too you it they don’t have the “Standing” to do so.

    Here is what I am reading from articles where people are in some type of modification and a year from now BOA is telling the people the modification not correct and send the people through the mill again. My question is when does this crap end? Does it end when Obama out of office and the GOP think your a bum anyway and people are so removed from Aug 2008 that they just wish everyone has moved on?

    What I guess I am saying is something your worst fear is actual better for you because all you can do is think about keeping your home but under their advantage that your fear. Your fear is everything you though and more….As I know…..but our ability to realize it just a battle in the war. Don’t lose sight of the war. God does not give you more than you can handle, and this too shall pass! Keep your head up!

  78. Poppy it going to depend of who were actual saying is the owner of the BOA loan, and if your talking about these that are being foreclosed. But I am not sure that past let say 5yrs that they would keep a copy of a satisfied, because if its satisfied I would think that it would be returned to the property owner who satisfied it.

    If it is a Fannie, Freddie or Ginnie that Note if it was blank when the loan was placed into their pools, imo must always remind with those three because there is no way legally for them to transfer the document as they cannot endorse the Note themselves.

  79. Charles

    Might you have an idea where satisfactions of mortgages would be filed for BOA, N.A.?

  80. E, Tolle what I mean is that the general public does not realize that this large companies in Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie, FHA & VA do not produce any home mortgage loans.

    The are only a few of people here that realize this and two of them are you, me and maybe one or two more. But I feel the wind of change in something that cannot be stopped because on are side are the “investors” who are wanting their monies back!

    I wrote the OCC today again for fun just to let them know I am still here, and that they were either stupid or complicit with what going on and that they been given evidence of the crimes committed for what exactly JPMorgan has confused to and just paid $614 million and 9 under probes for the same crap is being conducted by the Federal Government right now.

    E keep the faith my brother the day coming soon as it did not come as early as we wanted but it coming all the same!

  81. Charles Reed said, “I believe that people are going to wake up to the fact that you must be a license home mortgage lender in order to originate and or purchase a loan yet as you got to be license to do anything else in this country.”

    People are going to wake up? What people? People who can or should do something about it?

    I brought this issue directly to my state’s commerce department five years ago, their senior analyst agreed with me, and took great interest in the fact that the lender I pointed out to them wasn’t licensed, rendering hundreds of thousands of mortgages written in just my one state alone void. She was astonished that this had gone on unnoticed.

    I wanted to take the next step, and she told that I needed to have their chief of legal onboard. He stared, unflinching, after the facts were presented, and left the room. He never returned any phone calls, letters, or emails thereafter.

    This is the point….they’re all in on it. They’re all hiding the criminality going on around us daily. They, from county recorders to state AG’s and commerce, to treasury, IRS, OCC and other agencies are simply hoping that we all get foreclosed upon without raising a ruckus, as they don’t want the ramifications that would result. We’re cannon fodder in a war of them against us. We’re very expendable. We go quietly to the curb clutching our suitcases.

    Nearly twenty million home foreclosures are estimated to have occurred in 2007-2012. See Home Foreclosure Statistics, STAT. BRAIN (Oct. 15, 2012), http://www.statisticbrain.com/home-foreclosure-statistics/

    20,000,000 homes….how many more before there’s an insurrection? Or before D.C. thinks there’s a problem? Or before those idiots on the hill think they’ve been lobbied enough? 20,000,000 more?

  82. I believe that people are going to wake up to the fact that you must be a license home mortgage lender in order to originate and or purchase a loan yet as you got to be license to do anything else in this country.

    Fannie, Freddie & Ginnie Mae are not listed as the lenders to any of these loans and that because none of them are lenders. They don’t service these loans because they are not license to do that either.

    Just because they are these big mortgage company (not lender) it assumed that they produce loan but they don’t! Just as Fannie in this short period on time paid off the bailout they received plus something like $103 billion over but the Treasury is not allowing them to pay their shareholder any of that, to me is a telling sign that someone is on to what happen and they going to need those funds to put this crap somewhat back together!

  83. Venus, I do believe that BOA is in exactly the position you think and the are not the owner of the Countrywide loans and is why they are transferring all them to servicers not associated with the TARP.

    Now I got no clue about the insurance check at this point in time because its unclear about the status of ownership, as I could see the bank going after the insurance company for that amount. However I would think if the full amount is just to turn over to the contractor, I could see that taking place because the purpose of the insurance is to return the home into at least the state it was before it was damaged.

  84. JG, pardon me if I do not understand your post, but if the loans had to be transferred to a trust within 90 days, how could they be seasoned for 6 to 12 months? or am I missing something?

  85. JG.. I prefer not to … not here at least. You have my email and you can ask direct questions via email.
    But my intuition tells me you already know the answers.

    E-Tolle, ….. Never Mind!

  86. Bite me KC. You have no idea who I’ve hired or what I’ve done. I don’t post every facet like you do, as I believe, unlike you, that it’s not that smart. Pretty stupid actually. Your dirty laundry shows way too much skin. But you wouldn’t know about that, what with thinking that every single thought you have should be shared with the world. You get the award for being the biggest D for B. And btw, I’m very much still in the fight, and don’t plan on losing.

    JG, I wish I could decipher that post. Although I said I’ve read every single document I’ve found over the years on CW, I also said that they’re extremely difficult to read, which is why the multi-K white shoe heads get paid huge sums to give an opinion which always ends up as “it could go left”, or, “it could go right”. No one knows the truth behind the obfuscation, which is why we’re all being ripped off to our shorts by these high priced clowns. It’s a disgrace, but that’s what you get when you’re left with the best government money can buy.

  87. e.tolle (someone?) – could you please decipher the post today for me and some of the rest of us? I don’t mean to put you on the spot, so if you don’t do it, I’ll take it it’s because you didn’t want to, not because you couldn’t. All I could get is that B of A owns Recontrust and we don’t know where the f/c or resale funds are going. And something about using or converting something to fund the MBS payments (sounds like you know who). I still say, though I still can’t prove it, they did something unlawful from the get-go because loans had to be seasoned for six to twelve months to qualify for securitization. Did FNMA collude and come up with their guarantee as a self-help and unlawful solution to a seasoning requirement? Looks like it. Looks like they all found unlawful solutions to avoid seasoning.

  88. Specialized Loan servicing bought our home loan now. Did anyone hear of this company? Their website looks inferior than some outsourced company website. How could they buy mortgages when they can’t even have a good website?

  89. Yawn! …
    How many years here now E-Tolle?
    You spent more time complaining here than you did listening and doing your homework……

    And you still didn’t hire an Attorney?

    I know because I am the Judge for the Kindness Award,
    and that Award goes to JG!

    Wrap a Bubble Around That…

  90. We got a letter stating that B of A sold our loan to Specialized Loan Servicing Inc. Our loan was originally with Countrywide Home Loans. Why did B of A sold the loan? Is it because B of A realized that they did not have standing to foreclose. Please advise. Another thing is that there was a fire in our house in 2012 and B of A did not endorse the insurance proceeds check. Seeing that they are not mortgagee anymore, could we ask the insurance company to issue the check only in our names?

    Please advise. Thank you all in anticipation.

  91. KC said, “God didn’t grant me a shutoff switch between my brain and my mouth.”

    Yes, I’ve noticed. No switch between your between your brain and typing fingers either. Yep! Yep! Yep! Every single thought bubble gets plastered here. Yep! Yep!

    Charles said, “JPMorgan exposure show what the regulators have allowed these crooks to get away with.”

    Absolutely. Yves Smith did a write up yesterday on how it appears the SEC is possibly/probably about to retroactively “pardon” private equity firms for bilking investors out of billions of dollars. It’s a sort of “gift” to PE’s on Wall Street, seeing as how they’re all members of the same club, and what’s a few billion dollars of fraud between members? Of course all the SEC staff will be PE’s next year, and vice versa.

    Javagold said, “And this will help homeowners ????”

    My thought exactly. I’ve read every single document on the alleged merger/acquisition and the one thing that is perfectly clear in every single 100 page pdf is that obfuscation is the intention. It’s a feature, not a bug. And if they claim they’re this one day and not the next, where are the regulators who are supposed to uphold the law? When will the former homeowners get an ounce of relief, or flesh? Or a perfect blend of the two?

    B of A needs to be shredded down to stinking piles and composted. Let no trace remain. It’s an evil empire which knows only one thing, deceit. Mozilo and Moynihan need to answer for their crimes.

    Now, not later.

  92. Not only the “Recontrust” thing; but BofA created their own title companies also. In fact, BofA has so many subsidiaries that I don’t believe anyone could begine to connect the dots. It’s been 5-6 years and I’m still angry.

  93. The article in the New York Post on New Yorkers living in foreclosure limbo. These loans that are Freddie Mac’s loans that Wells Fargo been servicing but they not foreclosed collecting more fees. Let think this thing through that they allowing people to stay in these homes but not foreclosing to collect fees from who? As a pose to what?

    As these loans are in case done with no purchase but with simply relinquishing the blank Notes and NY knowing now the game, where loan were originated and titled in one company name and now that the games been exposed were DocX & MERS cannot produce these assignments as the beneficial to.

    Think about it why would you need a MERS to assign a Deed of Trust if it been assigned to the alleged owners. If Freddie, Fannie or Ginnie is the owner of the loan then why are they not on the Notes are being endorsed the Notes? And if they were on the Note why would Wells Fargo, BOA or JPMorgan etc, need another name be listed to assign the DOT?

    The servicer is working for the owner so why would the servicer present themselves as the owner when processing a DOT in court? It would be like the your attorney putting their name as the Plaintiff or Defendant in your case instead of you! There never a need of someone representing you to claim they are the owner instead of the owner of the debt!

  94. And this will help homeowners ???? How about wrongly foreclosed ???

    I’ve always told BOA , I do not trust you thugs , nor do I believe why you switched my BOA mortgage account # , while in good standing BUT right after I applied for a HAMP !!!!

  95. RE: What is your opinion?

    Answer, All of the Above.

    Time for a Catnap.

    Many Blessings to All

  96. 1: Add common ownership by BANA of LandSafe Title for “corrections” on all ReconTrust foreclosure land title transactions; means possible crimes of “Conversion”.

    Recon Trust, LandSafe Title, LandSafe property instpecter as
    Agents of Bank of America Corp?

    You don’t say ….
    Oh wait … you just said it.

    My Mistake. 🙂

  97. Judges and Politicians that hide behind the so called law and denied due process a basic civil right.
    Can you Spell. “Nuremberg Trials”



  98. I Like Koppa!

    Charles J. Koppa 760-787-9966, http://www.TitleTrail.com

  99. JPMorgan exposure show what the regulators have allowed these crooks to get away with. Sheila Bair must be held responsible along with all the other heads of these regulating agencies because of their own self interest, they let these fake ass deal take place.

    As we suspected that there were problems with the Countrywide and BOA deal, and it take over 5yrs to get revealed the details? When are people going to understand that as its been testified to by employees of CW that they did not turn over the Notes to these trust, and that also includes Ginnie Mae who requires the blank endorsed Notes but does not keep the Note, but assigns a custodian to house the Notes.

    CW problem is the same as what the WaMu loan have and that is as blank Notes are claimed as the underlying collateral for the securities, create the situation where if the non cash/check/wire purchasing party does not have physical possession of the Notes at all times it has nothing at all. The don’t have ownership of anything of value anyway, because the Note that was not purchase does not have a value because the debts been separated from it enforcing document, which separates it from the from the security instrument that secure the debt to the property claiming that the Note holder is owned the debt outlined in the Note because either the Note holder has either was the originator of the loan or the purchaser of the listed amount of debt referred to in the Note.

    The dominoes are being to fail, and what done in the dark will come to light. I am sure that the announcement of the coming $50 billion settlement was done to shake the trees, and out of that now deal are being expose hopefully to somewhat clear out this mess!


  101. God didn’t grant me a shutoff switch between my brain and my mouth.

    Entering into a contract that has a clause that has anything to do with my mouth is Impossible.
    That would knowingly be … making a promise I cant keep.

    Advance Notice … I Think Out loud.

    How is that for Honesty?

Contribute to the discussion!