The Step Transaction and Single Transaction Doctrine

Jim Macklin and Dan Edstrom did a great job of packing a great deal of information into 28 minutes of talk time on the Neil Garfield Show last night. I am taking a couple of weeks off the show to do some common follow-up procedures to my heart surgery two years ago. Jim Macklin stepped in and did a great job of getting information into the hands of lawyers and other listeners in what turned out to be a mini-seminar on how to apply Federal tax law to the issue of ownership of the the loan. It should be heard more than once to get all the nuances they presented.

Their point was that all the binding commitments were in place before the mortgage bonds were sold and before any loans were even considered for approval. The bottom line is that the customary practice in the finance industry was to sell forward — i.e., sell the bonds based upon loans that either did not exist or had not yet been acquired by the REMIC trusts. THEN they went out originating loans and acquiring loans.

As we have previously discussed here and elsewhere, the trusts and the trustee never even had a bank account through which the “pass through” assets and income would be funneled to investors. But that only adds fuel to the fire that Edstrom and Macklin were talking about. From a federal tax law perspective, which should pre-empt any state interpretation, the loans belonged to the investors from the start — not the trusts.

The trusts could only be used as a representative entity in litigation if they were funded with the investors’ money. Our research strongly supports the conclusion that no such funding took place. In fact, our research indicates the funding of the trust with the investors money was impossible because no trust accounts were ever created.

Thus you have the “straight line” that goes from the investors to the borrower. This goes directly to the issue of standing. Because once it is established that the consideration for the only real single transaction flowed from the investors to the borrower, no transaction between intermediaries were true.

They were false transactions supported by fabricated documents with no payment of consideration. Article 9 of the UCC completely supports this interpretation along with decisions interpreting federal tax law as to the real parties in interest. As a result the issue of standing is resolved — only the investors have standing to collect on the loans for which borrowers concede they received the money or the benefit.

The assignments shown in court are between intermediary parties who had no actual transaction with no actual payment or consideration because the payment or consideration had already passed through binding commitments set up by the so-called securitization scheme. By not funding the trusts, the broker dealers were free to use the money as they wished and they did.

They broke every rule in the underwriting book because they were traveling under a different set of rules than the investors or the borrowers thought. Because they had promised to make the payments due under the trust document — the pooling and servicing agreement — and because their binding commitments to make the payments for principal, interest, taxes and insurance already existed prior to the sale the mortgage bonds and prior to the loan to the borrower (see servicer advances, trust advances etc.).

As a result, the investors who should have been on the notes and mortgages were deprived of the documentation they were promised in the PSA. In plain language the mortgage documents and the bond documentation were pure fabrications without any underlying transaction between the parties to those transactions. No transaction between the investor and the trust. And no transaction between the “lender” on the note and mortgage and the borrower.

Hence the allegation of investors in their claims against the broker dealers that the note and mortgage is unenforceable to the detriment of the investors, who are left with common law claims for recovery of damages without any security instrument to protect them. hence the claim that borrowers are being sued by intermediaries who were strangers to the ACTUAL transaction with REAL consideration and terms to which both lender and borrower were bound. The terms agreed by the lenders were vastly different than the terms disclosed to borrowers. There was no meeting of the minds.

101 Responses

  1. One thing is certain, john…if a corporation has been deemed a person, a deceased corporation cannot do any legal activity, like a dead person, cannot! Deceased people or entities cannot assign rights “after” death, which is what many of them are attempting to do. In my non-legal opinion

  2. poppy, you said:
    “MERS lists the investor on my loan as ZZZZ, which was shut down by the CA SOS in 2009 for having negative equity of 29 million bucks”
    How can you be an investor with negative equity? What’s in the trusts IOU’s?”

    The two aren’t really related. The note’s still a note. Looks like CA has a law about the financial status of a corporation, something that strikes me as odd, but not my thing. “Shut down”. That’s an ominous phrase. More likely the corporate standing was revoked, imo making a corporate assgt an impossiblity (just as the “corporation” could no longer make a loan as a corporation, say, because the corporate structure is gone). If a group of people have been organized and acting as a corporation, and the organization loses its corporate status, it can’t do anything as a corporation, including an assgt. In my strictly lay opinion, this is “corporations 101”. The corporation couldn’t endorse a note, even, and also imo couldn’t assign anything corporately, and any relationship the corporation had with someone acting as its agent would also be extinguished. A corporation may lose its “good standing” status with a SofS, but that may not necessarily 86 the corporation (but it may). If a corporation loses it’s “good standing” certification with a SofS, before its corporate status is revoked, there may be a grace period in which time the good standing status could be reinstated. But even if that’s so, and the corporation doesn’t act to reinstate that status, its corporate status would be unrecognized. In my lay opinion.
    SofS’s don’t generally “shut down” a corporation (arms of law enforcement do that); they simple revoke its corporate status, as I said making anything impossible to do as a corporation, like an endorsement or assignment or crossing the street. These are lay opinions from long ago. Ask a lawyer – really!
    If what I said is factual, and the loan by MERS’ records belonged to XXXX who was no longer a corporation able to do anything, imo, no transfer from “XXXX” would’ve been possible. I don’t know under those
    circumstances how that group of people could sell that loan. That’s not to say it couldn’t be done; I just don’t know if it may be done, HOW it would be done. But the likely deal is that the entry in MERS’ database will be prescribed to an error by that gang. (“It was really transferred to xyz and the entry was overlooked”).

  3. javagold – I just can’t believe that’s uncharted water. There must be a law somewhere the hey. I’ll bet your judge didn’t cite one thing other than his personal opinion in support of his decision. I’m sorry this is true, but that’s the kind of bs that can happen when a judge doesn’t fear an appeal.

  4. Ian, thank you for clearing that up.

  5. All, I need some assistance and advice. We received a Notice of Foreclosure a few months back. I have still been corresponding with Wells Fargo telling them they have no standing. After several QWR’s and letters to OCC and CFPB, WF responded with more documents than they did in the past. This time they included 2 Allonge Notes which I had never seen before. Keep in mind that they did not respond with the documents even to OCC and CFPB. Then it clicked I went on to the Baltimore More Public Records and there it is a Deed of Trust had been posted there on the 11th of this month. I have not been able to view it yet, but I can imagine what it is. I need some help on which way I should go with this. I need to know what I need to do in order to prove that the documents are Fraudulent. I am sure they are. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. James 443-677-2799, Thanks

  6. Iwantmynpv- a “single transaction doctrine” is allegedly half as effective as a ” dual transaction doctrine” yet requires only half (50%) of the doctrines of the latter. The former, as opposed to the latter, is required under ASLA 2009-4* ” doctrine fractionalization”, as the latter supersedes the 1/2 latter “doctrine flow” chart devised by the former, minus the latter, and including the previous successor, now known as the original (substituted) yet wholly legitimate former/latter equivalent .
    Glad to clear this up for you .

  7. Poppy- got me by the sneakers. Stock trades at 7 cents a share . Phone no. on investors website rings through to mortgage servicer. Last post on website was 3 yrs ago. Once a year, half a dozen hedge funds execute a flurry of trades in the stock (trades OTC or pink sheets) and breathe some life into it . Bizzarre

  8. “MERS lists the investor on my loan as ZZZZ, which was shut down by the CA SOS in 2009 for having negative equity of 29 million bucks”

    How can you be an investor with negative equity? What’s in the trusts IOU’s?

  9. Whoops- as per my previous post- (9:23 pm)- I meant to say that Option One folded in 2008, corrective assignment was recorded in 2008, by XXXX, assigning the mortgage from Option One to themselves, by Countrywide Warehouse Lending, which folded in 2009. MERS lists the investor on my loan as ZZZZ, which was shut down by the CA SOS in 2009 for having negative equity of 29 million bucks, plus they didn’t return phone calls or letters. Very rude of them.

  10. What is a “single transaction doctrine” Can’t find it anywhere! Is it a make believe term or can I find value as with the step transaction doctrine.

  11. Johngault, the court ruled, That it was ‘re-recorded ‘ and that rectified it…..HA !! The ‘re record’ just recorded the wrong timeline order all over again…..nothing fixed.
    Of course bought to clerks attention, they agreed but said they can’t do anything as they just type like monkeys whatever is given to them. I asked what is the purpose of all their typing all these years , if apparently none of it matters. ….. they didn’t like that question.
    Lawyers were of no help either…..the whole system is broken or maybe just an illusion.

  12. “Thanks for the input- I was just mulling it over. My mortgage was last assigned to Option One.

    jg: okay as anything can get around here (unless they’re just a scvr who didn’t buy the loan).

    It sat there through late 2011. jg: okay – same story

    Got behind again, is “correctively assigned” to XXXX in 2011.

    jg: not possible, if you mean to say it’s to serve as a rescission of
    the assgt to Option one. Also, imo, if it were never to have been assg’d to O-1, your title was slandered all that time.

    Option one folded In 2011. The ” corrective assignment” was done by XXXX.
    jg: the assignor and the assignee are the same party?!

    I’ll dig the actual copy up and see if I forgot anything. ” why it don’t hardly seem fair, bubba”
    jg: nope and it isn’t just not fair, it’s not lawful.

    I just found out that so and so is saying billy bob wasn’t authorized by MERS to execute assgts in mers’ name (spareth me), so they’re doing a slew of “corrective assignments”. BULLSH&T. Members asked Hultman to appoint non-members, like people at LPS, as officers so they could mass-produce “assignments” at 10.00 an hour. The prosecutors and courts must all be taking one big fat, long snooze. That’s maybe the biggest bunch of bull to come down the turnpike yet. I could write a tome on how messed that is.
    Billy bob was no more or less a MERS’ officer than any other of the 20,000+’s.
    lay opinions

    This stuff makes the stuff some of us used to be mad about, like Haliburton and 4000.00 toilets seats, look like jay walking.

  13. Oh ,, the “affidavit of indebtedness” was from the local marketing director of “Sentry Management” (oh there are 140+ accountants ,, doubt she had personal knowledge) ,, guess they got the account by telling the condo association they could collect on charged off debt and such … she brags on her “LinkedIn” page that she “brings financially strapped communities back from the brink of financial disaster” and that she “specializes in educating and providing guidance to the boards” …

    Guess she guided them into a real losing proposition here…

  14. @ ALL , off topic … looking for input .. here’s the story as quick as I can make it..

    2008 brother-in-law loses job when company (construction) folds (Florida)
    2010 his condo is fc’d by HSBC , condo ass gets partial pmt from sale
    2014 condo ass goes on fishing spree looking for money they can collect… hires attorney to collect old fees
    2014 I begin fighting on behalf of b-i-l ,, attempting to get docs.. original condo ass filings don’t have association contract or ledger entries , a “statement” of the account has conflicting amounts due and hand written additions with notation “not in ledger”..
    2014-2 weeks ago … attorney files slew of affidavits attempting to paper over lack of required documents … including two that I LOVE..

    Doc#1 Attorneys fees Time and Expense Details … has an entry for consult with condo ass where they note b-i-l’s account was charged off the month after the fc sale to HSBC *** Attorney knew this was a $0 debt and pursued anyway *** later there is an entry where the firm entered into a contingency arrangement with the condo ass.

    Doc#2 Affidavit of Indebtedness … recounts what was in the original filing and has the usual words to the effect of the authority and knowledge to overcome my business records objection (blah blah) but somehow it never once mentions that the debt was charged off in full and that the condo association and their debt collector rat bastard suppressed intentionally in all filings all mention that the debt was written off or that the law firm had a stake in collecting on this false debt….

    My contention is that once it’s written off IT’S WRITTEN OFF and the tax benefits and whatnot are all they get.

    OK .. what to do?? File a real snarky motion to dismiss w/prejudice. File complaints with the bar? File a MSJ and attach a suggested settlement ?? HOW DO I GET MONEY OUT OF THIS FOR MY Brother-In-Law? He needs a new A/C system for his house (hot in Florida and baby#2 on the way! Summer’s coming)…


  15. Glaski is still troubling me. What I don’t get is why borrower is not a party to a PSA (between lender and MBS trustee) but is a party to a servicing agreement (between lender and loan servicer) in the courts’ eyes.

  16. @Java – assignment of servicers means squat. Assignments of beneficiary, on the other hand, is transfer of power to invoke a foreclosure.

    Words have meaning (unless they come from Christine or JG)

  17. @Java – your description of assignments fits the bid-rigging scenario where the beneficiary recorded at the time the notice of default is recorded does not match the beneficiary stated in the notice of default. This is evidence of a clouded title, reducing number of bidders and amount potentially bid. After notice of default a ‘corrective’ assignment is made, usually with a substitution of loan trustee.

    IANAL, but when you point out to the court evidence of broken laws, prudent judges are wary of condoning such actions in their courtroom.

  18. Thanks for the input- I was just mulling it over. My mortgage was last assigned to Option One. It sat there through late 2011. Got behind again, is “correctively assigned” to XXXX in 2011. Option one folded In 2011. The ” corrective assignment” was done by XXXX. I’ll dig the actual copy up and see if I forgot anything. ” why it don’t hardly seem fair, bubba”

  19. I’m in john….a corrective assignment?

    Shouldn’t the person who made the mistake be the one to correct it, given a home is at stake, no substitutes here?

  20. javagold – how did your court justify that?

  21. Ian, I didn’t mean to imply there’s no remedy for a lender under the circumstances you described. But a corr assgt out of an entity that’s toast? No way (and any agency died with it). I think it’s likely the
    guy who wants the asst would have to go to court and get a court order. Say Uncle Hank died without assigning a dot. His estate might be able to, if he had one (“as executor of the estate of Uncle Hank”) and you can bet before a real title company would insure, it would have to approve that assgt. Short of that, I think the assignee-candidate has to go to court and likely demonstrate the transfer (including for value) of the note.
    An incorrect assgt I read is slander of title.
    lay opinions

  22. I had assignment of mortgages when SERVICER B assigned mortgage to SERVICER C……before !!!!!! …….Servicer A assigned it to Servicer B

    Bought the paper work to a few lawyers , they weren’t interested.

    Argued in court pro Se and listed in exhibit, clear as day , and still judge ruled in plaintiff , who has no skin in house, favor.

    I still have all the paperwork just in case the rule of law ever comes back……but like iwantmynpv, I believe the collapse of the dollar in. The very near future , makes it all meaningless.

  23. Ian, I don’t believe there’s any legitimate doc called a “corrective assgt” (but I think I’d actually have to see one). I wholeheartedly believe it’s just an alleged instrument the banksters made up. Imo, the real cure for a faulty assgt is to have the assignee assign back and THEN the assignor may execute a correct one. If the ‘old’ assignee is toast, obviously that can’t be done. Oops. For that matter, if the old assignee is toast, to whom would the assgt-back which I think should be done be to?
    In that original assgt, whatever interest the assignor had was conveyed (as long as the guy signing had the corp authority) as a matter of law.
    Scrivener errors may be ‘fixed’, but that’s IT (like legal description was off by a number or like that), and these aren’t corrected with a “corrective assgt” – there’s no such thing imo.
    lay opinions

    “A scrivener’s affidavit is a legal affidavit is a written statement made under oath, witnessed by a Notary Public. Legal documents submitted to a court usually require that signed affidavits or certificates to their authenticity be added prior to submission.

    **Many types of affidavits exist, including the scrivener’s affidavit. This affidavit statement added to an existing document correcting an error, usually clerical. This type of affidavit affirms that specific CLERICAL errors made in an existing legal document have been corrected. Property deeds, deeds of trust and bills of property all use a scrivener’s affidavit to affirm clerical corrections.” **

  24. “Did I read that fnma, say, was exempt from that registration (or whatever)? And if so, why exactly is that? There’s a reason, one we need to know.”
    Maybe it’s because someone thinks the fnma (if not other gse) guarantee 86’s the need for the cert holders perfected security interests in the loans. But then, couldn’t that bite fnma et al if the certs aren’t tied to the loans by that perfection? Tell me fnma doesn’t buy the loan and the certs end up property of the banksters. Left field? I don’t know, but…..

  25. As far as I know, it’s the loans themselves which fnma has to repurchase. What if it’s the certs? (this is confusing like the rubic’s cube it is). In order for the cert holders to have security interests in the loans held in a trust, a couple things have to happen: 1) the loans had to make it to the trusts (as true sales, subject to more info)
    2) the investors’ security interests in the assets of the trust, the loans, had to be perfected. How, I’m not sure. Probably a registration somewhere. Are there certain security interests which are excused from perfection by that registration (or some act)? I don’t know. Did I read that fnma, say, was exempt from that registration (or whatever)?
    And if so, why exactly is that? There’s a reason, one we need to know.

    Now say fnma has to repurchase one or the other or both (certs / loans) to end its guarantee (in which case, if it did so, fnma would become the creditor – but still must credit the guar payments to the note.* FNMA pays its guar to the trust, which is on the assets of the trust, the loans, even tho it appears (prospectus) that what fnma guarantees is the certs.
    So when fnma buys back a loan, what about those certs that were tied
    to the amt of that loan? What happens to them? FNMA must somehow get them, also. If so or maybe especially if not (!), fnma would be interested, would it not (could use some help here) in whether or not the security interests of the cert holders in the loans had been perfected or not because fnma wouldn’t want that issue, right?

    In order to end its guarantee payments which are made to the trust, fnma has to repurchase at least the loan.* So, on a fnma loan, fnma should be the party foreclosing, right? In that case in NY where the judge was irate that the servicer was trying to pawn itself off as the rpii,
    I don’t recall if I knew to whom the assgt had been made by “MERS”.
    I’d hazard it was the servicer, in which case, the note and dot were split, with fnma having the note and the svcr having the dot (if the assgt purported to assign the note to the svcr, also, what kind of bs was that since they conceded “under pressure” that fnma was the lender / creditor? ) But there was never any evidence that fnma had purchased the loan in the first place to BE the rpii. They didn’t get to that.

    Let’s say fnma is at least continuing its guarantee payments. So the loan isn’t in default. Unless there is a repurchase, that’s a loan which imo can’t be called. Patrick said something about the servicer actually buying the loan at a discount, but I wasn’t clear if it were from fnma or the trust. Had to be fnma, I’d say. Contractually, I suppose it’s poss for a servicer, or anyone, to step into fnma’s shoes and obtain the right to purchase, and pay fnma at par or with a discount or cut some kind of deal. But if that’s the case, WHY allege fnma as the creditor (when “pressed”?) The only thing I can think of is the handy credit bid, which may only belong to one with skin in the game. One way or another, it looks to me like on gse loans, they’re skipping the repurchase obligation (they = F & F and issuers on gnma) and generally using the alleged credit bid of the trust to foreclose. If the servicer only promises to pay X but has not paid X, it may be that the servicer (or anyone else) isn’t entitled to a credit bid. I really think we need to know what that was and is about. But, again, if courts are going to continue to allow banksters to stand on bearer notes and “MERS” assignment, same ‘so what?’
    But, is one in possession of a note with no skin in the game EVER entitled to a credit bid? I think not. So then what they do is allege to have been assigned the credit bid, which I find a major crock, though I can’t support it just now with chapter and verse. Credit bids haven’t really been explored much that I know of.

  26. To all : if I have a “corrective assignment of mortgage” filed 3 years after the assignee who’s being corrected went bankrupt, then is that where the chain of title breaks? After all, there was no one from that entity around to correct it. My present servicer “corrected “it in 2011.

  27. *** does it mean the pool is a mix and match, with some fha and va loans and other loans – like subprimes and gnma is only covering fha and va loans?

  28. “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issue and guarantee pass-through securities. Ginnie Mae adds its guarantee to already-issued private pass-through securities. The mortgage loans in Ginnie Mae guaranteed securities are government-insured by either the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) or Veterans Administration (VA). A guarantee by one of these agencies enhances credit quality for investors as it ensures payment of interest and principal. Loans underlying Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities must meet underwriting criteria prescribed by the GSEs (e.g., loan size, documentation, loan-to-value ratios, etc). Mortgages underlying Ginnie Mae pass-throughs are underwritten in accordance with the rules and regulations of the FHA and the VA. (try not to split a gut!)

    The extent of these security guarantees depends on the agency. Ginnie Mae, for example, guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest on its mortgage securities, and its guarantee is backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government. Holders of Ginnie Mae mortgage securities are therefore assured of receiving payments promptly each month, regardless of whether the underlying homeowners make their payments.** They are also guaranteed to receive the full return of face-value principal even if the underlying borrowers default on their loans. Mortgage securities issued by the VA also carry the same “full faith and credit” U.S. government guarantee.

    *but as I’ve said, fnma ended up with the ff & C by the our tax-sponsored govt bailout. They say they want capitalism, but this is socialism at its finest imo – all of it, all of anything which as a matter of course (not even counting the bail-outs) causes any gse to guarantee
    someone’s payments for anyone’s benefit, borrower included. As far as I know, this wasn’t done pre-securitization. FHA, VA, and pmi covered some losses and the borrower paid for that. Securitization lead to
    abnormal and absurd risk exposure on the part of the agencies, just as it did with AIG and its sub-insurers. I just read (true? got me) that an extra basis point (I’ll try to explain if anyone wants) was collected somehow as a way to off-set someone’s exposure. You gotta be kidding me? With if-you’ve-got-a-pulse-loans? That’s like collecting
    50.00 a year for homeowner insurance on a castle.

    “Fannie Mae generally guarantees timely payment of both principal and interest on its mortgage securities whether or not the payments have been collected from the borrowers. Freddie Mac also generally guarantees timely payment of both principal and interest. Some older series of Freddie Mac PCs guarantee timely payment of interest, but only the eventual payment of principal. Neither Fannie Mae nor Freddie Mac securities carry the additional “full faith and credit” U.S. government guarantee. (yeah, right)

    Private Label. Some private institutions, such as subsidiaries of investment banks, financial institutions, and home builders, also issue mortgage securities. When issuing mortgage securities, they may issue either agency or non-agency mortgage passthrough securities; however, their underlying collateral will more often include different or specialized types of mortgage loans or mortgage loan pools that do not qualify for agency securities. The transactions may use alternative credit enhancements such as letters of credit. These non-agency or so-called private-label mortgage securities are the sole obligation of their issuer and are not guaranteed by one of the GSEs or the U.S. Government**. Private-label mortgage securities are assigned credit ratings by independent credit agencies based on their structure, issuer, collateral, and any guarantees or other factors.” (as we know, bogus
    ratings. independent? quelle blage!)

    “As an additional investor protection, the mortgage security issuer typically segregates the collateral or deposits it in the care of a designated trustee, a party who holds and manages the collateral for the exclusive benefit of the mortgage security bondholders.

    To the extent that private-label mortgage securities use agency mortgage pass-through securities as collateral, that specific agency collateral carries the respective agency’s guarantees, but the entire mortgage security that is issued does not.***

    All information and opinions contained in this publication were produced by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association from our membership and other sources believed by the Association to be accurate and reliable.”

    *okay, right. But what is left out here is GNMA’s contract with the issuer. That contract says the issuer must advance those payments and keep the investors whole. And the issuer to be reimbursed and to get the benefit of the guarantee MUST repurchase the certs / loans, because GNMA is only going to pay the issuer.

    With Fnma, contractually, the servicer must advance the pymts and be reimbursed by submitting an invoice to fnma. FNMA then has to repurchase to end its guarantee, unlike gnma, which makes the issuer do that. Way I get it.

    So WHY is a trust being shown as the foreclosing party on ANY GSE loan? Bearer notes, that’s why. Oh, and a MERS’ assgt to the trust.
    And an alleged credit bid of the trust being used by????

    A “MERS” assignment is doing more than just belatedly transferring a loan to a trust. Or it has more than one implication: All the gse’s are on the hook for payments and F & F and issuers are on the hook for repurchases. Would you pay a trust for a loan it never got??? It’s not getting them now as a matter of trust law, it seems, but that was the best they could do, I guess, to create some kind of paper trail to the trust.

    As for the borrower and those contracts between a GSE, the servicer, and the issuer, the borrower pays for those guarantees. imo that makes the at least an intended third party ben. With F & F, the g-fee is built into the rate and in FHA and VA loans, the ‘g-fee’ appears to be in addition to the cost of the normal fha insurance and va guarantee, which used to if not still assures the coverage of bottom line losses (post-sale).

    ***what the heck does that mean?

  29. Poppy I think we are talking about notes which have purportedly been assigned to a trust. Years later of course.

  30. Ian, the REMIC is created. Look at the name of the Trust on Edgar. After, go to the exhibits and look at the names on the certificates. You will see how this works, and why the master servicer holds all the cards at the end of the game.

    Whether, these pools conform to REMIC status is irrelevant. There are not enough physical dollars on the planet to pay the tax bill, fines and penalties, thus, the IRS told me in 2007 that the violations are public record and could not get paid.

    No money – no tickee, and so they turn the blind eye, the banks foreclose on what they can push through, and when the dollar collapses it all becomes irrelevant.

  31. John Gault- nim = Net Interest Margin. Unbelievable though it seems, I read that nim cash flow is securitized as well.
    And yes anon and Patrick explained a lot. I wish they would post again. They too will have learned a lot since they left LL.


    I’d like to see the return of anonymous and patrick to revisit some of the points they made in comments to this post – above -, for instance. Anon’s big trip was the false default of existing loans allegedly in trusts, right? I think this allegation bears new scrutiny. Patrick had what I thought were valuable insights. Hey, you two – two years on, have anything else or new for us?

  33. neidermeyer, Poppy – I don’t know. I’m still a rookie on a lot of this stuff, having concentrated on court rules and e v i d e n c e. Poppy, you’re not the village idiot. Far from it. You have questions all of us have, so when you ask, if anyone answers, we all benefit. Don’t ever let anyone else’s low trip discourage you from asking or fear being seen as the “village idiot”. After reading some stuff new to me lately, I feel like I own that title, actually. None of us can be expected to know all things. I sure as heck am as green as it gets on some stuff.
    When I said I thought the servicer had a “handle on that”, I meant I thought the servicer is the one who benefits from interest-bearing accounts which have the payments in them between the time the servicer gets the payments and forks them over. If the trust has a time between its receipt and its payments to cert holders, it may be getting the interest, also, for that period of time. That would be a lot of moolah, I think. If the trust benefits from an interest-bearing account, I don’t know if they reinvest it in any fashion, including a “nim’ trust. I don’t even know what a “nim” trust is.

    Now, for sure I could be colored whatever, but I didn’t get it that those lower tranches in these deals were allegedly credit enhancements. Now that I do, I just can’t imagine what kind of rube would buy those, better rate or not. Although I guess when the ratings of the pool are jacked – with concerted effort -, someone wouldn’t see the snake in there.

  34. Well that’s the thing, many here are talking about this trust issue like it applies to all notes. It does not! And that is not just an opinion, that’s a fact!

    We have done thousands of hours of research and been through county deed offices and it is disgraceful what these offices are allowing as assignments…and the courts, Good grief…the twisting and turning and abuse of words/language, they call it semantics…I call it deception, perjury and conversion.

  35. Poppy- a late-assigned note isn’t valid. NY Trust law, IRC, GAAP, FASB. SEC requires compliance with all applicable rules and regs. ” no tickee no laundry”

  36. Iwantmynpv- but there isn’t any issuing entity, is there? So we have a PSA from an entity which was never formed? What weight would that have? Doesn’t the PSA for each trust state who the master servicer is? If there is no Trust , what right does anyone have to appoint a master servicer or sub servicer if their authority doesn’t exist? And it only stands to reason that a nonexistent trust would have a nonexistent bank account- for cryin out loud.

  37. ian,

    Maybe I’m the village idiot here, but I am really struggling with how a note is transferred into a deceased trust, after 5-6-7 years and it is valid? All this chat about trusts…what would anyone here say the % is of real REMIC trusts? Is not the PSA directly correlated to a REMIC trust CSMC, NC1….? Not a REIT, Bonds, by a non-lender, etc…when you go before the court and ask for relief from a default for investors, wouldn’t you have to prove the trust exists and harm has come to the innocent party? And where the hell is the IRS on this…Just asking

    RE: my note is from 2005, ledger of balance is the same amount of the original note, no deductions for payments for 4 years, then dated in 1985, the year the house was built. The trust closed in 2007 and assigned from servicer in 2012, Now, really?

    What kind of defense can BOA put on for this?

  38. I strongly disagree with the argument that the issuing entities / trusts (the shell entity) do not have bank accounts. The Master Servicer does maintain a remittance account on behalf of the trustee for the benefit of various investors / certificate holders.

    How the payments accrue to the balance sheet of the sub-servicer lends to an entirely different subject. JG hit it spot on – The lower rated certs inside of the tranches / pools support the higher rated certificates with the same series. The lower tier groups provide enhancement in response to trigger events, none of which pertain to actual,borrower default.

    I know this is not the proper forum. Doesn’t anyone watch what they are about to do with the Euro – all in the name of deflation.

    The Japanese and Chinese hate one another, but still achieved an accord to bypass the dollar. Start dollar cost average purchases of silver at $18.5 Minor component of any basket-currency and huge industrial purpose with the “internet of everything”.


  39. @Johngault
    So it might be possible for a trust to create its own reserve fund with the interest, say, it might get on the monies paid in before those monies are paid out (but I’d say the servicer has the handle on that one), but that wouldn’t encompass a loan from the servicer (or anyone).
    ?? Transfers from a related “NIM” trust which pays the originator of the trust..??

  40. E.Tolle- read the Erobobo Appeal, over on stopforeclosurefraud. An extremely well-written piece, and only 42 pages.
    “By studying the quarterly reports, it is easily seen why Banks continue to assign mortgages into the trust years after the cutoff date. Best explanation I’ve ever read. And just as I thought.
    But…’s the same thing that NG has been saying!- that the transaction never took place: the bank lawyers are telling the court that they did take place, but then not telling the IRS that they did. Thus avoiding the prohibited transaction tax.

  41. So, Gene, I’m trying to determine if a trust may be the borrower on a loan from the servicer or anyone for advances (non-gse loans / certs). I see that payments made on ‘credit enhancement contracts’ qualify as monies a trust may accept, of course. But does such a payment made as a loan qualify as one made on a credit enhancement contract? How is it a credit enchancement if it’s merely a loan? And if it’s just a loan, as I’ve said, the only thing I see it doing is manipulating the value of the certs by the failure to recognize the liability in the market value of the certs. You don’t always answer my questions; I hope you’ll answer this one. As I’ve also said, I believe you when you say you read this loan-business in a PSA or two, but I’m still hard-pressed to believe it’s hoyle. I also noted this (which you didn’t mention):

    “Permitted investments

    Permitted investments include cash flow investments, qualified reserve assets, and foreclosure property*

    Cash flow investments are temporary investments in passive assets that earn interest (as opposed to accruing dividends, for example) of the payments on qualified mortgages that occur between the time that the REMIC receives the payments and the REMIC’s distribution of that money to its holders. ……

    Qualified reserve assets are forms of intangible property other than residual interests in REMICs that are held as investments as part of a qualified reserve fund, which “is any reasonably required reserve to provide for full payment of” a REMIC’s costs or payments to interest holders due to default, unexpectedly low returns, or deficits in interest from prepayments…..”

    So it might be possible for a trust to create its own reserve fund with the interest, say, it might get on the monies paid in before those monies are paid out (but I’d say the servicer has the handle on that one), but that wouldn’t encompass a loan from the servicer (or anyone).

    *if that’s true, I stand corrected since I’ve posited that these trusts may not own real property, but I’m seeing that the internet is full of conflicting info, so top on my list is trust law itself, chapter and verse.
    Be nice if NG saved me and others the trouble……

  42. Anyone – are non-gse pooled loans CMO’s and not sales at all? (I didn’t realize there’s a difference between a pass-thru and a pay-thru, for one).

  43. E.Tolle,

    With so many detractors, I missed your post.

    Are you still banking? With whom?

    Will you file on 4/15/14? Yes? Why? because you draw a monthly salary and filing a W9 was a requisite for a regular paycheck?

    Feed the problem. Don’t blame me when it all unravels.

    And just for the hell of it… When Garfield falls, he ain’t holding no one’s head out of the water. Want to hate me? Please do. Just remember: at the end, we all croak. Are you happy right now? Is the fight bringing you joy?

    If not, do reconsider your priorities…

  44. Let’s say article III is applicable to these notes. Article III says one in poss of a bearer note may enforce it, right? Does that not say a court adhering strictly to art III and disregarding ALL else relevant wouldn’t care less about who did what or not? That’s what it says to me. Is there another way to see it? Not to me. I guess i’m not making this clear or people don’t believe it: if art III poss of bearer note is the bomb, that along with the “MERS” assgt, is the end of the story except for bringing in trust law, like in Glaski. There are a few arguments, actually, like that MERS had nothing to assign if it otherwise had authority to assign whatever it has.

    1) the ucc is default law, meaning as I’ve said, it’s turned to in the
    absence of an agreement which resolves issues between the
    parties thereto – you got a contract, it must be looked at first.
    Ultimately still disputed and unclear – bring in the ucc (where the matter involves something covered by the UCC).
    2) the ucc doesn’t resolve who is an intended beneficiary of anything or not (as applicable).
    3) the ucc is not the only law relevant to mtg loans, by far. In fact, as I’ve said, it’s only default law, where as other laws relevant to these loans aren’t default laws. They’re laws the players must adhere to.

    Even if looking at the ucc is approriate to resolve an issue,
    and it’s III which is applicable, where does it say that a thief or
    a person in possession of a bearer note is entitled to an assgt of the collateral instrument? It doesn’t and he isn’t. If I get my hands on a note between Carl and Bruce, I may be able to enforce it if it’s a bearer note (endorsed in blank) and there’s no real property collateral agreement referenced therein. Courts are able to interpret and apply the UCC, right after a claimant has at least alleged if not evidenced injury. If I have that note between Carl and Bruce, even if the default law UCC says I may enforce, I’ve suffered and will suffer no injury by its non-payment: the court has no jurisdiction. imo.

    Further, because of security first rules if not the loan agreement,I can’t enforce that note, anyway, because I don’t have and don’t have a right to an assignment of the coll instrument which I need to enforce the note against the property. These are generally non-recourse notes, meaning the note owner may not come after a personal judgment against me. In states which allow deficiency judgments, the lender may get a def judgment, but not before liquidating the collateral.

    Where is it written that one in poss of a bearer note has a right to
    an assgt of its collateral? Sure, I’ll just get my hands on the note and demand one. That’s more or less what these guys are doing but instead of demanding an assgt, they just use their own employees more often than not to execute one in MERS’ name. Tell me that’s not a racket. MERS has admitted it gets instructions from NO one to execute assignments (because it doesn’t execute assgts unless things have changed), even if it had the right to assign and if it had something other than – its “legal title” to the ben’s interests TO assign.
    Imo, that assignment is no more than a quit claim of the legal title MERS claims to hold for the beneficiary. But even, then it must
    qc that “legal title” to a proper party.
    I don’t believe those Hultman appointees are MERS’ anythings, but even if they were, what does MERS have to assign? How does it assign more than it has? It doesn’t. How ’bout if the credit union holding title (which is legitimate) to your car sells your car? The credit union may sell what it’s GOT.

  45. Johngault,

    You do realize that you are the last shoulder people who lost come crying on to justify their posting here, right? Especially women. Recurrent theme going back 4 years. Last one was… Oh well! It doesn’t matter. She no longer posts.

    Big Papa Bear arms. All fuzzy and cozy. They don’t want to learn. They want daddy. Keep the feel-good communication open, by all means: that’s all that’s left.

    And… they will fight tooth and nail for Garfield until they die. Even if he did them in, they will fight for him. Yeah!!! The savior!!!

    Is this country ever fucked up or what?

    Keep posting, John. Apparently, you serve a purpose after all.

  46. john,

    The judges are wrong and are covering the theft and many of them are out of their jurisdiction too. The appeals seem to be making some traction. The 12(b)(6) nonsense…Hmm

    The banks are in the same boat, IMO. Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted…we need more of that from the judge directed at the banks. Where are the losses they claim?

    When you are that far removed from your collateral/security instrument, too bad for you!

    I keep going back to the same place….the beginning, origination (where did they get funds) the wiring, the actual funding, the sales forward, to whom…the servicer…the only “real” funds placed on the table were ours. Just because a wire number exists, does not mean funding took place. We paid all the taxes, title fees, lawyer fees, down payments, etc…I never saw a certified check for anything and just because there was a wire number….how does anyone know if it was received? The lawyer took your check deposited it in his escrow account….moved everything along. He never seen any money from the wirer, now did he? In all reality the closing attorney cannot testify to any of it either!

    This is a street fight…when people are honest and genuine, act in kind, when they are not, one must do what is necessary…without becoming like these thugs. Just saying….when you see enough crap in life, it is not that easy to trick you anymore. I’m to the point, even what I see is not the truth. Good gawd

  47. “…no need to have legal skills for that!”

    Sure. For those primitive minds, it means attempting to resolve problems streetwise, by snarling, hitting, kicking, shooting and throwing punches.

    Just about everything civilized societies won’t stand for. Oops! Darn it! Courts don’t either…

  48. “I know shit and abuse when I see it, no need to have legal skills for that!”

    Directly from a (smart) American-born, pro se litigant…

    Why are homeowners losing the fight in foreclosure law?

    A. Poor lawyering/pro se litigants:

    Just how expensive are lawyers? Too expensive for homeowners, maybe, or possibly homeowners aren’t consulting lawyers because they figure they were able to negotiate a home loan, buy a house, refinance it a jillion times, so they ought to be able to handle this, too!

    In Cronin v. Bank of America, (E.D. MI 2013)(“Cronin has not alleged nor has she proffered any evidence, that there was fraud or an irregularity that occurred during the foreclosure process”), Lyshorn v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, (N.D. CAL, 2013)(“Plaintiffs’ allegations continue to be excessively long, but at the same time, are fatally unclear. Plaintiffs’ FAC continues to be replete with extraneous hyperbole and long-winded accusations that are hard to follow”) Brandveen v. Litton (E.D. VA 2013)(“Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Litton Loan Servicing and its employees conducted business over state lines and, in some unspecified way, defrauded him. He then lists eight federal statutes and, in conclusory fashion, alleges that those laws have been violated”), at least two sets of plaintiffs were pro se and all three suffered from either superlong or too short pleadings that didn’t comply with the federal rules of civil procedure and the recent requirement, in the “Twiqbal” cases, that specific facts be plead.

    B. Waiting Too Long.

    Then, too, in Cronin the plaintiff had difficulty establishing a right to any relief because the federal complaint wasn’t filed until after the foreclosure sale was completed, as was also the situation in Yuan Lin Jiang v. Bank of Am., N.A. (N.D. Ga., 2013), where a loan modification was submitted in September 2012, the sale held on December 4, 2012, and the case not filed until 2013.

    C. Not knowing who to sue.

    While this could fall under poor lawyering, it’s separate enough that it deserves it’s own category.

    From Lyshorn: “Additionally, despite the Court’s admonition, Plaintiffs continue to group several of the Defendants together without specifying which Defendant allegedly engaged in what conduct.”

    From Cronin: “Cronin’s allegations of fraud relating to the mortgage life insurance policy are directed against her lender, a non-party.”

    From Brandveen: “Specialized—the only Defendant served thus far—moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim and for failure to sufficiently allege a basis for federal jurisdiction.” (Brandveen named other defendants such as Litton and Wells Fargo, so there’s really no reason they had not yet been served.)

    It’s important, I think, to note that of those four cases, none of them held that you couldn’t sue for a HAMP violation or related claims — mostly because they never reached the issues. The closest one came to that was Yuan Lin Jiang, which alleged a breach of a trial mod program of sorts; the defendant moved to dismiss for lack of consideration in the alleged promise to delay a foreclosure sale while a modification was pending, about which the Court ruled:

    Assuming, arguendo, the submission of documents could constitute consideration sufficient to support an agreement not to foreclose, it appears from the allegations of the Complaint that the documents submitted by Plaintiff were tendered prior to Defendant’s alleged agreement to foreclose and therefore would constitute past consideration for a future promise. Under Georgia law, “[t]he general rule is that a past consideration will not support a subsequent promise.

    I’ve often said that lawyers’ impact on cases might be overrated: A great case wouldn’t fall apart simply because of mediocre, or even bad, lawyering; a terrible case would not be transformed into a winner by magically wonderful lawyering. But these cases show that poor lawyering — whether by lawyers or pro se litigants — can destroy your chance to present your case in an effective manner.

    Where lawyers make the most difference is around the margins, especially on cases that are hard to call or present novel theories of law. What this means, though, is that the (modern, 21st-century) law of foreclosure is being written by poor lawyers, because these are novel theories of law involving brand-new laws. And the lack of good lawyering shows in the lack of good cases.

    This is not to say that judges couldn’t be more open to interpretations of equity and the law that would let homeowners fight foreclosure cases effectively; most of foreclosure law was written — statutorily or through case law — before the era of securitization and massive banks and HAMP laws and other factors that have irrevocably changed the way home lending is initiated, serviced, and terminated. Judges (and legislatures) need to update their attitudes accordingly. But it’s admittedly difficult for judges to do that when the quality of lawyering they see is so dismal.

    So far, so good. I would add:

    D) Not knowing what the issues are.

    Sherman anti-trust? Rico? Piggy backing on a servicer’s bankruptcy? What a sad joke. Even NG never went that low in terms of bad pleading! Compounding stupidity with ignorance and nastiness doesn’t help any bad case on the contrary.

    Lose the attitude. Might help with growing some brains…

  49. What’s reliable for me is that MERS is thee ben, and that has made for initial bifurcation of the note and dot. I’ll posit it again: they blew it when they skipped the assignments to mers and chose to make mers the ben in the dot. Even that, though, assumes once split, they may in fact be REunified, as it’s said they may. Maybe that’s so, but original split is a horse of another color. Just because so and so couldn’t effectively argue or didn’t argue original bifurcation, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

  50. No argument here, poppy. As long as banksters may rely on article III and a “mers assignment”, most of us won’t see anything past a mtn for sj or dismissal. And I don’t give a good whooey what any court said in favor of MERS anything. Imo they didn’t say it based on facts. It’s simply impossible for real property agency to be created in and by a dot. The banksters are perfectly capable and able to submit evidence of true agency if it exists, but courts don’t make them, relying instead on totally unreasonable presumptions and totally faulty logic. For pete’s sake, mers even says it holds only “legal title” (BS) to the beneficial interests created in a dot. So, I give, how can it convey the beneficial interest it admits it doesn’t have?

  51. “The reality is: most of us have a case against the banks.”

    Everyone with a mortgage does. Everyone. And every homeowner in court fights a bank. It’s not what cards were dealt to the homeowners that counts. It’s how they play them. They can play the NG way and lose or they can play a smarter game. Their choice. God given free will.

    The self-pity-victim/attack dog act won’t change any of it.

  52. What’s really reliable, john?

    The largest problem I have seen over time is many of us relying on the paperwork as fact. daunting to get past. But if you start to dig you find a shell game is what it is. All this banter about REMIC trusts, PSA’s…much of it lies. REIT trusts maybe, with no rights under the PSA. IRS ignoring the taxation they “need” to pay…the list is long, but from what I can tell, most liens have not been “properly” perfected and the wiring is very, very suspicious. The thing is; we cannot get to the accounting and it is important how this is logged on their books. Also, the breach of contract, good gawd….you know it’s complex, just saying, a lot not being told here and some of it is intentional.

    And this MERS thing…please! The courts are full of shit, sorry, but a CD has no authority and MERSCorp, in my non-legal opinion, has no legal authority to hire people to work as assignors for MERS, a division-a different entity. Garbage in-garbage out. Just because the judge says something doesn’t make it true! These judges are “smoothing” over the illegal activities of the banks. Again, IMHO….

    The reality is: most of us have a case against the banks. Just because someone says we don’t, why does that matter? The best and brightest have lost to the banks…this is no coincidence or folly of Pro Se homeowners, it is a complete cover for something much larger….and it is by no stretch over.

    For me, being a street gal in my former life, I know shit and abuse when I see it, no need to have legal skills for that!

  53. Neil, you say the investors funds were used to fund loans and that that makes the investors the lenders, which I’ve never gone with. But, if the investors’ funds found their way to a closing, the guy who saw to it they did didn’t do it for free, right? HE became the overnight or short term window and charged for that? Must have been ‘competitive’ with the real overnight window. But how would that then work?
    “A”, payee on note, gets its funds thru some chain, but the funds belong to the investors and weren’t given to funds loans. Only for deposit in the trusts to buy loans, so those loans could become the collateral (by perfection of the security interests in the loans) for the MBS’s. The loans are supposed to go from A to a B to a C (the depositor / seller to trust (?) to the trust, right? The movement from A to B to C is supposed to be a true sale, not merely an assgt of interests, as is the one to the trust, right?
    But no money exchanged hands (between A, B, and C) and the loans would’ve just been transferred to the trusts, if at least something to be done had been done, right? But, no endorsements were done for whatever reasons beneficial to the banksters. And, as it turns out, the loans didn’t end up with the trusts (imo as evidenced by the “MERS” current assignments (or attempt thereof). Why is that? Even if they did what you said, why NOT transfer the loans to the trusts? Because of the lack of endorsements? To accomodate insurance for the benefit of others?
    I’m fwiw thinking or wondering about a couple things:
    IF the investors’ funds were not used to fund the loans, and if as a matter of law, the current transfers to the trust cannot be done, are void, the investors’ funds actually paid off the notes, which leaves the battle between the banksters and the investors. It could be that right after that adjudication, the winner might have some rights against the borrower, but I cannot see it. The bankster was paid off and they don’t get do-overs; they can’t revive a dead (paid off) note. If these were common law trusts, I think the trusts may have some equitable rights, but not so with these trusts. And the trust wouldn’t own anything to which the security interests of the cert holders could attach (by perfection of those security interests), leaving imo only an unsecured claim of the investors against the non-deliverer and anyone else who had a duty to see that the loans were delivered. Seems to me the investors, pursuant to any suit along those lines, could file a lis pendens on assets of the bad actor(s), but don’t ‘know’, but if yes = pandomonium!

    IF the investors’ funds WERE used to fund the loans, obviously no trust has an interest in them to which security interests of the cert holders could attach. If that’s true, and this is the part where we disagree because I don’t think that makes the investors the lender, then what?
    You say no trust account was ever opened so there was no way to put the moolah in the trust, but are you sure the money wasn’t run thru the trust and taken from there to fund the loans? That of course would have its own ramifications. Barring that, if as I and not you submit, the investors aren’t the lenders / creditors, WHO is? WHO is a lender with loans 1) made on embezzled funds or 2) that other word I forget which doesn’t rise to trying to preclude another from realizing the benefit of his money? (it’s not quite theft). But, one thing is the investors must be taking some healthy hits or they wouldn’t be suing as they are. But, to date, they have not alleged lack of delivery to my knowledge, and I don’t know and can’t even speculate why not, unless maybe it’s that
    alleging lack of delibery makes their claims unsecured by anything. So what?
    Is the note which evidences a loan which was made with embezzled or stolen funds a negotiable instrument (if these are otherwise neg instruments)? Can it be moved by article 9?

    If someone other than the trust is (still) the lender, and the loans can’t be now transferred, WHY didn’t the trust funds act to pay off the note? I have posited, admittedly, that the payment for a note undelivered creates a buyer’s security interest* in that note (and its collateral, if any), and I still believe that, but these trusts can’t operate on anything but true sales to my knowledge and there wasn’t one. Only payment for one, that is, partial-performance, and the rest of the entire performance, delivery and acceptance, is now prohibited by trust law.

    Whether the investors’ fund funded the loans at closing or not, one thing seems clear if the loans weren’t delivered: the trust owns nada and the investors have no security interests in the assets of the trust because there aren’t any. And to me, if the funds went into the trust or not, but the investors money were given and taken in exchange for the true sale of made-loans then not delivered, those funds paid off the made-loans (UNless those monies could be categorized as loans to the seller, making the deal a CDO of the seller, no where near a true sale, right?)

  54. There we go again. Flaunting what truly primitive human being’s reactions look like. Any wonder reality TV is such a big thing in this country? Displaying the most asocial and abject behavior gets high rewards. Just as it did in the Roman empire before its fall… And falling, it did!

    History repeating itself.

  55. From the sec info I linked:
    “This also allows the lender to lock in an interest rate for the borrower.”

    This is propaganda, which makes me suspect everything else in there.
    (still it has some good info where reliable)
    The lender does NOT need to sell forward to lock in a rate. It might be helpful for the lender to know how much he can get for a loan, but he doesn’t need that to lock in a rate, as this propaganda would have us believe. It’s just single-view support for selling forward and the TBA market, which I believe comes as news to some of us.

  56. The “champion” speaks! She’s dealing with losers…no one here is dealing with you…got it! This not a partnership…If you are losing a “suspense account” issue, please! You are not qualified to give advice, inject your opinions in anyone’s case, nor subject them to “your” perspective.

    You are not an asset here. Get it? try filing a breach of contract suit in District Court…then when you win we may listen to your ramblings.

  57. Those who attack me the most are precisely those who get… absolutely nowhere! Clear evidence that I’m dealing with losers with a bad attitude who want to change the status quo but are afraid of taking action and resent anyone DOING something and obtaining results.

    The fact of the matter is that, in a law suit, substituting one party’s rights and obligations for another party’s (and vice versa) is the surest way to lose. Especially if said parties have no relation whatsoever between each other and they are not all parties to the law suit: it only proves the writer doesn’t have a frickin’ clue about the issues at hand.

    That and, of course, arguing violation of Sherman Anti-trust law or Rico completely out of school, or cutting-and-pasting absolutely irrelevant excerpts from someone’s case to someone else’s, or trying to piggy back on a servicer’s BK. You all keep making judge’s work so easy for them and then, you look for a scapegoat when you deservedly lose for flaunting how dumb you are. It’s pathetic! And since “Attorney’s are all the same. All they want is my money! They know nothing and they’re as sold as judges and politicians”, don’t complain if, as Gene stated, the won’t represent any of you!

    Don’t take it on me! You elected those morons who made it all happen over 50 years, including your multiple choice education where no one learns anything and especially not to develop any critical thinking.

    This country is done. Deal with it. I didn’t cause it.

    Remarkably in this country freedom of speech is one-sided affair…

  58. “orange cotton jump suits with a button down rear”

    I’ll go for the Province Town look, plastic-see through pants, with an opening in the rear, quick and easy! Service with a smile. Let them see what it feels like to be rendered helpless and have every orifice bleeding…most of these lawyers have sold their souls. Minimal work, for a paycheck, justice my arse. If it weren’t so painful, it would be laughable.

    Yup…the heist is one of calculation and intent, with many more to come! The party you speak of is always looking to capitalize on what she feels may help “her” case-cause, diminishing those of us, who by the way E…to include lawyers, have not the network or procedural skills to battle the “toxic clan” of liars, cheats and counterfeiting bastards.

    A complete chain of endorsements…Hmm, North Carolina has the same standard and has not been met in my case. The judges do not follow their own law as written. And all of this hogwash about securitization….if and only if you can get to trial this may be an issue. You cannot start from the middle and work to the beginning…doesn’t happen that way!

  59. Christine said, “For what the homeowner is concerned, the only papers banks need to have in order are those confirming that they are the right entity to commence legal action and foreclose. What is so hard to understand about: homeowners are NOT a party to the trust, the security and the PSA?”

    Spoken like a true ABA spokesperson. Or a card carrying member of the American Securitization Forum.

    It’s getting old Christine…. each time anyone here, such as myself, goes on about securitization fail, or trusts with their pockets turned inside out like cute little chocolate Easter bunnies, you go off on a wild-eyed tangent on how everyone on LL waits excitedly for Neil Garfield’s latest prose, as if we’re all lying prostrate at the feet of the master. It ain’t so, and it’s an obvious diversionary tactic on your part….change the subject to suit.

    We all know the mine field that awaits not only the pro se’er, but even the skilled attorney who waxes eloquent in front of the typical judge about the lie that is the chain of title, a judge who’s 100% willing to go ahead and give another free home to his/her bankster kin. Why go through the motions when the outcome is known from the start?

    But your line above is not only disingenuous, it’s egregious in its assumptions. Your belief that homeowners (should read: past tense, as in former) have only one concern, that of whether or not the bank has the paperwork in order, is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Is that not the entire problem in a nutshell?

    The only condition under which the banks can show that they are the right entity to commence legal action and foreclose is through criminal acts….PERIOD. Shouldn’t a former homeowner be concerned about that? What about judges, legislators, regulators, and all the president’s men?

    This entire debate could be brought to a head in one single action, along the lines of what Christine wrote above, by forcing the banksters to follow, transparently, the language of the PSA, by showing the world every time they want another house for their portfolio, the:

    the original Mortgage Note bearing all intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the originator to the last endorsee, endorsed ‘Pay to the order of _____________, without recourse’ and signed (which may be by facsimile signature) in the name of the last endorsee by an authorized officer.”

    But of course, no one in any position of power would ever agree to this, due to the fact that 1) the banksters can’t follow that simple procedure, and 2) it would bring down their entire criminal syndicate. Humpty Dumpty law and politics. Who are we to question their authority? Give them our houses and shut the fuck up.

    I can already hear the howls from the usual suspects, about how this shouldn’t or can’t be allowed to take place for this or that reason, or because they’ve got a technicality in law that forbids this. At the same time, we all know, and they know as well, that this is the largest heist in history, and it MUST NOT be allowed to continue as if everything’s hunky dory.

    If I had my way, I’d up the ante. Have the banksters follow the above transparency in each and every foreclosure. Fine….prove it legally and take the house….here’s the key. But if they can’t, and yet they’ve put themselves in front of the court knowing full well that they don’t possess the above paperwork, let them be subject to the laws that are already in the books, i.e. securities fraud, foreclosure fraud, uttering, fraud upon the court, failure to act in accordance with dozens of consent and AG agreements, etc.

    I believe that one simple procedure would clear up the entire problem, either by screeching to a skidding halt all foreclosures, or tossing a significant population of people in expensive suits into the slammer where we all know they belong. I look forward to the day they, each and every one, turn in their Valentino suits for something a little less fashionable, say orange cotton jump suits with a button down rear?

  60. “2. The To-Be-Announced Market

    In addition to the differences in the collateral and structures discussed above, private-label MBS are sold to investors through different market mechanisms than are GSE and Ginnie Mae MBS.35

    Most pass-through MBS of each of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae are eligible to be sold in the “to-be-announced” or TBA market, which is essentially a forward or delayed delivery market.36 ONLY pass-through securities issued or guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae and comprised of single-family mortgages are eligible for trading in the TBA market. The TBA market allows mortgage lenders essentially to sell the loans they intend to fund even before the loans are closed. This also allows the lender to lock in an interest rate for the borrower. The lender, or other market participant, will enter into a forward contract to sell MBS in the TBA market, promising to deliver MBS on the settlement date sometime in the future. In the TBA market, GSE and Ginnie Mae MBS are traded on a forward or delayed delivery basis with settlement up to 180 days later. The actual mortgage pools comprising the MBS are not specified at the time of sale. In fact, many of the mortgage loans may not even be signed (and the mortgage pools created) at the time of sale. The largest volume of trading in the TBA market is for settlement within 30 days.”
    Yep, a rubic’s cube, fathomable by only the sec’s pro’s or serious-have-no-life students. The only way I see to curtail a need-to-know a lifetime worth of info is to concentrate on trust law, chapter and verse,
    the rules of evidence, and cite the mandate for the claimant to demonstrate (or heck, just allege!) some jurisdiction-invoking injury (which would hopefully lead to a money trail). Rules of procedure would be good, too. Or all our houses will be gone by the time we get our rubic’s cube degrees.

  61. “The coupon or interest rate payable on a pass-through MBS is less than the interest rate payable on the underlying mortgage loans in the pool. The interest differential is used to pay for the guarantee fee to one of the GSEs and the servicing fee to the servicer.”

    wow – some good reading

  62. On April 4th, Citigroup entered an agreement to pay 1.125B to investors in trusts who had sued Citi. The lawsuit, brought by NY law firm Gibbs & Bruns (nod) on behalf of 18 institutional investors, sought restitution based on warranties and repurchase provisions in private label securities. Looks like the 1.125 is not inclusive of other ‘fees’.

    I also just read that using an (allegedly) overlooked law from the S &L crisis, prosecutors are after Credit Suisse and a U.S. bank, a biggie, but I lost the article, so can’t name that bank.

    Other info: Private label securitizations are way, way down these days, compared to the insanity of 2004- 2006. These certs don’t have the guarantee of the gse’s is one big reason. Another reason is that now that liar loans aren’t being offered and promoted by the banksters since they’ve at least been spanked, the only non-conforming loans being made are full-document loans for which people actually qualify. Imagine that!
    The gse’s (or just F & F, of course I forget) were on the hook for 2 trillion in guarantees. Wth? F and F were not constrained by income or asset to liability ratios, like say banks are supposed to be. Their purchase and subsequent guarantees of loans / MBS’s were limitless and unchecked because their funds were unlimited, and despite loud warnings from familiar names, kept at it. Not only did they keep at it, under the direction of Reines, they ignored if not totally 86’d quality control. He and his cohorts received 7 if not 8 figure production bonuses at the expense of the American taxpayer. To me, he and his ilk are traitors. F and F were not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S., but dang if they didn’t become so. On our nickels and dimes. THEY became ‘too big to fail’, and the govt -we- were forced to bail them out. Ditto with GNMA, which also guaranteed the certs connected to fha and va loans. GNMA did have the full faith and credit of the U.S.
    Moral hazard? It’s a moral hazard to not make tax-paying homeowners (it’s fair to say homeowners are the working class who pay taxes) pay some jag, but there was no moral hazard created every day of this insanity even if it had been done “legally”? Besides the gse’s, banks assumed liabilities themselves for loans which in a crunch they couldn’t live with, as evidenced by the TARP bailouts. AIG et al did the same, with the same resulting bail-out (and I hear production bonuses). This isn’t news, except to some courts, apparently. Ir wasn’t just the gang we call banksters. The GSE’s were right there in the thick of it. They all put the polity – not just this country, but globally – at the same risk with their feckless, reckless, lying, cheating, thieving BS. Anyone who lost his lunch on his stock portfolio in 2008 and 9 or his job or had to burn thru his savings or any assets damn, lost his dignity well knows that’s true, as do many newly dancing in the welfare lines. F-heads. Yeah, I said it, now that I really get the gse’s involvement in this mess.

  63. Perspective… Dimon got his $11M bonus anyway and Americans still bank with Chase.

    So, everything must still be really peachy.

  64. What a fucked up country! It’s already lost most of its prestige, it is flat broke and it has the imbecile temerity and arrogance of allowing its banks to go after foreign diplomats’ bank accounts, all the while professing empty threats toward Russia, China, Korea, Japan and pretty much anyone who doesn’t do its bidding any longer.

    If the US were looking for a total collapse of its economy and its complete annihilation as a country, it wouldn’t act any other way!!! Oh, there may very well be a short war but with 197 enemies worldwide, (give or take a handful) this country will not survive it. The world, on the other hand, appears to be gearing toward getting rid of that cancer. No wonder so many people on this site have such a hair across… They can tell it’s pretty much over. And they have nowhere to go!

    We can now be sure that the 132 countries involved won’t rest until they have kissed the petrodollar good bye! For good.

    Developing Nations Seek U.N. Retaliation on Bank Cancellations
    By Thalif Deen

    UNITED NATIONS, Apr 10 2014 (IPS) – The 132-member Group of 77, the largest single coalition of developing nations, has urged Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to provide, “as soon as possible…alternative options for banking services” in New York City following the mass cancellation of bank accounts of U.N. missions and foreign diplomats.

    The draft resolution, a copy of which was obtained by IPS, is an “agreed text” which has the blessings of all 132 countries, plus China.

    Responding to a demand by member states for reciprocal retaliation, the G77 requests the secretary-general to review the “U.N. Secretariat’s financial relations with the JP Morgan Chase Bank and consider alternatives to such financial institutions and to report thereon, along with the information requested.”

    Chase bank handles billions of dollars in the accounts maintained by the United Nations and its agencies in New York city.

    The Group expresses “deep concern” over the decisions made by several banking institutions, including JP Morgan Chase, in closing bank accounts of mostly developing countries, and diplomats accredited to the United Nations and their relatives.


    The FNMA hearings of 2004. How quickly we forget, including me; I couldn’t remember the name of the honcho I thought should be tarred and feathered – Franklin Reines aka “Big Bonus”. If this won’t open and you’re interested, just yahoo “fmna and fhlmc hearings 2004”.

  66. For more info, see Financial Markets Association – SIFMA – at

  67. “Identify the collateral behind the mortgage bonds, whether purchasing a pass-through or a more complex CMO.

    Issuer guarantee
    Verify the existence of any guarantee or other credit enhancements and the credit quality of the guarantor.

    YTAL vs. YTM
    Compare a yield-to-average-life to a yield-to-maturity of another comparable investment. A YTAL takes into account the return of principal over time, whereas a YTM is the yield based on a bond’s stated maturity date.


    Payments of interest and principal from securities issued by Ginnie Mae are guaranteed by the U.S. government. However, this guarantee applies only to the face amount and not any premium paid, nor does it protect an investor from price fluctuations.

    Payments of principal and interest from securities issued by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac are guaranteed by these government-sponsored enterprises themselves and do not carry any additional guarantee by the U.S. government.”

  68. “Jim Macklin stepped in and did a great job of getting information into the hands of lawyers and other listeners in what turned out to be a mini-seminar on how to apply Federal tax law to the issue of ownership of the the loan.
    It should be heard more than once to get all the nuances they presented.” okay – where?

  69. Hman
    Maybe call atty
    Dan Mc Cauley Az. Cave Creek

  70. @Hman – If you have different versions of the note with SUBSTANTIAL differences from separate sources and can document their provision by the sources, you may have a tough decision before you. You might consider the legal implication that the chain of title of beneficiary interest is corrupt and that a further payment after knowledge of the corruption might bind you into affirming an illegitimate debt.

    You should expect additional endorsements to be added to the note as time progresses. That would not be a substantial change. The version from Nationstar was likely from an image taken by the title company when loan was made. You should be in evidence collection mode from here on out; every scrap, every envelope, receipt-dated and saved. Your request for copy of note should include ‘certified’ or ‘verified’ so a signature and name is available for witness interrogation and so the document might be admitted as evidence.

    If you are reaching an actionable conclusion as a result of reading this, you should consult a real attorney, as these are basic elements of building a case that have escaped you, and things get tougher as the case builds.

    IANAL – I am not a lawyer. Like many others before (and after) me, I cannot afford legal counsel, so I’m doing the best I can with what I have to work with.

  71. @Ian – Lenore Albert, Esq., may have the case in point in CA. The appellate court that Lexis mis-reported remanded the RICOH cause of action back for trial.

  72. I agree, with E. too

    We should all genuflect and thank our lucky stars to get a modification…right! The bulk of the “enormous” fees are all lawyer fees. For doing what, attaching 2 pieces of paper, where all other contractual conditions apply? Never any mention of their contract with you being breached…

    Lenore Albert out in CA is getting it done too. She is threatening to sue Lexis/Nexis for manipulating her case ruling in the Galope appeal. She calls them bastards, for writing the case as if the bank won and it did not, a Libor case…she’s in your face and has won against BOA, Deutsche bank, etc…

    No one has to go to great lengths here…the loudest screamers are the most unable to handle the truth.

    If these bankers had the goods they would not have to cheat, lie and counterfeit. It is just that simple! No brilliance needed….

  73. I have a question regarding the liability of the loan servicer. My loan was sold from Aurora to Nationstar. Aurora provided me with all types of robosigned crap. Multiple versions of the note etc…I asked Nationstar for a copy of the note, chain of assignment, etc…& it was different than what my previous loan servicer provided me with. Nationstar’s version was lacking an allonge & assignments that were on Aurora’s version. Nationstar note actually predated Aurora’s. They claim to be the successor? (I won’t even mention how the person who signed the allonge for Deutsche, also signed on behalf of Aurora & MERS).

    Anyway, I pointed this out to Nationstar & they claim they are not liable for any actions taken by the previous servicer? Surely, this can’t be true. Don’t they buy the MSR’s with conditions? What law(s) whould this be in violation of? I live in AZ. If anyone has any knowledge regarding this would be appreciated.

    Thank you & have a great weekend.

  74. E.Tolle-
    Well-written piece, listening to others on this blog would have people believe that they should thank God they got a loan modification with a 90k dollar ballon, force placed insurance and all the regular treats.
    I have read all the pieces you quoted, the authors are decent people, especially Adam Levitin. He made mincemeat of the head of the ASF (American securitization forum), or American securitization council. I forget that guys name, think it was Tom deutsch, he is a lying dirtbag. Everyone in his organization is a lying dirtbag. It was hilarious to see the guys tortured body language, as he was backed into a corner by a brillian, HONEST lawyer with an amazing and impeccable pedigree. So “securitization fail” is prevalent in all cases. We (you and I) both know that there are no trusts, and that the PSA arises from fraud. So you and I won’t be giving up on this criminal RICO case against the US public and indeed the world. Thanks for the well-timed post

  75. Some people do go to enormous lengths to prove over and over how limited they are. It just happens to be the exact same people who also file the stupidest legal actions on the stupidest grounds and who hate the entire world when they get the only logical result they could have gotten.

    Coincidence? Nope. Simple divine justice in action.

  76. Ha, Ha, Ha…I see chrissy is at it again…haven’t you all figured her out yet? Agreeing with the one’s she thinks can help her. She only has a “suspense” account issue…nothing like the rest here. Just saying

    At the end of the day the DC clan is sanctioning this coup. Most of the claims are valid. This “land grab” is specific and “intentional”…and no most cannot prove it, but it doesn’t make it untrue!

    And Gene, no I am not a know-it-all, but the magnitude of this is not accidental…the scope and scale of it is just too large and check out what Harry-the-scumbag-Reid is up to…

  77. That kind of idiotic, vitriolic reaction doesn’t prove me wrong. Quite the contrary.

  78. @elexquisitor at what point does jumping down someone’s throat talking about blathering less is somehow going to make me see a point your trying to convey? I am to old and mad to sit up and stop talking. So I not getting what your talking about when you referred to Glaski.

  79. @Craptine – no help for homeowners? Didn’t you hear the bankster shyster beg off of further court action because they’re settling with the Glaski attorney (prior link)?

    Why don’t you take YOUR winnings and whinings and start YOUR own website at YOUR expense that the rest of us can ignore so we can share meaningful tactics that are apparently beyond your comprehension?

  80. @CharlesReed – you need to listen more and blather less. When you listen to the bank shyster’s argument in the previous link (Glaski attorney) you never hear the phrase “… in due course”.

    Get a gag, man.

  81. christine a MBS is not a loan but a by-product of a loan like a egg is the by-product of the Chicken. When you purchase eggs you are not purchasing the chickens that laid the eggs.

    It does not matter what some trust or investors expects because by law they cannot purchase home mortgage loan if they are not register home mortgage lender, like any other businesses! License Lawyer, Doctor, Electrician and so on.

    This is an issue between the borrower and the license lender and not the Pauly from down the block. I don’t care what any Trust thinks or files, if they are not endorsed on the Notes and are not in title. The law does not give these trust the right to collact and in fact they are not trying to collect, but are sending these servicer to collect for them.

    If you can collect you collect and don’t get some clown to pretend that they are the “holder in due course” to lie to the court that they are.

    Trust or Investors are not even saying that they purchase home mortgage loans, because with Ginnie Mae the securities are insured at 100% while home mortgage loans are not!

  82. By MBD April 4, 2014
    Read More →
    Vietnam Sentences Corrupt Bankers To Death By Firing Squad

    American bankers who brought on the 2008 global financial collapse, by and large, didn’t get indicted, or face any significant consequences for their actions. In fact, many of them even got huge bonuses.

    That wouldn’t have been the case in Vietnam, another nation struggling with corrupt and unscrupulous bankers.

    During a recent cleanup of Vietnam’s financial sector, the strictly authoritarian nation sentenced three bankers to death by firing squad in the past six months alone.

    According to Vietnam’s Tuoi Tre news outlet, many of the co-conspirators got life in prison, with the “Madoffs” of Vietnam being the high-profile characters who were sentenced to death. The point, many in Vietnam say, is to send a message.

    Adam McCarty, chief economist with the Hanoi-based consulting firm Mekong Economics, says that “It’s a message to those in this game to be less greedy and that business as usual is getting out of hand.”

    “The message to people in the system is this: Your chances of getting caught are increasing,” McCarty continued. “Don’t just rely on big people above you. Because some of these [perpetrators] would’ve had big people above them. And it didn’t help them.”

    “They don’t care about foreigners. It’s all internal politics,” McCarty said. He explains that foreign banking learders wouldn’t be dissuaded by a few executions anyway. “If you really want to want to resolve the problem, you can’t just arrest people,” he said. “You’ve got to improve accountability and transparency in the entire system.”

    A local, Vietnames op-ed recently ran, confronting this issue, saying that, “it is better to prevent corruption,” the paper opined, “than deal with it after the fact.”

    (Article by M.B. David)

  83. Ian,

    “…at least have your paperwork in order”. Absolutely true. And what I’m trying to get across is that the definition of order depends on what state you live in.

    50 states. 50 sets of different rules, for what foreclosure is concerned. I bet “papers in order” doesn’t mean the same thing in CA or in OH. In fact, I know for a fact it doesn’t.

    For what the homeowner is concerned, the only papers banks need to have in order are those confirming that they are the right entity to commence legal action and foreclose. What is so hard to understand about: homeowners are NOT a party to the trust, the security and the PSA?

    NG might serve regulators by helping them understand the financial shenanigans (and I’m not even convinced of that) but he is definitely NOT HELPING homeowners. He’s creating false hopes, confusion and manufacturing losses across the 50 states by inciting people to plead irrelevant arguments.

    You guys can keep following him and attacking everyone who does not agree but all we have to do is look for the winners on NG’s theories! Where is the old guard who pleaded all that crap and followed NG for 3 or 4 years? Carie, Zur, E.Tolle, Anon, UKG and the many more who were so gun-ho, they were ready to take on the world just by reading NG? They literally bit the dust! What more do people need before they’ll wise up?

    Keep in mind that NG makes a very decent living selling you his load you’re more than willing and ready to buy, even though you don’t have a clue what it is. Can you say the same?

    A crap load wrapped in anything is still a crap load and it still stinks the same!

  84. Tons-O-Smoke being blown on LL these days. Everyone knows that the loans were never properly securitized. An improper transfer, under NY law, isn’t just a snafu, it’s void. It’s really quite simple….securitization fail means securities fraud and leads to foreclosure fraud. Think Kemp. As Adam Levitin said:

    “Now here’s the real kicker: there’s no reason to think that the Kemp note was a unique, one-off problem. All evidence from actual foreclosure cases points to the lack of a chain of endorsements on the Kemp note being not the exception, but the rule, and not just for Countrywide, but industry-wide. Certainly on the non-delivery point (separate from the non-endorsement problem), Countrywide admitted that non-delivery was “customary.” If either of these issues, non-delivery or non-endorsement is widespread, then I think we’ve got a massive problem in our financial system.”

    Abigail Field says it well:

    “The criminal securities fraud at the heart of the financial crisis has one very under-reported aspect: “securitization fail.” Once you understand the securitization fail concept, you can instantly, with tremendous clarity, see the scale of the fraud the Bailed Out Banks and Wall Street firms committed and commit every day. Get securitization fail, and the bankers’ crimes stand out like a vast herd of bison on the South Dakota prairie.

    Perhaps the most critical insight that flows from understanding securitization fail, however, is that the crimes will continue so long as we are processing foreclosures. When you understand securitization fail, you understand the scale of liability the Bailed Out Bankers created for themselves, and why foreclosure fraud is their preferred escape route. In fact, you’ll understand why the banks will continue to commit foreclosure fraud regardless of signing the settlement with law enforcers. Get securitization fail and you understand that a thorough investigation could straightforwardly document it, and create so much leverage for law enforcement that it could essentially dictate terms of settlement.”

    And yet Gene, Christine and tnharry want us all to believe that the best we can hope for is to catch the banksters at their criminality long and hard enough, whilst paying through the nose for a savvy lawyer, so that they’ll fold up shop and offer wads of free cash they get from all of us through on-going giveaways that our government bestows upon the criminals. Because we all know the highest return on assets is always a political contribution. All these courts granting holder status on copies of notes is crime on top of crime. But, the Very Serious People believe they need to save the system, no matter how corrupt, because, well, because they’re all in on it, and it’s still working for them.
    Even Abigail Field says the same thing:

    “Although the information in this post is true, securitization fail, even of your loan, will not typically prevent the bank from foreclosing on you, unless you have a good lawyer. Even then, realistic end game is a sustainable modification, not a free house.”

    So, the banks have gotten away with getting free houses on the order of oh, let’s see…somewhere around ten million times….so there are, in fact, free houses to be had, you just have to have the right political connections, sorry….that should read: political contributions, something that lowly borrowers just don’t have. At the same time, we’ve lost nearly $10 trillion dollars in equity, which the banksters are starting to make back as housing prices slowly start their upward climb. The perfect heist.

    The argument that the borrower has no standing is pure bullshit when viewed through the Kemp or Glaski prism. Even the OCC agrees on page eight.

    Anyone not yet understanding that this entire event was a perfectly executed crime wave has their head up their ass. Modification is a crime.

    “Under communism, man exploits man: under capitalism, it’s the other way around”

  85. @Ian – what do you do? Your contract probably specifies that you defend the title to the property, as presented at the end of Neil’s show yesterday. What will be interesting is whether the fed will push to have these foreclosure cases tried in tax court, where pro se is not allowed.

  86. Look! Real case law about a foreclosure that didn’t even have a note! Notice the tone of the decision regarding the unbelievable chain of title the trial court allowed.

    @Christine – “… Use your state laws to defend yourself …”? Apparently you are too intellectually challenged to understand that the recent Rouse decision of the 9th Circuit will be used to federally preempt state laws.

    At least I admit IANAL (I am not a lawyer)

  87. christine with Washington Mutual Bank government insured loans, the loan were placed into the Ginnie Mae MBS and Wells Fargo Bank started servicing the loan in 2006, so they took physical possession of the loan when they purchase the operations building in Milwaukee WI for 1.3 million FHA & VA loans. Now it is a fact that its is WaMu who is the last entity that is endorsed on the Note and the Notes where then endorse in blank.

    So as there was this servicing agreement with Wells Fargo that they would servicing these loan for WaMu who still held the debt but not the Notes, the problem is once WaMu died, the MERS link is loss because WaMu is no longer a member of MERS and MERS is only involved because of the Security Instrument that end with WaMu.

    MERS has no ability to act as WaMu is dead and was not in possession of the blank Notes and Ginnie Mae has no evidence that they purchase the debt because it is illegal for them to originate, but or sale a home mortgage loans.

    This is nationway as there not a place in the United States were Ginnie Mae is in title as the “holder in due course” and as with UCC 9 they would are in possession of the blank Note who are not the originator has the burden of proof that they purchase the debt. The fact is that it know that Ginnie Mae did not purchase the debt. Now what provided cover for the scheme is that it was assumed that JPMorgan purchased WaMu’s loans but we know that did not happen!

  88. Sorry all. Spellcheck at work again

  89. Christine- as Judge Shack in NY said at the get go, “if you are going to take someone’s house, at least have your paperwork in order”. The banks/nonbanks don’t have their paperwork in order, absent forged, fabricated, backdated everything. So why is all this forgery necessary? NG is at least trying to examine this. Why are there no original notes, and why are they not returned to homeowners stamped “paid In full”? Instead we get “satisfaction of morfgage” by yet another robotic or/forger w no authority? What happens a yr of 10 from. Ow when the actual creditor shows up w the actual note?
    I see the problem as twofold: 1, the homeowner has defaulted on the note. Put that aside if you will. 2. Simone who isn’t the lender, creditor,morgagee or holder by any stretch of the imagination wants to foreclose on you using previously mentioned bogus documents-
    What do you do? Look the other way? Pretend there are no answers in the universe?
    My kids will be on the hook for trillions of dollars worth of loans to all the central banks of the world by the Fed, and debt issued by the Treasury to cover up all this crap. And we are to believe that this was all caused by deadbeat borrowers who bought too much house?

  90. Charles,

    True and pretty much litigation 101. But from the moment MERS was sanctioned by federal courts as perfectly legitimate, standing is one of the toughest arguments to win. Besides, states have established their own rules on what constitutes standing: in some, the fact that a loan transfer was alleged by the foreclosing entity is enough. In other states, transfer must be recorded to be considered valid. Learn what your state says.

    Coming here to get one-size-fits-all sweeping generalities to use, without one shred of evidence that they are usable, is the best recipe for a loss. Do your homework, study your state case law, see what works and act on that. That’s the B- A BA of defending yourself! If you were physically attacked here, with a machine gun made in the US, would you go get a bayonet to defend yourself because “it worked for my grand-father in Europe”? Same thing with foreclosure defense: banks use state laws to get to court. Use your state laws to defend yourself!

    Help yourself and stick with tries and true. That’s all I can say. And if trying to instill common sense into people qualifies as hatred in your mind, then so be it. So far, I’m not losing. And the way I do it is by using what I understand and being able to articulate it.

    Gene is right: if you’re confused, incoherent and inarticulate when you come here to write, imagine what impression you’ll make on a judge or a jury! Doesn’t mean the judge hates you or is corrupt. It only means that you made no sense and you forced his decision based on the law.

  91. I understand what NG is saying. And in the moral world of right and wrong , he is right. Unfortunately, we are not in a right and wrong world presently and I do not see the defenses holding back the thiefs and definitely do not see the proof of any homeowners wins.

  92. It not a free house if the party calling the loan due has “No Standing” if and when the proper party could come forward and request an amount be pay subject to the contract/Note, then its dealt with at that point.

    However borrowers don’t have any obligations to someone that does not have a financial interest in the properties. I see that some people are wanting the borrowers to answer to anyone because it is about the actual ownership, but that you feel that in the future one may come forward with an endorsed Note and possess the debt, is simply done by presenting to the court exactly that. However when other are claiming ownership but cannot provide any proof of that other than a Forgery from DocX or MERS does not cut it.

    There are winner and losers and if in a Washington Mutual Bank who now out of business but was not in possession of the Notes at the time of death, then those loan debt will never be able to be claim as due because there no valid party that can make that claim, and a valid contract does not exist ay longer! Its not a free house, but it is a shorten loan term up until the time the bank was pronounced DOA on Sept 25, 2008!

  93. “Ask yourselves a question? Why does he keep making his explanations so confusing? One of the first things attorneys are taught is to make their claims as simply as possible so that the jury will be able to follow the trail. Do you see it here? NO!! It is a mass of confusion and misdirection.”

    Actually, that’s been a dead give-away for me from the get go and one of the reasons why Mandelman sounds more trustworthy in his approach: he’s clear and uncomplicated. The facts have always been extremely simple and the issues quite simple too:
    – Homeowners wants house.
    – Homeowners borrows from bank or lander.
    – Homeowners fails to repay for all kinds of valid reasons (no one gets up one morning deciding to default on his bills. Just doesn’t exist. If there’s one thing government ought to have focused on it’s toward fixing the areas most susceptible of causing homeowner’s default: lack of job and medical bills…)
    – Homeowner must leave and give back the keys.

    Pretty much everything in between is irrelevant, for what homeowner is concerned. PSA, securities, trust, AIG insurance, all that is none of homeowner’s business and courts are justified in refusing to hear homeowner on those points.

    There is no free house except when bank’s attorneys piss off the BK judge enough by trying to pull one over him and being condescending.
    Ask Butler from MN.

  94. Gene- I get it that you are in the trenches on a daily basis, and from your experience, NG theories have no chance there.
    But from a common sense approach, if the trusts never existed legally under NY Trust law, due to blatant disregard for the law, then how is it possible that anyone under the nonexistent trust is empowered to carry out any function whatsoever? I recall the CEO of Moody’s I think it was, testifying before a House panel on Cspan, that they rated “in excess of 43,000 MBS. What about Fitch and D&B? Another 50-70,000?
    And as of last month, Fitch is rating only 1400, mostly GSEs. What happened to the others? Have they all “gone dark”?
    If a NY Trust doesn’t exist because they skipped all the legally mandated requirements under NY Trust law, IRC rules and SEC requirements, then why is everyone pretending that they do in fact exist?
    The phone number for the “Trust” which “owns” my loan rings through the California phone number to my servicers office.
    And the servicer assigned the loan to themselves in 2011 via an allonge using 2 entities, one out of business in 08, the other out of business in 09. So what the hell are they all doing with these seemingly nonexistent trusts?
    Your comments please. Thx

  95. Can you practice law without passing the bar? So why does Neil not get you cannot assume the ability to be a lender if your not authorized to do so.

    Can you practice medicine without being license? Just because there is so type of transaction does not mean that you authorized by law which with these mortgages it assumed that because Fannie & Freddie have purchase the Notes but are not able to mortgage service the loan and cannot be listed on the Notes or get them recorded, is the elephant in the room.

  96. Maybe the Glaski attorney arguing before a WA trial judge attacking the relationships among beneficiary, borrower, servicer, loan trustee will help.

  97. Here is what most people cannot understand why not Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie or Trust are listed on these Notes is because they are not home mortgage lenders…..period! If your not a regulated lender which all I have mention above you will never be endorsed the Notes and there is never a situation around the county where these entities are in title.

    Here lately the court have been denying the ability for foreclosing because as some lender is claiming the right to foreclosed but its shows that Fannie or Freddie was alleged to have purchase the loan.

    Because it was simply accepted in the past that any bank claiming to be the owner was allowed to foreclose while not actual holding the debt.

    Until Neil and his buddies understand that these post agreement in MBS are just that in post, and don’t have any provisions in the original contract/Note were the borrowers have agreed to this post deal as the borrowers are not even inform as to securities in a written form or oral.

    If the Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie or Trust has a right to collect, then all they have to do is go to the court with the Notes and some proof of purchase, but be a authorized party by banking rules to participate in the originating, buying or selling of these instrument which Trust are not allowed to do. There are not account set (pass through) up because the servicing is a fraud when the blank Notes are relinquish to a non lender.

    One can only legally lend when one is a qualified lender as loan sharks cannot bring a claim in court that they lent monies and are trying to collect. The loan shark in shit out of luck!

  98. The theory is interesting but can it realistically be applied in court? (As also suggested by comments below). Does anyone have any case law where the theory has been argued? The standing issue would seem to be critical on both sides. As Gene points out, it would seem the BK trustees, e.g. in Rescap, would be checking out the validity of the “assets” claimed by or to be controlled by these entities that now are laundering these claims through bankruptcy courts – a point that really must be addressed regardless of whether its the investors or trust/trustee that is claiming ownership of the loans: how are they “core” assets to a company that has never had any interest?

  99. Once again, pure “sham” arguments.

    If this were the case, why are the Investors like PIMCO not using these arguments? Surely they have law firms who are smart enough to sort this stuff out, or are NG and others the “smartest people in the room” and this is just far too difficult for anyone else to understand?

    What about the RESCAP bk? I am sure that the BK Trustee would understand what is claimed by NG.

    All NG is doing here is engaging in “smoke and mirrors”.

    Ask yourselves a question? Why does he keep making his explanations so confusing? One of the first things attorneys are taught is to make their claims as simply as possible so that the jury will be able to follow the trail. Do you see it here? NO!! It is a mass of confusion and misdirection.

    If I had to testify to this garbage on the stand, and since I don’t accept it I would not, I would want to present it in clear and uncertain terms that a jury would follow.

    Don’t ever try to bring these types of arguments to court. You will get killed. I could take RESPA and knock it out quickly.

    I could also explain in simple terms why the claims are b.s.

    Also, as Javagold asks, it does not help the homeowner because the homeowner would have no ability to challenge it as a 3rd Party Beneficiary.


    Now, back to work on a presentation to be given today on the practical effects of the new QM Mortgages and the Duty to Care provision, and potential legal liability for originators and assignees.

  100. So how does this help all the homeowners who had their homes stolen in Fraudclosure ????

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: