For information on the issues presented in this article, assistance in litigation, forensic analysis, expert testimony, consultations please call 954-495-9867.


There is a battle going on in the media. On the one hand the banks are flooding virtually all outlets with stories about how the foreclosure crisis is behind us and how the stocks of the mega banks are a great investment. So why are we continuing to see “Settlements” and fines and sanctions on the increase, along with whistle blower settlements that are drawing out the people who even now continue to remain anonymous even as they continue to feed essential information to law enforcement and bank regulators? The latest is an award of $14 million from the SEC for assistance with an undisclosed case against an undisclosed bank.

Despite the “good news” stories we see how delinquencies and foreclosures are being reported by more reliable sources as increasing for the first time in a while, plus the fact that banks are selling off deficiency judgments to debt collectors, thus refreshing the nightmare of foreclosure fraud committed by the banks. Borrowers are still being thrown under the bus in order to prop up an ailing economy — ailing only because the wealth of average households was siphoned off in just a few years and will continue for the unforeseeable future.

Then there is the issue of the stock prices of the banks and the index stocks generally. Flooding the marketplace with stories about how strong the banks are, how the economy is improving — while the more accurate reports that the economy is stagnating (see Schiller’s latest projections), how it will continue to stagnate, how Europe is turning downright gloomy, and the banks are teetering on a myth, to wit: that their balance sheets are solid. But the balance sheets are not solid.

Two essential tricks are being allowed by the SEC and bank regulators. First they are allowing banks to report ownership of bonds that are actually owned by investors — and that the bonds are worth 100 cents on the dollar. This changes Tier 3 Assets (assets valued by management) to Tier 1 Assets or Tier 2 Assets (reference to a liquid market price because of the purchases by the Federal Reserve at 100 cents on the dollar. Under auditing and reporting rules this is all legal despite the fact that the bonds are (a) not owned by the banks and (b) are worthless because they were issued by REMIC Trusts that never received the proceeds of sale of the MBS.

Second, the banks are being allowed to launder their own ill gotten profits through their “proprietary trading” desks. I didn’t see the purchases by the Federal reserve coming because I naively thought the government would not be complicit in this massive fraud upon the American people. But I did predict as far back as 2007 that the earnings reports of the banks.

If you are pursued for deficiency I think there are numerous defenses that can be raised. This development, based upon the arrogance of the banks, might be the exact vehicle homeowners, students and other borrowers are looking for. While the collectors will assert that the case is over and a judgment was rendered, borrowers have an opportunity to raise several issues including “show me the money!” If the whole thing can exposed as a fraudulent effort to collect money that was owed to a party who didn’t even know they were being cheated (investors in REMICs) both the delinquency and the foreclosure might be eviscerated.

We also see a strong uptick on the number of homes that are cleaned out when there was no hint of foreclosure. Why are these “mistakes” happening? The answer is simple — the banks have created the illusion of “Chinese walls that often bleed over into reality. They have three or more computer systems that draw on different indexes and database applications that function outside of the purview of the custodian of records — which is why the no certificate, affidavit or testimony of a records custodian is EVER offered in litigation. The records custodians simply don’t know and have plausible deniability as to the actual conduct of the bank that employs them.

And why would the banks oppose the Smart programs offered by charitable institutions and the more aggressive AMGAR program started by livinglies? In both cases they get paid all they are going to get paid from the property sale. In the Smart programs around the country, the association buys the property at auction or from the “REO” inventory. Then they sell it back to the homeowner under reasonable mortgage terms, and sell off the mortgage in the secondary market. In AMGAR, the offer is made to pay the entire amount claimed as due — if the bank can prove payment, ownership and balance. WHY ARE THE BANKS OPPOSING METHODS TO PAY THEM IN FULL?

And then there is the period in which homeowners have a right of redemption. It seems there are several options available to homeowners even if they flat out lose — they can still sell the house, pay off the fraudulent judgment and pocket the profits.


Here are some of the other news stories to give you context:

The Forbes article takes issue with Robert Schiller’s chilling assessment of our economic prospects. The problem is he is a Nobel prize winner who studies this day in and day out while the editor’s of Forbes are only aware of the surface data. Schiller is right and as he predicted along with dozens of others (including myself) the cause is the crisis in household debt which is driven mostly by “mortgage” debt. The Federal Reserve, at least until Yellen became Chairman, has been more interested in propping up the banks even if it is based upon several layers of outright lies. Household wealth has vanished and the debt crisis is flowing over the top. AND now the banks have the temerity to pursue delinquency judgments — again using their time-honored technique of distancing themselves from remote entities that are simply debt collectors.

44 Responses

  1. Can someone tell me what this type of filing means in laymans terms SEC 15d-6

    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

    FORM 15


    Commission File Number 333-122688-17

    Residential Asset Securities Corporation, as depositor for RASC Series 2006-EMX1
    (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

    8400 Normandale Lake Blvd., Suite 250,
    Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437,
    (952) 857-7000

    (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of
    registrant’s principal executive offices)

    Home Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-EMX1

    (Title of each class of securities covered by this Form)


    (Titles of all other classes of securities for which a duty to file reports
    under section 13 (a) or 15(d) remains)

    Please place an X in the box(es) to designate the appropriate rule
    provision(s) relied upon to terminate or suspend the duty to file reports:

    Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(i) |_| Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(i) |_|
    Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(ii) |_| Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(ii) |_|
    Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(i) |_| Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(i) |_|
    Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(ii) |_| Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(ii) |_|
    Rule 15d-6 |X|

    Approximate number of holders of record as of the certification or notice
    date: 3

    Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
    Residential Asset Securities Corporation, acting solely in its capacity as
    depositor for the above-referenced Trust, has caused this certification/notice
    to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned duly authorized person.

    Date: January 11, 2007 By: /s/ Mark White
    —————————— ——————————
    Name: Mark White
    Title: Vice President

  2. Did you have a title report done? Are you sure their is a lien?

  3. Only the OWNER of the Debt can grant the holder of the note the power to enforce.

  4. Charles .. When you say “there must be proof of purchase” for an entity to be able to come to court with a note stamped in blank, in order for them to be allowed to enforce both the note and the mortgage lien, are you saying my servicer Wells Fargo who alleges they are only mere “holders” of the note stamped in blank by Washington Mutual needs to show that they purchased the mortgage loan, or show the proof that Fannie Mae purchased it before they should be allowed to enforce and take the property?

    The Judges keep relying on the UCC that defines who can enforce a note and seek foreclosure .. they always seem to indicate that as long as the party in possession of a note stamped in blank has the actual possession , then that’s good enough for the court.

    So how would you present your argument to the Judge that he needs to see proof of who the actual owner and holder in due course is?
    Isn’t WF going to point to the bogus Assignment of Mortgage and claim that it gives them the right to enforce? I don’t see cases where the Judge is demanding proof of purchase , how do I overcome this?

    Is there a specific UCC 9 or 3 rule that clearly describes and defines that a chain of transactions and purchases must be made to show proof of who the real party is, who the owner of the loan is, who the real holder in due course is?

    Why does anyone have to purchase the loan when it gets transferred between entities? What’s to stop them from claiming that the originator remains the holder in due course? Each transfer of the note gets a stamped endorsement “pay to the order of” .. and when the next banks name is filled in , that effectively established “the sale” , but do they have to charge money and show a receipt of a financial transaction?

    or are you saying that the stamped endorsement filled in with the next banks name is the actual proof of the sale?

    In my case, WF is holding a note stamped in blank from WaMu , why can’t they just write their name in the blank line? Pay to the order of >
    Wells Fargo Bank ? or does the last HIDC WaMu have to be the one to fill in the blank?

  5. Charles the pretender whistleblower wanna be paid for grasping at straws, didn’t you lose your home in 2011? My state had understood the issues since 2004. Nelson vs Bayview.

  6. The Note is the evident of debt and the Securities Instrument (mortgage, deed of trust, securities deed) are the title/lien. When you freely relinquish the blank endorsed Note without have a purchase occur it separates the Note from a debt! If you don’t know what your talking about then stay in your lane!

    I understand there is a certain amount of hate going on here but understand what a Note is, and that is an agreement to payback the debt. The only proof of that obligation is the Note and if you don’t possess that you got nothing!

  7. The note is evidence of the debt, it is not the debt. A holder with rights to enforce can and will fc, blank endorsement or not. If they can prove the elements to invoke standing your goose is cooked. You give bad advise.

  8. Its the seperation of the Note and the Mortgage.

  9. For so long people were focus of separation of Note and Title, but that not the key as the separation is the Note & Debt when a Note is endorsed in blank and not purchased. I know we going to win I just don’t know how long after this election they can keep up the game. Maybe Holder being gone allows the Fed Gov a chance to save face, and in a round about way without admitting it blame Holder ala Shineski and the Secret Service director! Would explain Castro being placed as HUD Secretary for just the 2yrs left!

  10. Yours Truly was on the Witness List. Contracts and State Laws vary. You should seek an attorney in the Jurisdiction the property is located. Many Blessings to All!

  11. Take #2. Congrats to My Daughter! 7yrs in the slow churning Wheels of Justice. Justice has been served.

  12. No lien, note not recorded and warranty deed not filed. Unknown and Unrecorded?

  13. Good point, Charles. I read somewhere on this blog that one of the posters back in the late eighties or early nineties had gotten a note back PAID IN FULL that had numerous endorsements and notations on it after it had gone through the system properly. He stated it had many endorsements on it. I think he said the notation PAID IN FULL was in blue ink and stamped. You point about holder in due course is interesting because I had a second mortgage retired in bkcy, and they (some form of Citi) would not answer me at all. Do not know what happened to that. It is still on the record, however.

  14. Why do they sue non borrowing homeowners et al? They need our consent (lack of denial) to fc the estate? Just say No! Why sue those with unknown and unrecorded intrests? No liens, note not recorded .. Ut umm.

  15. Ian, re ABCD. Do you recall the 2011 all in one assignments of the note and mortgage together? The note chain does not mesh with the chain of title. WHY? Will the FC wash the asset?

  16. Unfunded Trusts. No Trust!

  17. Why didn’t they disclose the real lender? Why would they report (prior to 2008) to a non borrowing homeowners credit report that they were borrowers? Why do they need the non borrowing homeowner to admit they are borrowers? Why would they try to collect a much much larger debt from the non borrower than the borrower on the note? What note are we talking about? The note or the mortgage note?

  18. Neidermeier- I guess a properly executed REMIC would satisfy the criteria. A>B>C>D transfers to create a bankruptcy-remote vehicle as per the PSA and trust docs.
    This is a good time to remind everyone that I have been told by attorneys, who have collectively handled thousands of foreclosures, that they have never seen ONE mortgage note which has had the “two true sales”, let alone the ABCD (originator>sponsor>>depositor>trust) transfers. So there we have it, the NMBS, or non-mortgage backed security. Empty, contains nothing. Zilch.

  19. Charles, the servicers/banks, etc. have not been very worried about doing whatever they can to commit whatever crimes they want in order to steal and obfuscate the trail of their criminal behavior. It does not matter who you rip off, just as long as you line your pockets with somebody else’s money whether it be homeowners, investors, the US government, other foreign governments, state and local governments, taxpayers, etc.

  20. Another one bites the dust. Hit the road jack and don’t come back! Congrats!!!

  21. The Notes are held by the custodian of record, and the issue is when the Note is endorsed in blank, and it cannot be moved from here to there as physical possession does exchange ownership of the Note but what also needed is proof of purchase.

    There are not Trusts or Insurers listed on the Note as owner and none in title as having a lien! You must be a license regulated home mortgage lender to be on the Notes period!

  22. Charles, also the alleged “Note” is sold into a trust and cannot be used again. Note cannot exist and be a “security” so who is holding the note? Is it the Trust? There should be endorsements on the note that said it went through the sponsor, the depositor and into the Trust. We do not see that, do we?

  23. Notes cannot be sold to the trust as the trust is not a lender, but what they are selling is the by-product which is the mortgage performance, and the payment goes through a pass though system. The Notes are not actually a part of anything but an agreement between a home mortgage lenders and the borrowers and that it. These others can claim ownership but if there are not a regulated lender they cannot originate, buy or sell a home mortgage loan!

  24. Yes, the notes are supposed to sold and retired into the Trust never out of there again and, thus, no violations of REMIC IRS law. The fleecing of America continues.

  25. neidermyer, we are talking about two different thing and they are drawing home loan borrower into what securities do and that not in the contract/Notes that are signed at the home mortgage loan closing. The Notes at no time are suppose to be destroyed because it is the contract between the two parties.

    What a lender does after the fact in some post other financial arrangement, does not involve the homeowner. Now if the lender wants to give that payment to whoever that there business as loan as the record and apply our payment! Borrowers have a principal and interest payment and in a lot of cases an escrow account!

    This burning the Notes by servicers are crazy! Yes there going to be that one case were a building burns down and it certified that the Note were in the fire, but when it come to foreclosing at no point in time can any other party but the LENDER “holder in due course” can act as the owner of the debt. They are no trust or is Ginnie, Fannie & Freddie in title as the owner of the debt!

  26. Neil ,

    I am VERY interested in finding out more about how your “AMGAR” proposal is working ,, I would like to see the proposal paperwork that you submit to the “bank”/plaintiff with the payoff proposal … I would like to be both a principal with $$$$ and a rainmaker… I’m in central Florida and would put the program directly to homeowners in foreclosure.

    Please e:mail me a copy at:

    brian_and_lilla AT

  27. @ Charles Reed & Ian ,

    Regarding a properly executed REMIC wouldn’t the liquidated/converted notes be marked “satisfied” ,, either the certificates exist or the note exists but not both.

    @ Louise ,

    Regarding the satisfaction … I refer you to DocX and the Wells Fargo “how to commit doc fraud” cookbook.

  28. AMGAR , background …

  29. Chas reed- well said! What on earth could a judge possibly say to refute this?

  30. Louise- they use forgery and fake names to do this

  31. I need the trustee agreement from the sellers trust along with a WD. The mortgage is an encumb but there is no lien.

  32. I can’t imagine why they get so upset when you ask for proof of payment, . Can You Neil?

  33. Whose note is it? It could be anybody or everybody. It could be me or it could be … Oh Never Mind.

  34. Louise you hit a point that I believe they don’t want to address is a loan pooled into a MBS and there not an endorsed named Note, that that loan can never be stamped paid because in the case of a blank Note there is no “holder in due course”!

  35. Last checked they haven’t paid. Putt them on notice of claim.

  36. KC said the Plaintiffs note. . File T.A. And W.D. Show proof MERS was paid?

  37. Since the servicers/banks/trusts do not own the Note, how can they provide a satisfaction of mortgage or a note paid in full?

  38. For the low price of $89,000 @ 2 percent intrest they would give a loan mod without warranty as to quality or quanity to title.

  39. Moron. Some worked 60hr weeks, made mortgage payments for 30yrs, payed taxes and saved for retirement. Apparently $189,000 isn’t enough to payoff a $149,000 mortgage and get clear title. WHY?

  40. Some people for a living without taking a check for it because their families are rich and they donate their time. Some people are wealthy through marriage but they still work and use money that other have made.

    Now here we got a person like in the scope of Whistleblowing where treasury hunter would dig up the treasury lost by the government who would was without information as to were its treasury was, would offer up a percentage of the treasury as a reward.

    Now here is a person that founded at least $140 million that the government was not aware it was owed, and they give at least 10% as a reward but that reward is actually out the treble damage of the 3 times the damage. So the Fed Gov actually was robbed of $46.6 million and the penalty amount was $93.3 million of which this Whistleblower received 14 million.

    Now the criminals are not going to jail and have to turn over $140 million, and if they would steal $46.6 million from the Fed Gov what else are they capable of doing.

    Now one is saying if your doing the Whistleblowing for a check is not right? The reason the Fed Gov place in effect the money portion of the program was to recover the money that been stolen from the Fed Gov. Who cares what the reason are if the Fed Gov is returned the citizen $46.6 million with a $93.3 million damage payment, but in return having to part with $14 million in exchange for $126 million!

  41. I know there are many on this blog that need this help. It is time to be on the correct side of history.


  42. You shouldn’t Whistle for a Check! You should Whistle because its the Right thing to do!

  43. It seems that the taxpayor exposure/ losses could be as high as 40 to 1 compared to investor losses. Is that why they are fc n forcing the losses on the investors?

  44. Why won’t they accept full payment Neil? They can’t deliver/return what was stolen ? On all the loans they gambled would go bad for profit, , who pays the losses when they don’t?

Contribute to the discussion!