see FORECLOSURE, SECURITIZATION DON’T MIX ROCKY'S+ARTICLE+in+the+CAPE+COD+TIMES+February+21,+2015
As I write this, I have no recall of Mr. Ludden before today. BUT his article in of all places, the Cape Cod Times, struck me as astonishing in its concise description of the illegal foreclosures that are skimming past Judges desks with hardly a look much less the usually required judicial scrutiny. He says
No one should have the legal right to take your home merely by winking and nodding their way around a significant flaw in the securitization model and whatever burrs it may leave on the industry’s saddle. …
Is there anyone with a present contractual connection to you or the loan who has actually suffered a default? If not, any… foreclosure begins to bear an uncanny resemblance to double dipping.
It is time for Judges to dust off the principle of fundamental fairness that lies at the heart of our legal system, demand a level playing field, and stand behind alternatives to foreclosure that serve the legitimate interests of homeowner and industry alike.
His article is both insightful and concise, which is more than I can say for some of the things that I have written at length. And I guess if you are in the Cape Cod area it probably would be a good idea to contact him at rpl@luddenkramerlaw.com. He pierces through layers upon layers of subterfuge by the financial industry and comes up with the right conclusion — separation not just of note and mortgage — but more importantly the separation between the note and the ultimate certificate that spells out the rights of a creditor to repayment and the rights of anonymous individuals and entities to foreclose. In securitization practice the note ceases to exist.
He correctly concludes that the assignments (and I would add endorsements and powers of attorney) are a sham, designed to conceal basic flaws in the entire securitization model. The only thing I would add is something that has not quite made it to the surface of these chaotic waters — that the money from the investors never made it into the trust — something that is perfectly consistent with ignoring the securitization model and the securitization documents.
The ‘assignment’ creates the appearance of [the] missing connection. But it is all hogwash, the only discernible purpose of which is to grease the skids for an illegal foreclosure. It is done long after the Trust has closed its doors. [referring to both the cutoff date and the fact that the trust actually does not ever get to own the debt, loan, note or mortgage]
The banks kept the money and assigned the losses to the investors. Then they bet on the losses and kept the profits from their intentionally watered down underwriting practices. Then they stole the identity of the borrowers and the investors and bought insurance that covered “losses” that were never incurred by the named insured — the Banks. The family resemblance to Ponzi scheme seems closer than mere double dipping in an infinite scheme of dipping into the funds of thousands of institutional investors and into the lives of millions of homeowners.
see also A 21st Century Trust Indenture Act?
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: assignment, cutoff, default, investors, Mortgage, note, real default, securitization, servicer advacnes, street name nominee |
How the hell do you know who to trust? We paid 147,000 in 5 yrs to an Invalid loan and zero was applied to the principal. We also were victims of an illegal foreclosure MGL ch 244 sec 14 was ignored and Judge ignored the Rules of Law and his oath. We have a complete paper trail in chronological order. Mean while this was supposed to be a temporary loan because our previous mortgage was paid in full. We paid $35,000 and had an unethical judge that ignored the fact the predatory lender could not prove anything. We met the burden of proof and had a preponderance of evidence to put them in jail?
The depositor will cause the trust assets constituting each pool to be assigned without
recourse to the trustee named in the accompanying prospectus supplement, for the benefit of the holders
of all of the securities of a series.
The trustee will not have physical possession of the mortgage notes related to the mortgage
loans in the trust.
@Rock….Ludden and Kramer are lawyers who can sleep at night, and just because someone is winning doesn’t mean they truly are “winners” take a real honest look at the playing field!!! But in the end the “Universe” beats all man made laws!
Rock,
“Bet he’s another who has never won a case!”
Ludden and Kramer don’ try cases. They provide “Foreclosure Defense Consulting Nationwide…” To win a case, one has to TRY it.
From what I understand and this is hearsay The Judges in California (alot not all?) say if Title Insurance covers it that is enough for them.
So as long as you are Jewish ISIS will kill you.
NEVER AGAIN
Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
No one should be allowed to rehypothecate your collateral without full disclosure and explicit consent. and if Congress is too blind to see this – how can anyone expect the judiciary to take off their blinders? It’s time to take these issues to the Supreme Court under securities related issues. The rehypothecation agreements were in place long before the borrowers unwittingly entered into the collateral procurement to securitization and rehypothecation scheme.
scot, you are so right on all. this is what believe as well,
this is what is up, just got a 2nd foreclosure notice and sales date, of march 20th 2015.
i do have a copy of the , incoming wire-advice of credit, from the true funder of credit/money? it was deposited straight into attorney’s bank account.
mortgage and note, say’s , gmac mortgage corporation. but funds came from Deutsche Bank trust co.Americas.
have a copy of my original note i just got from gmac mortgage corp servicer back a little while ago, and it has on it the following.
pay to the order of, deutsche bank trust company americas,
with out recourse, it is sign. D. CHIODO, with a signature of this guy,
as assistant secretary, gmac mortgage corp.inc.
it is also dated, as of the closing day, that was 11/8/2005.
now, owcen/trust is trying to foreclose for 2nd time, and sent a copy of note, and say’s this on it.
pay to the order of, nothing there, must mean ( BLANK ) without recourse, it is sign, BUT NOT DATED, AND SIGNATURE IS A STAMP,
OF SAME PERSON, D. Chiodo, but now he is limited signing officer, acting agant for gmac mortgage corporation.
now gmac mortgage corporation, went by the waist side in 2006, this corporation stop existing. and gmac mortgage, llc , also stop existing in 2009.
and 2012 all gmac mortgages,llc and all afilits went BK IN THE RES-CAP BK.
I REALLY WANT TO SEND THEM A RESCINDING NOTICE.
Trespass, I agree with your statements but non-compliance is my whole point at this juncture. Hang in there. This huge criminal scam will blow up. The question is really: How big will the blow up be? Also, get rid of Homeland Security. It was created after 9/11, and it takes more of our civil rights away including the Patriot Act which is anything but patriotic.
Rock,
I haven’t read your entire post, but one thing is clear.
If a Plaintiff is a bank, they just need to state they are owed, ignore discovery, appeal default judgments against them, but seek default judgments against the people they sue.
If the Plaintiff is the one with the true interest, legal and equitable, in the property, they have to make specific statements that are backed up by documents they have no chance of ever getting their hands on.
Double standard would be to good of a phrase for this.
I don’t advocate harm to people, but people cannot just hold positions of purported authority and slam a gavel and harm people with impunity and immunity.
It is known if you look in the codes properly, these city courts would lack jurisdiction for pretty much everything, maybe sometime simple, but not to the extent they are reaching, and municipal courts that are doing the foreclosures would lack jurisdiction too.
Superior/District courts have jurisdiction over real property,that’s why people can go to a superior court to get a restraining order.
Think of you body as your property, think of your cocreations (children/youth/kids) as your property, think of your property as your property.
These lower courts, have people acting as judges who are NOT public servants, they serve something or someone else, and if you dig into their credentials you’ll find out I’m telling the truth.
They steal your property and send you to appeal to a district court that has the jurisdiction over real property to get it back.
If you talk the talk or give up so much money out of your estate (wages earned, savings, equity) to pay to get it back, they’ll give it back to you.
In a normal world where natural law rules, Neighbor A cannot steal from neighbor B (take his property with no consideration whatsoever) and cause economic hardship to Neighbor A to get it back. No one should have the right, power, or authority to victimize the victim (don’t know the legal term for it).
There are federal codes to protect against that, but the United States Attorney Generals office is the weakest office in the country. It will not use any of the many federal laws of protection to protect anything or anyone that is the basis for the creation of the federal structure. It in essence is the reason the country cannot survive because it consumes itself without any restrictions on it’s consumption.
When it boils down to it, someone own Bank of America corporation, regardless of all the subsidiaries and attachments, there is an ultimate owner, and that man or woman who would have the power to liquidate the company is claiming to own all the things stolen and held on their asset book.
Yet no one will go into that book, audit it, look and find one property that has a clouded title and hold that owner of Bank of America responsible for claiming to own property that is not his, and controlling the property of others.
Al Capone was taken down with less information.
Inside job anyone?
The criminality of this is so great it probably will take some sort of divine intervention, but non compliance is a start. We stop feeding a system that feeds off us.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, People, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
In a nutshell Louise is correct
And its also called DUE PROCESS
Mess with that and theres no law
The bully wins every time and innocent men go to jail if you mess with that fundamental ground upon which justice should stand.
@ Scot,
BRAVO!!! Bring on the derivatives! Take your “free house” and “Go AWAY”!
The problem is that judges do not want to look at evidence and do not allow proper discovery. We all have or know the documents that the attys for the pretender/lenders do not want to produce.
A must read about double dipping. Who knew?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-files-taxpayer-suit-against-los-angeles-county-to-end-illegal-supplemental-judicial-benefits-to-superior-court-judges/
SAY IT AINT SO.
NEVER AGAIN
Any 5 year old gets it. And they also get the fact that there is a good reason the Judges and other public officials …………..
NEVER AGAIN
These guys got it too
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2015/02/24/takushi-vs-bac-home-loans-servicing-lp-scotus-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-is-granted-jgmnt-vacated-remanded-in-light-of-jesinoski-v-countrywide-home-loans/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ForeclosureFraudByDinsfla+%28FORECLOSURE+FRAUD+%7C+by+DinSFLA%29
What Mr. Ludden states is true but what he fails to address is that the banks/trusts cannot securitize something they do not own. The banks/trusts need the written permission of the real owner of the note in order to legally securitze the note. The real owner of the note is the creator of the note and that is the borrower/homeowner. The borrower creates the note with their signature. At the closing table the borrower/homeowner creates the note and give their note to the bank as proof of their obligation to the bank. The bank does not own the note but they do own the obligation. There is a difference. The bank can assign, transfer or endorse the note to another party but they cannot sell something they do not own. The bank can sell future payments/coupons because the borrower/homeowner are obligated to make the future obligations. Because the bank/trust does not own the note they cannot alter or change the note in any way shape or form without the express consent of the owner of the note. The borrower/homeowner.
If the banks/trust maintain they own the note and not the creator of the note the banks/trust are admitting they bought the note from the creator of the note which is the homeowner. If they bought the note the banks/trust are taking the position there was a sale and not a loan. If this transaction was a sale and not a loan than there can be no foreclosure because there was not loan. The same transaction cannot be both a loan and a sale. It can only be one or the other.
The banks/trust are in a catch 21. If they maintain they own the note. If they own the note they bought the note and there was no loan. No loan, no foreclosure.
If they change their position and say they do not own the note than how could they have legally securitized the notes without the express written consent of the owner of the note. Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of Securitze – To Convert (assets) into negotiable securities.
The word convert is all we need to know. To convert. Definition of Convert – 1. To change (something) into another form, substance, state, or product; transform.
2. To change (something) from one use, function, or purpose to another; adapt to a new or different purpose.
In another word the banks/trusts altered the note without the owners consent and by securitizing the note no longer exists. It was converted and since the owner of the note was not informed of this any ill-gotten gains the banks/trusts acquired from the payoff of the insurance policies, derivative policies and credit default swaps that was placed against the RBMS rightfully belong to the owner of the note the borrower/homeowner not the banks/trusts.
And lets not forget that the notes were never funded by the pretend lender named in the note and mortgage. The borrower/homeowner did receive considerations but the consideration came from an unknown, un-named third party. This means that the REMICs are in violation of the IRS tax code and do not have tax exempt status.
This also means that because the pretend lender named in the note and mortgage did not provide any considerations the transaction was never consummated. Because the transaction was never consummated the statute on limitation for your Right to Rescind has not yet started. But if you filed your Right to Rescind the statute of limitations for the bank/trust started the moment you submitted your Right to Rescind. The banks/trusts had 20 days to defend their position with a declaratory action. If they failed to file this action they lost any and all defenses they may have had and by not filing this action within the 20 days of your submission they have ultimately agreed with your right to rescission. If you submit your Right to Rescission today you should give the reason for your submission as follows. The lender on the note and mortgage is still in breach of contract. Insert name of lender never provided any considerations the considerations came from (insert name of source). Since the lender is still in breach and still has not provided any considerations the transaction still has not been consummated and we no longer wish to proceed with this transaction. In order to do this you will need a copy of the wire confirmation or a copy of the certified check to prove the source of the considerations.
your a sad person!
Bet he’s another who has never won a case!
Rodenhurst v. Bank of Am., 773 F. Supp. 2d 886, 899 (D. Haw. 2011) (“The overwhelming authority does not support a [claim] based upon improper securitization.”) “[S]ince the securitization merely creates a separate contract, distinct from plaintiffs’ debt obligations under the Note and does not change the relationship of the parties in any way, plaintiffs’ claims arising out of securitization fail.” Lamb V. Mers, Inc., 2011 WL 5827813, *6 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (citing cases); Bhatti, 2011 WL 6300229, *5 (citing cases); In re Veal, 450 B.R. at 912 (“[Plaintiffs] should not care who actually owns the Note-and it is thus irrelevant whether the Note has been fractionalized or securitized-so long as they do know who they should pay.”); Horvath v. Bank of NY, N.A., 641 F.3d 617, 626 n.4 (4th Cir. 2011) (securitization irrelevant to debt); Commonwealth Prop. Advocates, LLC v. MERS, 263 P.3d 397, 401-02 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (securitization has no effect on debt); Henkels v. J.P. Morgan Chase, 2011 WL 2357874, at *7 (D.Ariz. June 14, 2011) (denying the plaintiff’s claim for unauthorized securitization of his loan because he “cited no authority for the assertion that securitization has had any impact on [his] obligations under the loan, and district courts in Arizona have rejected similar arguments”); Johnson v. Homecomings Financial, 2011 WL 4373975, at *7 (S.D.Cal. Sep.20, 2011) (refusing to recognize the “discredited theory” that a deed of trust ” ‘split’ from the note through securitization, render[s] the note unenforceable”); Frame v. Cal-W. Reconveyance Corp., 2011 WL 3876012, *10 (D. Ariz. 2011) (granting motion to dismiss: “Plaintiff’s allegations of promissory note destruction and securitization are speculative and unsupported. Plaintiff has cited no authority for his assertions that securitization has any impact on his obligations under the loan”).”The Court also rejects Plaintiffs’ contention that securitization in general somehow gives rise to a cause of action – Plaintiffs point to no law or provision in the mortgage preventing this practice, and cite to no law indicating that securitization can be the basis of a cause of action. Indeed, courts have uniformly rejected the argument that securitization of a mortgage loan provides the mortgagor a cause of action.” See Joyner V. Bank Of Am. Home Loans, No. 2:09-CV-2406-RCJ-RJJ, 2010 WL 2953969, at *2 (D. Nev. July 26, 2010) (rejecting breach of contract claim based on securitization of loan); Haskins V. Moynihan, No. CV-10-1000-PHX-GMS, 2010 WL 2691562, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 6, 2010) (rejecting claims based on securitization because plaintiffs could point to no law indicating that securitization of a mortgage is unlawful, and “[p]laintiffs fail to set forth facts suggesting that Defendants ever indicated that they would not bundle or sell the note in conjunction with the sale of mortgage-backed securities”); Lariviere V. Bank Of N.Y. As Tr., Civ. No. 9-515-P-S, 2010 WL 2399583, at *4 (D. Me. May 7, 2010) (“Many people in this country are dissatisfied and upset by [the securitization] process, but it does not mean that the [plaintiffs] have stated legally cognizable claims against these defendants in their amended complaint.”); Upperman V. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. 01:10-cv-149, 2010 WL 1610414, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 16, 2010) (rejecting claims because they are based on an “erroneous legal theory that the securitization of a mortgage loan renders a note and corresponding security interest unenforceable and unsecured”); Silvas V. Gmac Mortg., Llc, No. CV-09-265-PHX-GMS, 2009 WL 4573234, at *5 (D. Ariz. Dec. 1, 2009) (rejecting a claim that a lending institution breached a loan agreement by securitizing and cross-collateralizing a borrower’s loan). The overwhelming authority does not support a cause of action based upon improper securitization. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim that “improper restrictions resulting from securitization leaves the note and mortgage unenforceable); Summers V. Pennymac Corp. (N.D.Tex. 11-28-2012) (any securitization of Plaintiffs’ Note did not affect their obligations under the Note or PennyMac’s authority as mortgagee to enforce the Note and foreclose on the property if Plaintiffs defaulted).; Nguyen V. Jp Morgan Chase Bank (N.D.Cal. 10-17-2012) (“Numerous courts have recognized that a defendant bank does not lose its ability to enforce the terms of its deed of trust simply because the loan is assigned to a trust pool. In fact, ‘securitization merely creates a separate contract, distinct from [p]laintiffs[‘] debt obligations under the note, and does not change the relationship of the parties in any way. Therefore, such an argument would fail as a matter of law”); Flores v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2010 WL 2719848, at *4 (D. Md. July 7, 2010), the borrower argued that his lender “already recovered for [the borrower’s] default on her mortgage payments, because various ‘credit enhancement policies,'” such as “a credit default swap or default insurance,” “compensated the injured parties in full.” The court rejected the argument, explaining that the fact that a “mortgage may have been combined with many others into a securitized pool on which a credit default swap, or some other insuring-financial product, was purchased, does not absolve [the borrower] of responsibility for the Note.” Id. at *5; see also Fourness v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., 2010 WL 5071049, at *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 6, 2010) (dismissing claim that borrowers’ obligations were discharged where “the investors of the mortgage backed securities were paid as a result of . . . credit default swaps and/or federal bailout funds); Warren v. Sierra Pac. Mortg. Servs., 2010 WL 4716760, at *3 (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 2010) (“Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the impact of any possible credit default swap on their obligations under the loan . . . do not provide a basis for a claim for relief”). Welk v. GMAC Mortg., LLC., 850 F. Supp. 2d 976 (D. Minn., 2012) (“At the end of the day, then, most of what Butler offers is smoke and mirrors. Butler’s fundamental claim that his clients’ mortgages are invalid and that the mortgagees cannot foreclose because they do not hold the notes is utterly frivolous.); Vanderhoof v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust (E.D. Mich., 2013) (internal citations omitted) (“s]ecuritization” does not impact the foreclosure. This Court has previously rejected an attempt to assert a claim based upon the securitization of a mortgage loan. Further, MERS acts as nominee for both the originating lender and its successors and assigns. Therefore, the mortgage and note are not split when the note is sold.”); Chan Tang v. Bank of America, N.A. (C.D. Cal., 2012) (internal citations omitted) (“Plaintiffs’ contention that the securitization of their mortgage somehow affects Defendants’ rights to foreclose is likewise meritless. Plaintiffs have identified no authority supporting their position that securitization voids the power of sale contained in a deed of trust. Other courts have dismissed similar arguments. Thus, the claim that Defendants lack the authority to foreclose because the Tangs’ mortgage was pooled into a security instrument is Dismissed With Prejudice.); Wells v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 2011 WL 2163987, *2 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2011) (This claim—colloquially called the “show-me-the-note” theory— began circulating in courts across the country in 2009. Advocates of this theory believe that only the holder of the original wet-ink signature note has the lawful power to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure. The courts, however, have roundly rejected this theory and dismissed the claims, because foreclosure statutes simply do not require possession or production of the original note. The “show me the note” theory fares no better under Texas law.); Maynard v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (S.D. Cal., 2013) (“Plaintiffs also allege that they conducted a Securitization Audit of Plaintiffs’ chain of title and Wachovia’s PSA, and as a result, determined that Plaintiffs’ Note and DOT were not properly conveyed into the Wells Fargo Trust on or before July 29, 2004, the closing date listed in the Trust Agreement. (Id. at ¶ 34.)… To the extent Plaintiffs challenge the validity of the securitization of the Loan because Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank failed to comply with the terms of the PSA or the Trust Agreement, Plaintiffs are not investors of the Loan, nor are Plaintiffs parties to the PSA or Trust Agreement. Therefore, as many courts have already held, Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the validity of the securitization of the Loan…Furthermore, although Plaintiffs contend they have standing to challenge the validity of the Assignment because they were parties to the DOT with the original lender (Wells Fargo), this argument also fails. (Doc. No. 49 at 11-12.); Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 216 Cal. App. 4th 497, 511-13, 156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 912 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (“[E]ven if any subsequent transfers of the promissory note were invalid, [the borrower] is not the victim of such invalid transfers because her obligations under the note remained unchanged.”). As stated above, these exact arguments have been dismissed by countless other courts in this circuit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ contentions that the Assignment is void due to a failure in the securitization process fails.”); Demilio v. Citizens Home Loans, Inc. (M.D. Ga., 2013) (“Frankly, the Court is astonished by Plaintiff’s audacity… Plaintiff requires the Court to scour a poorly-copied, 45-page “Certified Forensic Loan Audit” in an attempt to discern the basic facts of his case. This alone would be sufficient for dismissal. However, the Court is equally concerned by Plaintiff’s attempt to incorporate such an “audit,” which is more than likely the product of “charlatans who prey upon people in economically dire situation,”… As one bankruptcy judge bluntly explained, “[the Court] is quite confident there is no such thing as a ‘Certified Forensic Loan Audit’ or a ‘certified forensic auditor…. The Court will not, in good conscience, consider any facts recited by such a questionable authority.”); Leong v. JPMorgan Chase (D. Nev., 2013) (“Plaintiff insists that Defendant failed to provide the original note. The only possibly relevant Nevada statute requiring the presentation of the original note or a certified copy is at a Foreclosure Mediation. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.086(4). Moreover, the Court treats copies the same as originals: “a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 52.245. Defendants correctly point out that Plaintiff fails to cite to any authority that requires Defendants to produce the original Note, and Defendants additionally provide non-binding legal authority to the contrary. As such, this cause of action is dismissed with prejudice.’); Rivac v. NDEX W. LLC (N.D. Cal., 2013) (This court is persuaded by the “majority position” of courts within this district, which is that Glaski is unpersuasive, and that “plaintiffs lack standing to challenge noncompliance with a PSA in securitization unless they are parties to the PSA or third party beneficiaries of the PSA.” Shkolnikov v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 2012 WL 6553988 at *13 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2012); see also, e.g., Zapata v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 6491377 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2013); Apostol v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2013 WL 6328256 at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2013); Dahnken v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 5979356 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013); Almutarreb v. Bank of New York Trust Co., N.A., 2012 WL 4371410 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2012); Rivac v. NDEX W. LLC (N.D. Cal., 2013) (District courts have consistently found that conclusory allegations of robo-signing are insufficient to state a claim, absent some factual support. See Baldoza v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 978268 at *13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013); see also Chan Tang v. Bank of America, N.A., 2012 WL 960373 at *10-11 (C.D. Cal. March 19, 2012); Sohal v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 2011 WL 3842195 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011); Chua v. IB Property Holdings, LLC, 2011 WL 3322884 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011))…Further, where a plaintiff alleges that a document is void due to robo-signing, yet does not contest the validity of the underlying debt, and is not a party to the assignment, the plaintiff does not have standing to contest the alleged fraudulent transfer. See Elliott v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 2013 WL 1820904 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2013); Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., 2012 WL 3426278 at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2012). (Plaintiffs here do not dispute that they defaulted on the loan payments, and the robo-signing allegations are without effect on the validity of the foreclosure process); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Tibbs, 2014 WL 280365, at *5 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 24, 2014) (“[a] Deed of Trust need not be separately assigned so that the holder may enforce the note; as goes the note, so goes the Deed of Trust.'”); Connelly v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n (In re Connelly), 487 B.R. 230 (Bankr.Ariz., 2013) (“Plaintiff solely relies on his expert’s assertion… Article 9 applies to the sale of promissory notes.” Garfield Aff. 9:9–12. Even if this opinion testimony by a witness who has not been qualified as an expert could be considered by the Court, it would be rejected because it directly contradicts Veal…Plaintiff’s argument that only Article 9 applies to the transfer of the Note fails.”); Murphy v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC (D. Minn., 2013) (“…most of Plaintiffs’ claims were premised on the ‘show me the note’ legal theory’….Judge Keyes found that this theory had been rejected by the Minnesota Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit…Butler continues in “pursuit of these discredited legal theories…he continues to refuse to acknowledge that these “show me the note” claims are based on a ‘legal fallacy.'”); Preston v. Seterus, Inc., 931 F.Supp.2d 743 (N.D. Tex., 2013) (“Plaintiffs’ contention is that Defendants were required to hold, possess, and produce the original Note…and Defendants cannot produce the Note because it was split or separated from the Deed of Trust when Plaintiffs’ mortgage was securitized. The court agrees with Defendants…the so-called “show-me-the-note” and “split-the-note” theories that have been rejected by courts in this circuit applying Texas law.”); Rosas v. Carnegie Mortgage, LLC, No. CV 11-7692 CAS CWX, 2012 WL 1865480, at *8 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2012) (“[P]laintiffs’ theory that lenders that received funds through loan securitizations or credit default swaps must waive their borrowers’ obligations fails as a matter of law.”); Taylor v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2:10-CV-505 TS, 2010 WL 4683881, at *3 (D. Utah Nov. 10, 2010) (“[T]he separate contract that is the result of securitization does not free Plaintiffs from the terms agreed upon in the Deeds of Trust.”); Flores v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust, Co., CIV. A. DKC 10-0217, 2010 WL 2719849, at *5 (D. Md. July 7, 2010) (dismissing a claim alleging that defendants lacked standing to enforce a note because they had already been compensated by credit enhancement policies). Preciado v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., No. 13-00382 LB, 2013 WL 1899929, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2013) (“the weight of persuasive authority in this district is that a plaintiff has ‘no standing to challenge foreclosure based on a loan’s having been securitized.'”) (quoting Niranjan v. Bank of America, N.A., No. C 12-05706, 2013 WL 1701602, at *2 (N.D. Cal. April 18, 2013)); McGough v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C12-0050, 2012 WL 2277931, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2012) (“Theories that securitization undermines the lender’s ability have been rejected by the courts.”); Wadhwa v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, No. S-11-1784, 2011 WL 2681483, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2011) (noting that “this position has been rejected by numerous courts”); Flores v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, No. C 12-794, 2013 WL 2049388, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2013) (“[plaintiff contends that] because MIT securitized the note, this allegedly stripped MERS of any ability to assign the deed of trust. Courts have consistently rejected this theory.”); Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Indus. Group, 713 F.Supp.2d 1092, 1099 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“The argument that parties lose their interest in a loan when it is assigned to a trust pool has also been rejected by many district courts.”); Lazo v. Summit Management Co., No. 1:13-cv-02015, 2014 WL 3362289, at *10 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2014). (“California courts have determined [that] plaintiffs are unable to show prejudice when the borrowers were in default and the allegedly improper assignment does not affect the borrower’s ability to pay . . . .”; Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 467, 481 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (finding no prejudice where borrower was in default and did not allege that transfer of note interfered with borrower’s ability to pay).