Reverse Redlining: Targeting the Poor and the Unsophisticated for High Risk Mortgages

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688



Click to access aclumfy_mortgage_report.pdf

At this point it is clear that the banks actually targeted people of color and other demographics where the likelihood of “default” on a loan was extraordinarily high. The ACLU in its latest report on the mortgage crisis proves this to any remaining doubters. This report also shows that these disadvantaged groups are the least likely to get a modification or other settlement or assistance of the various mortgage issues that we all know now were pandemic throughout the period of 1996-present.

But what they are missing is an answer to the REAL question: Why would anyone target a demographic where “defaults” could be claimed in much higher proportion to the history in the general population? Why did they want the loans to fail, because “failure” of the loan was a basic assumption to anyone who understands the various iterations of highly complex and sophisticated loan products — a number which climbed from 5 in the 1970’s to 450 in 2008. Imagine that 450 different loan options offered to the poor, the people who don’t speak or understand English very well and the people who are poor enough that eventually when payments reset they will not pay and they won’t be able to fight for their house. The tragedy here, let me remind everyone, is that most of these were refinancing of existing home ownership — that’s right, most of the homes were in the family for generations.

The Banks targeted homes where the home values were low. Then they drove the prices up to many items the actual value by filling the bathtub with money and selling “payments” instead of principal or interest rate. They offered teaser payments that the homeowner could afford — but which changed to a monthly payment that was higher (sometimes a multiple) than the entire household income. Somehow the Banks have convinced courts to think that the disclosures were sufficient. They were not. And in my opinion if the courts would scrutinize these so-called loans the way they did before securitization none of the loans would survive any fair interpretation of disclosures required under Federal laws (TILA) and state laws, including common law.

Banks do economic analysis every day employing thousands of analysts. Those analysts knew that the prices were being driven above the value of the property, knew that the endgame was the drop of prices to resume relationship with values, and thus knew — because they rigged the game — that if they bet the mortgages would fail, they would make a lot of money. The trick was to lose somebody else’s money not their own. and that is what they did.

If the ACLU wants to do something that produces actual results, they should analyze the economics of the alleged securitization of these loans. What they will find is a note that cannot be enforced and a mortgage that was void from the start. They will find fraud with aggravating circumstances. the banks needed really “bad” loans in order to accomplish their goals. By using investor funds instead of their own, they could claim ownership of the loans when they reported their assets and liabilities to regulatory authorities; but they would assign the losses to investors, borrowers, insurers, guarantors, FDIC loss sharing, and credit default swap counterparties and take the proceeds for themselves — even though they had no losses.

The ACLU should bring actions on behalf of the demographics hit hardest by this Ponzi scheme. They should state the obvious — that the true source of funds had no idea how their money was being used, the banks that did know were intentionally creating bloated loan documents based upon fraudulent appraisals, and the real creditors were deprived of any protection for their investment while the borrowers were signing documents that recited fraudulent information as to the identity of the lender and the real cost of the loan.

The attack on enforceability of the mortgages is easiest simply because it is now fairly easy to show unclean hands. Where a loan is statutorily defined as “predatory per se” it is hard to argue for the banks that it isn’t subject to “unclean hands per se” and therefore cannot be enforced because it is against public policy.

In a court where rules of equity are applied, there is no enforcement of a deal that was, from the start, violation of Federal and State law, was “predatory per se” (Regulation Z) and was part of a fraudulent scheme. This scheme only works for the banks if the loan is secured by a mortgage on the property. That mortgage is mostly unenforceable and probably void, ab initio. True creditors can prove they lost money on the deal have an opportunity to sue and collect on money due them — (1)  from the borrower up to perhaps the amount that should have been the principal, and (2) from the banks for the rest of the money that was skimmed off the top. The amount skimmed in many cases especially in the disadvantaged demographics, was frequently more than the loan itself.

64 Responses

  1. @ johngault,

    Sorry didn’t see you til now. Chris Peterson agrees with you and says as much in “Two Faces: the Mortgage Electronic … etc”.

    In that paper he explains that, while the MERS was already up and operational, it was never properly vetted as to whether it was lawful.

    He also explains, whatever titles due pass through the system, their validity is questionable and judges should be wary as they are not creating “good law”.

  2. @johngaualt – Holder stated in public; I can not lock up the officers of the banks for money laundering, racketeering, bid rigging, washing drug money, etc… because he was afraid of the systemic shock to the financial markets.

    On his way out the door he is shutting the cases against lenders. This guy should be shot for treason.

  3. mk: “The MERS is a disaster and it was legitimized by Eric Holder’s law firm.”
    I think it’s that they claim their existence and m.o. were ‘blessed’ as legally viable by that law firm. The law firm’s approval may be a shield of sorts for mers start up, but in no way is such a reliance on attorney advice a basis to CONTINUE a bunch of bs. I mean, say your acct says go ahead with something and when audited, the irs say ‘not’.
    You say but my acct said it was hoyle. The irs might not have you for lunch for that year, but you can bet it would if you did it again in subsequent years. A law firm can’t legitimize anything; it can only give an opinion as to legitimacy. That legal opinion is perhaps a shield
    for doing something in the first place, but sure as hell not for
    continuing it. They knew damn well by the time the mess was scrutinized, other factors would make for some real issues in shutting it the hell down. Apparently we have no one with the cajones to take those on.

  4. Non borrowing grantor and legatees, inheritees also sued. Why?

  5. Non borrowing grantor conveys via Warranty Deed and guaranteeing title.

  6. And if the trust was paid the non borrowing grantor/ guarantor has what rights?

  7. John, I never said what they were doing was fair. Just the IRS does not care, nor does anyone else for that matter.

    The Feds own the senior certs. What do you think is pledged as collateral to guarantee the trillions of dollars on the reserve systems banks balance sheets on / off.

    … and that is why the must foreclose to get paid – servicer keeps the money because trust has been paid…

  8. The negative interest rates the FedRes needs to keep the banks from exploding is leading to new bubbles as investors will finance anything to get yield… tell me if this looks the least bit familiar


    Subprime auto lender Exeter Finance, which PE firm Blackstone Group bought in 2011, exploded its portfolio from $150 million to $2.8 billion in three years. It has now become America’s third-largest issuer of subprime auto-loan structured securities. It too received subpoenas from the DOJ and other agencies. And it has been losing money for three years. American Banker took a look at a $500-million securitization the company sold last August and found a doozy:

    The average APR on those loans was 18.59%. The original term length was 70 months. 75% of these loans had a loan-to-value ratio of over 105%. Eighty-one percent of the borrowers had a FICO score of below 600. And yet some of the securities that these loans are turned into are rated AAA.

  9. MERS was used to hide the Rpii. Now why are the lenders on the note pretender lenders? Because they couldn’t………… ?

  10. Now why wouldn’t they disclose the rpii? Why would they fight tooth and nail? I gave you the answer.

    Hint….you are MERS.

  11. from Deadly Clear:
    “Our courts should not be collection agencies for crooks.” — John Waihee, Governor of Hawaii, 1986-1994.”

    But this is what occurs when courts allow either properly apptd or self-apptd collection agents to posture as the real parties in interest.A
    proper apptmt still doesn’t make the coll agent the rpii because he isn’t the one who will suffer by the non-payment of the debt. He may prosecute the action, but he must join the rpii as a named plaintiff.
    “Failure to name an indispensable party” is an affirmative defense btw.
    But if we don’t find a way to demand evid of skin in the game, it prob won’t do any good to assert it, not if reliance is on possession and a ‘mers’ assignment / sale.

    This is also what happens when the alleged assignee has no skin in the game. The courts become a coll agency either for a collection agency or for someone otherwise trying to collect on someone else’s claim, if any.

  12. Don’t confuse a mortgage with a DOT …..

  13. There are those who realized the sellers mortgage want paid off…it was assumed. … Before they defaulted.

    That party seeks to foreclose on title.

    Thank Heavens this property didn’t have one. Thus my issue with not getting the trustee agreement filed with the trustee deed upon sale.

    Lender title INS paid out on you loan and sellers lender ..gag..(same) gets the house. Yeah…they are getting free houses.

    Thus.. Your title insurer checks your credit reports and seeks to collect from the borrower.

    Something like that… one tells me anything. I know nothing. I am just a somebody who studied reverse mortgages after the fact.

    The title companies certified me a reverse mortgage specialist.


  14. scat – wish that were true, but I believe the dot itself authorizes the
    beneficiary of the trust created to change the trustee. Of course, no one in his right mind would sign that doc if he knew the new trustee
    would be in bed with the ben or that it would be a company owned by the ben’s attorney or that it could be anyone with a pulse.

  15. iwmnpv: “You guys are wrong. Only when they believe the funds are not recoverable can they stop making advances.”

    jg: didn’t you just make my case? if they believe the advances are recoverable, they prob are, wouldn’t you say -or- they are betting on an increase in the value of the collateral? In the former, there’s no loss to declare, right? If a servicer declares a loss over the amt of
    its losses, then for some reason the servicer has guaranteed no loss to the creditor – or- it has become the judge and jury on a claim of unjust enrichment against the borrower and thereafter and as a result of
    wholly and wrongful “self-governance” issues a l099 for unjust enrichment, something mere mortals must prove in a court of law. I
    don’t believe a secn trust may issue a 1099, btw, because imo it can’t recognize a loss.

    ” All of the bottom tranches have been wiped cleaned at this point – and the upper tier series still collect from the advance account for P&I. See over-collateral and reg AB. See who owns the senior certificates.”

    jg: I get a tad about over-collateralization, but as to who owns the sr certs, how bout you just tell us?

    This is stinking intense. I can’t swear what’s factual or not:

    I believe a party with the right of subrogation may only take a loss up to its actual loss aka its out of pocket. If I have spent 40k to keep you whole, I don’t see how that entitles me to a loss of 80k on my books and therefore to give someone else a 1099 for 80k. (Maybe I’ll just throw in my overhead / cost of paying the 40k – and why not lunch? I don’t think they do that, but who knows how they justify the 80k).
    It’s a criminal act to keep false records in private books – just a reminder. This law, also a reminder, was formulated to sock it to
    money launderers.

  16. Your estate trustee…bad trustee!!! Appoint a new one. There is no such thing as successor trustee unless of course all granter benificaries agree. Just say No!!!

    Its more like your lack of denial because you weren’t sophisticated enough to know what they did.

  17. Thanks for link ‘ A Man ‘ . Great video.

  18. Think in reverse….reverse mortgage where granters place title in irrevocable living trust. Not a conventional mortgage with a lien. They both can not exist at the same time. Payment due when All granters as tenants in common with right of survivorship croak.

    Fraud on the face of the contract and fraud in the inducement.

    If you can’t beat them join them.

  19. Rules are easy to google
    1099c is for release from the debt not 1099a, that states the amount of debt owed and the amount of fair market value of the real property for which they sold and got for themselves so as ” lender” thus shows a loss, but what if they are not the lender or the creditor, (well actually they are servicer and a debt collector,) they benefit from it (when they lost nothing) 1099c may be a taxable event if submitted within a certain timeframe, i asked for one to see who issues it, not got it to date
    You guys are missing the point the “facts” presented in my case and the purported lender contradict, especially when theres this trustee type person in court. Also the numbers are wrong by 90,000 – but let me say this if they are creditor which is generally understood to be same lender, but its not in accounting apparently perhaps you can enlighten NPV?
    Anyhow i rescinded the deed of trust contract in 09, and im afraid the rules changed a bit last month! Says the US Supreme Court!
    , the1099a and trustees deed is out by 90,000 and issued on the same day, how come? Theres more but lets stick with this point for now.
    Im not making out i know it all im learning painfully slowly and i wish to share what i think deserves exploration, you decide, but im in this till fat lady sings.

  20. The estate is the creditor.

  21. CW FSB….unrecoverable writes off. BAC refuses payments without the payment of a false claim delinquency. One year later collects $25,000 from non borrower/benificiary/surety/grantor/warrantor/settlor for tax on borrowers debt forgiveness/write off. So now BOA desperate to foreclose estate on force place INS n taxes. But estate had INS and paid the taxes. BOA claim for advances on both. Nice Try!!!!

    Irrevocable living trust.

  22. shadowcat – true enough. Now to prove there’s a surety when there’s a surety……
    Are you implying that a servicer is a surety and thus takes the hit and that that hit is a book loss subject to the gain (forgiveness) of the borrower who gets a 1099? I will say that I think (I can forget something from yesterday these days) a surety has a right of subrogation, unlike a guarantor. You realize of course that we’re trying to teach ourselves
    business law by catch as catch can? Been pretty slow going. Not saying it’s anyone’s fault, just acknowledging what I see as what it is.
    I’m not sure a surety would be the right one to issue a debt forgiveness 1099. Something to think about, tho. I might know someone to ask.

  23. Wow another major loss to the Big Banksters.

    Who knew


  24. For all the naysayers – there is a case that was won last week in NY on secutization issues. I am trying to get it from defense counsel on Tuesday. I have not read it yet, but we shall see.

    … and for all the folks that come here for whatever reasons – you are more than entitled and don’t let anyone tell you different.

    Just remember, this website is the equivalent of a casino – they do not care who wins or loses, just as long as you have money to keep playing they win in the end… Kinda like Wall Street..

  25. @ john gault – read your mortgage, and than read the servicing agreements when the MSR’s are sold…

  26. You guys are wrong. Only when they believe the funds are not recoverable can they stop making advances. All of the bottom tranches have been wiped cleaned at this point – and the upper tier series still collect from the advance account for P&I. See over-collateral and reg AB. See who owns the senior certificates.

    The advances are carried on the servicers balance sheet as a loss – regardless of the entity receiving the proceeds at liquidation. Probably an IRS loophole, but hell – we can’t even get the IRS to go collect the taxes for the REMIC violations. I tried in 2006, through an attorney, and was sent packing, and an audit the following year.

    What I am trying to figure out right now – is when the servicer forgives principal over three years on a modification, and the borrower receives the forgiveness at 33% of the total each year when their payments are timely – how is the servicer taking the entire write-down before the principal forgiveness occurs.

  27. If you want to payoff the debt you need the accounting…especially when you are surety …. As the borrower you want the accounting when there was a manufactured default and you have the evidence to prove it. Anytime multiple parties are making the same claim somebody dam well better show the accounting.

  28. The only advances the servicer makes is for taxes and insurance.

  29. “Guy’s you’re not getting it! The servicer issues the 1009 for teh frogiven debt because they make the advances!!!”

    nope. That doesn’t give them the right to expense the advance, even if they’re not reimbursed. Especially if they’re not reimbursed, it’s a voluntary payment which is not an allowable expense any more than if I made your payment. A party who contractually or otherwise makes a payment without expectation of recovery (reimbursement) from the party it pays is a volunteer and is not entitled to expense its vol payments.
    Debt forgiveness requires a loss / expense – by a creditor. There’s ‘forgiveness’ (gain) on one end and there’s expense on the other. Making advances, even if done contractually, imo doesn’t turn the servicer into the creditor any way it’s sliced.
    The only way imo the servicer or any party who advances payment
    could expense anything at all is if they 1) are subrogated to the rights of the creditor by way of an agreement with the creditor and even then only up to the exact amt of advance and subrogation and 2) actually incur a loss to expense. Who here believes that a servicer isn’t reimbursed for advances? I’ve no doubt any such agreement calls for the servicer to “get theirs first”. If the creditor must reimburse the servicer for advances, it’s the creditor who incurs the loss / expense.
    Fnma, as opposed to a servicer, isn’t reimbursed for its advances. Its
    advances, even tho contractual (well, obligation to make advances) is created in the prospectus, but even fnma has no claim to an expense (advances) it voluntarily incurred. If the servicer is appropriately (key word) issuing a 1099, it’s because it’s the party incurring the expense…..and why’s that if the trust or anyone else is the creditor? That’s a legit question, not rhetorical, btw. How does the servicer become the creditor to recognize a loss and issue the corresponding
    1099 for the forgiveness / gain? Once a loss is incurred, a loss can’t be transferred from A’s books to B’s, so the servicer must be the creditor at the time of the the loss (and like I ask sincerely, how’s that?) That or the servicer is fraudulently taking a loss it’s not entitled to.

    D wynn – I’d like to read those rules if you want to list them here.

  30. Guy’s you’re not getting it! The servicer issues the 1009 for teh frogiven debt because they make the advances!!!

  31. Mais qui JG i did
    I submitted the contradicting facts of my flippin cases to them
    It went real quiet. But seriously of course i studied the irs rules and they are wrong simply – ONLY the LEnDER can issue a 1099a not a servicer calling themselves the lender because if that was the case then why all these actors in court and attorneys for and attorneys in fact for and robosigners that technically should be in jail pretending to know what they are assigning all the time devoid of authority, ecetera etcetera. Darn wish irs would joinder with me? Its a concept ( stop laughing, ok a long shot) but the rules should be applied equally tax rules/ code that is.

  32. D wynn – as I recall, you hollered to the IRS and they didn’t give a hoot.
    So if it were me, I’d be looking up the rules in the IRS code and not care that they don’t care. There must be rules in the IRS code about
    these things (debt forgiveness 1099’s). Have you looked there? If so, what’s it say?

  33. Shadowcat, on March 1, 2015 at 11:32 am said:

    “2. Request the Accounting”

    jg: on what grounds, if the court is relying on what it considers a
    bona fide transaction evidenced by the’ assignment’ and poss of
    a note, esp one end’d in blank? When you say this, do you know of the (any) presumption the bankster is entitled to and on which they tacitly rely? So, I’ll just add this: on what basis is an accounting a reasonable
    if not dispositive demand? Remember, the assgt says good and valuable consideration is being paid. Why should the court allow an accounting and of what? And also remember the alleged servicer or someone has proffered amts allegedly owing and overdue on the note, so what else is there? What the court thinks it sees is consideration for the note by the claimant, poss of the note by the claimant, and an amt
    overdue on the obligation it paid for………..
    That’s the challenge, isn’t it? Showing that what the court takes as facts aren’t facts at all? Imo, as I’ve said, we’ll only get to our defenses
    whatever they are (x maybe tila violations) by first successfully
    undermining the banksters’ alleged facts which give rise to their rights.
    All these other things are defenses to the transaction and they’ve pretty much yet to be acknowledged as worth the paper they’re written on. Not because they aren’t real defenses, but because the court won’t look at them in favor of what it believes is a bona fide sale and assgt.
    Some of these defenses may not even be raised against a holder in due course (v a “mere” holder) and right or wrong, the banksters are being given the presumption of holder in due course status. And why not? Who argues otherwise? Some people don’t even know the difference TO argue.
    You’re right in that what we really want is an accounting, but how you go about demonstrating that it’s called for is the diff between getting it and not getting it imo. To start with, one must first recognize any
    presumptions and overcome them. Presumptions are “rebuttable”,
    meaning the guy who doesn’t like them may offer a sound reason or 10 why they aren’t warranted. IMO, the holder in due course presumption,
    as applicable, is rebuttable simply because in these cases, the
    alleged sale is occurring after the default. “Notice of dishonor” is one of the things which defeats holder in due course status. Let’s say a note has a balance of 400k. Why would anyone pay 400k for a note in default, for instance? As to defenses, it matters how much the claimant paid because it may well impacts his hdc v holder status if the amt is so low as to stand as evidence of his knowledge of default. If a claimant is not a hidc, he is subject to all affirmative defenses, not just the limited ones available against a hdc.
    So, in ‘normal’ deals, if I pay you 200k for a 400k note, it’s indicative
    of me knowing the note is in default and thus I’m not entitled to a presumption of hdc. Because the “assgts” are being submitted as
    current events, and not a memorialization of a past event whereby the claimant may have paid 400k in the past, such an argument of pre-
    default payment for the note is imo foreclosed. Noteworthy here is that the banksters tried back-dating mol ‘assgts’ and that boat didn’t float, so they had to let that hummer go (score one for us).

    The document called an “assignment” says the party identified therein as the assignee has paid consideration for its new interest. Any reason the court shouldn’t take that as true, shouldn’t give it a presumption of true, if and since it’s being given that presumption? (recordation is notice of something alleged, but isn’t evidence that what is alleged therein is a fact and that’s another reason why a homeowner may challenge a late assgt: what we’d actually be challenging is not that the assgt is late, but that the assgt is factual as to what it purports is being done – the sale of the note and dot by mers to X. If mers has nothing to assign / sell as to the note, isn’t the doc not merely voidable but void,
    as it would be if I were the alleged seller of your note?)
    Can you demonstrate, for instance, by at least the preponderance standard that “mers” is not the seller of the note, as is being alleged in the document called an assignment? How about by submitting the membership agreement or how about submitting
    cases wherein mers has disclaimed any interest in the notes?
    How did mers acquire this interest even if its the ben of the coll instrument? Maybe they did buy the note to sell it. Great, so let them prove it and while they’re at, they can show us the license required for I think it’s 4 or more notes in a calendar year – I can’t say what is the ram of not being licensed right now, but do feel I can say they wouldn’t like this pointed out – think Nebraska). Even as courts say we have no standing to argue about late assgts to trusts, it’s ‘axiomatic’ the assignor/ seller still has to have something to assign / sell. (false instrument if you demonstrate mers had no interest in the note to sell and bad faith plan and worse – fraud – succinctly, to falsely influence the court). Might not be done, though. One would still need to demonstrate that even with poss of a bearer note, without other (because ‘assgt’ was bs) evidence of payment and thus injury for jurisdiction, there is none. But if one believes that poss of a bearer note is a transfer as defined both in article III and the note, then might as well stay home.

    I’m not trying to argue a case per se; I’m just pointing to presumptions and poss ways to defeat them, putting the burden where it belongs – on the claimant to factually establish its right and the juris of the court. If one doesn’t know of these presumptions, one has little chance of defeating them. imo.
    lay opinions

  34. Most private label and agency trust have failed to properly state a cause of action!. This open s the door to establish other failures in the pleading (judicial states).

    I have already done the research, and three people that have used this strategy have won. Apparently, there was a win on securitization in Westchester County, NY. Will update when the decision is given to me.

  35. What do you all think of the IRS accepting 1099a from a party stating they are lender ( formerly also stating they are beneficiary under a deed of trust secured by a note) but service a loan aka colllect payments,?
    Why would the Irs not be interested
    What if i issued a 1099a stating i was lender i mean hypothetically i was – my downpayment my mortgage payments my upgrades my name my promise to pay and my collateral home

  36. Earlier I said:

    “The mers assgt purports a number of things:

    the assignment is a purchase and sale agreement mol of the note and its collateral

    the assignor, mers, has the right to assign the note, in it own right or for another (its done as if it’s in its own right). This translates to mers has something to assign.”

    more: mers is purporting to be selling the note (v what we normally think of by indoctrination about the word “assignment”). This translates to, first of all, that mers is the seller of the note. The assignment is the instrument / document (sale agreement) of choice by the banksters for transfer of the note. Part if not all the reason for this is because “assignments” are recorded, or may be. Note transfers / sales, by themselves, aren’t recorded in public record. What that gang wants is notice of the sale of the note to the party being called the “assignee” in the recorded document, the assignment. Therefore, the “assgt” accomplishes two things for the banksters, if left standing: a sale of the note and Notice of that sale. The ‘inclusion of the assgt of the note and the recitation of consideration are the “tidbits” which demonstrates and confirms this. There aren’t just tidbits, in reality. This is the true corpus of the ‘assignments’: the alleged sale of the note.

    “the assignor, mers, has the right to assign the collateral instrument in
    its own right or for another (its done as if its in its own right). This translates to mers has something to assign.”

    more: mers is purporting to assign the coll instrument as an incident
    of the sale of the note in the sale agreement (“assignment”). (The real
    goal is to establish the sale of the note with the assistance of

    …. appropriate consideration …. being paid (and as a current event)

    “that mers is a proper party to be paid that consideration.”

    more: that mers is a proper party to be paid for the sale of the note.

    I’ve spent a hell of a lot of my time trying to fathom what’s going on here. I’m not a genius by any stretch, but neither am I an idiot stick. I would wager anything I have or hope to have that what I’m saying here is what is going on. The document we’ve come to believe is and call an “assignment” of the coll instrument is being used to (allegedly) sell the note and make a record of that sale in public record.
    I’m not advancing just here any “what are you gonna do about it”, or even that what they’re attempting / doing can’t be done: I’m just pointing to what I see as a fact and one that’s been getting by us.
    The banksters aren’t relying on art 3 of the UCC for its props re: poss of a bearer note, except for the endorsement in blank. Their real
    reliance is on the “assignment” to establish a sale of the note and their alleged production of the note is to establish they took delivery pursuant to that sale they allege is evidenced by the sale agreement (aka the assignment).

    In order for one to believe this, one would have to understand that
    notes are sold by agreement, generally a written one. This isn’t to say that a transfer couldn’t be effected without a written agreement. If you pay me 100k as adequate consideration for a note and I give you the note (you take delivery) with the intent of giving you ALL my rights thereto, pursuant to the ucc, a transfer has occurred. Because a transfer has occurred, even tho we didn’t make a written agreement, the UCC gets looked at to determine our rights in the event of a dispute, and in this case, you win, I lose (you have to demonstrate the elements of transfer: you paid me fair and square, i gave you the note, etc.) Article 3 wasn’t designed to MAKE transfers; it was created to define a “transfer” and to determine if one occurred (generally in the absence of a controlling written agreement).

    An agreement for the sale of notes is generally not an allowable recordation since by themselves, they have no bearing on real estate.
    Because, briefly, there is no other written agreement between these
    particular assignors and assignees to create and evidence a sale, they use the doc we ‘know’ as an assgt to accomplish this, or more appropriately imo, to pretend it’s happening in and by this document and further, to get it on public record.

  37. Problem is NPV she thinks shes his favorite. Listen im tongue in cheek much of the time, despite this blogg bringing out seriously awful things that have far reaching implications on society as a whole our consumer rights and land rights i personally endeavor to learn and stay in truth let’s not turn it into who has to be right, some lawsuits were managed better than others, i ask you all what would you do differently now after research and experience – exactly. We do our best.

  38. Holder of Title – you have no idea what you are talking about, God does not love Christine – God likes her at best.

  39. Hey cheistine- I’m not judging anyone here, just asking blunt, straightforward questions that others don’t seem to ask but which deserve an answer.
    I’m no shill or troll or other Internet term, and I’m certainly not a banker.
    I like NGs posts, and I like reading the answers. And asking questions, or posting what I hope is useful

  40. There are a few things which prevent discovery and lead to granting mtns for sj. Two of them are:

    Reliance on article 3’s holder provisions
    and at the same time,
    Reliance on a “mers” asst of the note and coll instrument.
    Reliance on the allegation of consideration recited in the assgt.

    Courts imo believe, as has been held since its inception, that the UCC
    provides for smooth commerce, succinctly. Courts want to uphold this tenet. We do little if anything to dissuade them. It doesn’t matter to courts how X came into possession of a bearer note. We have to make them and I believe we can, that facts exists to support argument. Because they don’t care, they also don’t care if a third party paid off the obligation represented by the note or any other circumstance,
    such as who funded the loan.
    Unless anyone successfully argues against the two reliances above,
    the court is going to give the claimant what it wants. IMO possession of a bearer note doesn’t open the court house door for one in possession, as I’ve opined 5 times, because pursuant to frcp 17, it doesn’t. Nor imo does poss of a bearer note jive with the agreement made in the note itself about enforcement. Imo, that could be the end of it were it not for the ‘mers’ assignment. The mers assgt purports a number of things:

    the assignment is a purchase and sale agreement mol of the note and its collateral

    the assignor, mers, has the right to assign the note, in it own right or for another (its done as if it’s in its own right). This translates to mers has something to assign.

    the assignor, mers, has the right to assign the collateral instrument in
    its own right or for another (its done as if its in its own right). This translates to mers has something to assign.

    that appropriate consideration is being paid – as a current event –
    for the consideration

    that mers is a proper party to be paid that consideration

    I’ve been wrong about a biggie – that an agent may assign the interest of its principal by, long and short, identifying its principal, and indicating that it’s assigning ‘as agent for’ that id’d principal. An agent may NOT assign the interest of its principal. That particular act may only be done by one with a power of attorney. To put this in perspective, one hires a r.e. agent to find a buyer for one’s home. If an agent could be the one to convey or commit a seller’s interest, the agent would sign the contract with the buyer for the seller as well as the deed at closing. They don’t because they can’t. As agents, they’re limited as a matter of law to what they can and can’t do on behalf of their principals.

    IF mers IS the ben, then mers could feasibly assign the ben interest in the dot, but it can’t do so otherwise. It cannot do it as agent of the ben.
    The banksters are relying, without actually saying so, on the transfer of the note in the “mers” assignment. (Alleged) poss of the note is merely to demonstrate to the court that the claimant, as transferee of that note
    as allegedly established in the assgt agreement, has taken delivery.

    If a homeowner doesn’t overcome the reliance by the court, the court isn’t going to be moved by allegations of 3rd party payment or by who funded the loan or anything else on those lines.

    If you’re the claimant and not the defendant, you also need to establish successor liability for any origination sins, such as tila violations,
    predatory lending, whatever your claim(s).
    lay opinions

  41. Christine and Ian are the only two wins here other than myself that I am aware of.

    1. Hire an attorney

    2. Request the Accounting

    3. Get a Title Report and Abstract and Prelim Title Ins Policy

    4. Attack the Mortgage

    5. Pay your taxes and insurance on time

    Many BlessingBlessing to All

    P.s…Multiples cause Neil keeps sending us to Quiet Time. It took him along time to figure out that’s impossible. *Grins*

  42. Christine and Ian,
    What debt collector do you work for? God still loves you anyway.

  43. And realise keeping the house isnt solving the bigger issue – title and land rights. I lost my house to a party that lost nothing, they sold my home for a nice windfall, where did that money go / DEBT COLLECTOR.

  44. Unbelievable the energy some put into trying to convince the reader that Neil garfield is a bad guy, remember brutus… And that little saying of Jesus about removing the rock in your own eye before trying to pick a splint out of another’s. Theres an agenda christine you have an agenda no sure what its not helping anyone pointing out the obvious over and over.
    The real estate bubble money was created deliberately to make money on our demise and loss, with help from malleable appraisers, getting that argument into court and proving it AND on a playing field tipped 90 degrees in the banks favor not to mention the past decade of preparation and MERS – they are smarter they are richer and they have a lot if power but not to even try to get justice is worse, trying and believing is where God is and the home and real security is within.

  45. Ian,

    A couple of years ago, you came here, posting: “Where are the wins? There are no wins here!”

    There are no 12 steps. This is not AA. The question is only twofold: do you want to DEFEND foreclosure or do you want to PREEMPT foreclosure? Since 2011, we’ve known how to preempt foreclosure. Garfield NEVER broached the subject (no money for him in there).

    I won’t touch DEFEND. I preempted by attacking first and (trying) to teach people about it. I got so much flack from people on the new-and-improved Garfield defensive attack team, wait-to-be-foreclosed-upon-and-respond, it was pathetic. I actually got kicked out from LL.

    Yet, I attacked first, I won a judgment and I’m still in the house. Takes homework. The same kind of homework people have resisted doing and NG never taught in his get-them-to-foreclose-and-counter-attack that has not ONCE worked here, it’s pathetic. 10 hours of going through your own documents would have saved $5,000 securitization audit worth peanuts (LL is a registered LLC business. NG makes money. That’s his business to sell useless audits, in addition to touching retirement, and he pays NO taxes running it, while trying no cases, referring them, getting a cut and deducting everything as an expense. James Sokolove invented the format in MA in the early 80s.).

    Are you on the defensive? I won’t touch it.

    You’ve been coming here for a while. You know the crap attack I get and from whom. Get hardcore NG followers to announce wins: there aren’t any. Get them to fess up to their losses: they won’t. Get them to give advice on how to present a case: they won’t.

    Are you defending? Which state? How far into NG crap theory are you buried? Do you have an attorney? I may help you break free. Let me know.

  46. “That’s so damned easy! Why didn’t anyone else figure that out?”

    Because everyone waits to be in default to react still now. 7 years into it.

    No excuse for not being on the offensive. Oops! Yes. There is a slew of excuses… “I lost my job but I really expected to get a similar one within a couple of months.” (Are you following the economy outside of MSM? Do you have Internet? Can you read? Could you have anticipated that, 7 years into the mess, you won’t get a frickin’ job? You get behind, you prepare for the worse. You pre-pare. Means homework instead of TV!)

    “But… No attorney wants my case. And I can’t afford one anyway.” BS. No attorney wants a case tainted with NG/Livinglies BS: no document, no timeline, all theories and unrealistic expectations. Serious attorneys with proven record are waiting for serious homeowners whose cases can change the landscape. The problem is… morons keep piling up and creating cases for banks to use. In NG/LL theories and no homework but useless $2,500 securitization audits. Nancy Drewes costs $5,000. So do NG. NOT ONE WINNER on anyone,

    Hell happened in 2007. Homeowners have been whining over it ever since and looking for shortcuts from guys like NG. NG is nothing to a Billl Black (who testified 3 times before Congress and got… nowhere!)

    If Bill Black got nowhere, how is NG (who does NOT even try cases) going to make a dent from writing a blog?

    Get real.

  47. By now, some of you have been here long enough to know there are ‘employees’ posting here.
    The people who act like its our fault will
    stop being paid earlier than that .

    and stop posting on these sites after “”””””claiming they won””””””” and we are too stupid to win.

  48. Christine- I understand your exasperations with whiners, the sky is falling people, doomsayers etc.
    Yet no one, yourself included, comes up with a 12 step program for self help. Such as;
    #1. Do this.
    #2. Do that
    #3. Etcetera

    While the law seems to be irregularly or unevenly applied or interpreted from coast to coast, there is always a starting g point.
    Perhaps you can be the one to show the way!

  49. Holder of title- that a boy! A fresh train of thought! How refreshing! The answers to your postulations are yes, no, no, no and yes!
    (You’re not related to Eric Holder are you? )

  50. “By now, some of you have been here long enough to know there are ‘employees’ posting here.
    If you are really aware you’d know an alias is how one can be multiple.”

    This kind of insane innuendo is exactly why people on this site get just about… nowhere! A sorry bunch, too busy being small minded and bringing nothing to the table except whining, complaining, rehashing their alleged victimization, brought upon by their own stupidity.

    “Unlike the 19th century immigrants, post-1965 Chinese immigrants are predominantly skilled: China is now the principal source of foreign students in U.S. higher education, and the second-largest recipient of employer-sponsored temporary work visas, after India.”

    Well, Indians and Chinese come with money to study, they stay, they create businesses, they get solid dual-citizenship and they hire… dual-citizen people who bring something other than paranoia and schizophrenia to work. Chinese don’t hire victims. They go for doers. And they now own most major ports and airports in the US. So, keep crying over a house lost because “all attorneys are crooks, all judges are sell-out and trolls and shills inhabit this country and infiltrate the web.”

    Those who play victims while refusing to take responsibility for their results will remain victims. The world keeps moving without them.

  51. If a bank agrees to rescission, common law of course not TILA, where they get there money back first, why would the banks attorney’s stay a bankruptcy with a note endorsed ” Pay to the Order of Without Recourse” and stamped “Void”? Does that mean the Loan was never funded in the first place? Banks claim they are Lender and Originator of the Note giving them standing to foreclose. How can a Bank foreclose on a Mortgage when the loan was never funded in the first place? How can a Bank be an Originator or Lender of a Note and Mortgage with no financial transaction backing the Note and Mortgage?

  52. By now, some of you have been here long enough to know there are ’employees’ posting here.
    If you are really aware you’d know an alias is how one can be multiple.
    If you are unaware, you’ll think everything is your fault and if you spend enough money and give it enough time you’ll be successful.

    If you took the time to realize, you may fight for your home and win only to have someone jump and pay the taxes on it next year before you do to get it back.
    Do you think you local tax people are going to send their payment back and take yours or send yours back?
    What you’d really see is if someone does win all judgments are public record and probably show up on your credit report.
    The entire system is connected.
    You protect a right in one place and have it taken from you in another.
    Your job may lay off and your name is on the list, someone pays your tax and you have to spend money to fight for a ‘right to pay your own tax?’
    Bottom line is, these banks are broke and they have the power to steal.
    If you are smart you do not bite the hand that feeds you.
    So banks will save law enforcement, judges, attorneys, and politicians for last cause there will be no one to speak for them when they get what they gave us.

    The people who act like its our fault will stop being paid earlier than that and stop posting on these sites after claiming they won and we are too stupid to win.

    In all honesty if I had my home, I’d have no interest in seeing someone else go through what I did. But even if I told them what I did, it would have nothing to do with it.

    Everyone’s circumstance is different. Some stopped paying, some got behind on payments, some made mos agreements, and the type of mortgage, some have MERS, some have trusts, some have dead entities, and the trustee, some trustees are employed by the same bank stealing your home. The conflict of interest presents itself.
    The substitution takes place, they not work for the same bank so they know it took place and they steal each others beneficiary’s property.

    I know some work for the same bank.
    I complained to the trustee on our deed and he said “their client is our client, too”.

    And there is the judge. Similar cases some will be dismissed, some botched to get more out of you on appeal and from there, some are settled and some sent back to the prior court, some get summary judgment some don’t.

    So do you really think anyone can come on here and tell everyone we are doing it wrong? That there is a remedy?
    Really? Do ya?

    I read an article Dont remember enough to quote title or contents right.

    Something about 100 reasons to get rid of the fed.
    Said if Jesus spent 100,000,000 every day since his birth, he’d still not spend a trillion dollars.

    These banks steal a trillion and pay back less than what Jesus would spend in three days and we call it a settlement.

    I ain’t saying nothing else.

    You don’t hear me!

    Do you know how much they had in their books when they need bail?

    The Fed has the equivalent of more than 4 Jesus’s born and spending (one hundred million) 100,000,000 a day and still not reaching what they claim on their books.

    When this is over do you think today’s rich will have anything to hand to their posterity?


    They are only rich cause they are allowed in the circle.

    One day they will not be able to say anything because the one who controls the money will look and say
    ” who are you to talk to me like this!
    I can promise people half this state to get rid of you and they will!”

    “The rich will say, but, but, my great, great, great, great, grandfather is how you got your power. They gave it to you.

    The banker will say, and where are they now to take it away?

    Be gone. You have nothing to give me.
    I have EVERYTHING!!!!!!!! ”

    That’s what the judges and attorneys are creating, their own poverty through their posterity.

    Of course they’ll be dead and probably not care, but if reincarnation really is how they say it is; they’ll reincarnate right back here to see their self go from rich to poor with a word, just like they did to us.

    What goes around……..

    Banks never go through austerity no matter what they do.

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

  53. Christine says:

    “That’s what discovery is for. To force banks to produce the accounting. Get to discovery and then, demand the entire accounting.

    People waste their entire time in trivialities rather than on focusing to do everything they need in order to GET TO DISCOVERY. And ask the right questions then.

    They don’t learn…”

    * * *

    OK then! That’s so damned easy! Why didn’t anyone else figure that out?

    However, you’ve left out a few pertinent details concerning the uphill battle to discovery, and this is BEFORE you get to all the perjury, robosigning, hearsay, fraudulent assignments, etc. Little details such as:

    The Federal Judicial Center studied the effect of a decision called Ashcroft v. Iqbal on federal judges. At page 14 of the report, the FJC determined that federal courts in 2010 dismissed an astonishing 91.9 percent of plaintiff’s “financial instrument” claims “for failure to state a claim.” This is nearly double the rate (47 percent) from 2006. This means that 92 percent of plaintiff’s claims against banks never see the light of day.

    Was this nearly doubled rate-shift a bug, or a new and improved feature meant to tilt the playing field in one and only one direction? Why would true justice-for-all deliberately skew the rules and therefore the outcome just as the financial crisis hit hard? A bizarre accident? I nasty twist of fate for millions of borrowers?

    No matter how well written your complaint, one typically has a better than 9 out of 10 chance of being sent to the showers before even touching the ball. Discovery? Most simply rediscover the parking lot newly bereft of their life savings. That’s a hell of a discovery.

  54. “Use this calculator to determine the balance on your loan (may only work on fixed rates) after your last payment. If the bankster’s is diff, imo it’s a material dispute if not a bogus nod. If you don’t have a fixed rate, look for a software program that can figure the balance on bs loans.”

    That’s what discovery is for. To force banks to produce the accounting. Get to discovery and then, demand the entire accounting.

    People waste their entire time in trivialities rather than on focusing to do everything they need in order to GET TO DISCOVERY. And ask the right questions then.

    They don’t learn…

  55. they way i look at it is the contract was void ab initio because the intention was to convert the asset for their own means and ends in a ways that used the actual asset ( my promise to pay and substitute my home as collateral if there was “default” they put the asset at risk deliberately for their own means and ends, how else can you spin this.
    It was breach of contract ab initio predatory unfair business practice fraud in the factum to think of a few, and put the ecoomics of this nation over the cliff in real terms leaving the tax payer to pick up the bill and suffer their own losses, over and over. Can you believe opposing council once said to me ” buyer beware” im sure she did not understand what under statement that was.


    Use this calculator to determine the balance on your loan (may only work on fixed rates) after your last payment. If the bankster’s is diff, imo it’s a material dispute if not a bogus nod. If you don’t have a fixed rate, look for a software program that can figure the balance on bs loans.
    I don’t know that there is one, but there might be.


    I’ve commented on the requirement for accurate figures in the recorded Notice of Default. At least one state SC has, errantly imo, allowed those figures to be absent in the NOD and provided in another manner to the borrower (which means that number is not of public record). This article imo helps explain why those figures are to be in the NOD and why they have to be accurate. See “The Article 9 Sale Process” therein.

  58. Still the loan app. was not in the borrowers closing docs when they went home to their new foreclosure. If the borrowers had copies of the inflated incomes they would have gone back and reported it. The lender has a copy. Tittle has a copy. The borrower doesn’t.

    Also the federal required booklets for the borrowers prior to the loan, “The consumer adjustable rate mortgage handbook” , ” The hud settlement cost handbook” Did you get one?

    The borrower did not lack in English or understanding. They were conned, lied to, and were not given all the required disclosures.

  59. @ johngault,

    The MERS is a disaster and it was legitimized by Eric Holder’s law firm.

    Jeb Hensarling from Texas is attempting to force a wholly private recording entity in the MERS fashion.

    The point is: the central banks want to control the money they create as debt out of thin air; the insurance swaps they make bets with on things they don’t own; our government; the stock market; the ratings agencies and the repository of titles to real estate across the country.

    Go to “” and sign the petition if you believe ALL THE TITLES THROUGHOUT THE NATION DESERVE AN AUDIT.

    Article 8 in the constitution allows for “congress to coin our money” oftentimes this is described as “congress controlling the purse strings” although that terminology is taken directly from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a coalition of Baptist ministers.

    The use of the word “coin” is unfortunate. It was used because there was a prejudice against paper money back in those days. After the Revolution, the paper bills that were used (called “Continentals”) during the conflict were bought by agents of the English monarchy for pennies on the dollar.

    The English crown purposely conspired to do that even as they were intent upon financially destabilizing the colonies shortly after they lost the war.

    Anyway, although I am paraphrasing a bit, Article 8 specifically says “congress has the power to coin our money”. Nowhere does it say, “private bankers with ties to foreign countries have the power to create our money out of thin air on computer screens”.

    I double-checked my copy of the constitution and I’m sure it never said that.

    The Baptist ministers wrote to Jefferson to explain they were anxious the new colonial government should never get into the money-lending business as they felt the Bible was explicit in stating “usury (lending money at interest)” is a sin.

    Nowadays, bankers hide behind the fake veneer of the intentionally mislabeled “Federal Reserve” and violate the citizenry well-beyond the point of “usury”, by stealing their property outright, but, I don’t feel I need explain that to anyone on this site.

  60. 1) MERS , in arguing that it didn’t need a lending license, swore to the NB dept of banking and finance (mers v Nebraska Dept of Bking and Finance) that it had no interest in notes (think to assign). If you’re interested, look it up and see what else mers swore.

    2) MERS swore in Hilmon v mers, 2007 WL 1218718, ED MI 06-13055, dkt 19 that UCC Article 9, not 3, regulates our notes.

    I was looking at a case when I found that a judge actually looked at the case in support used by a bankster, and gee, shocker, she found it didn’t say what the bankster purported. But, what was of greater interest to me was that the judge took JUDICIAL NOTICE of the language in those documents in ANOTHER court by way of FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 201(b)(2). This is part of fre 201:

    “c) Taking Notice. The court:

    (1) may take judicial notice on its own; or

    (2) MUST take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.”

    Seems to me if a court must take judicial notice if a party requests it, then so must a court consider the material judicially noticed in any
    adjudication in the instant case. Google fre 201 for more info.
    This all says to me that the statements (which I believe are or become (here become) “against interest” – a legal phrase) made by ‘mers’ / merscorp in other cases may be noticed in ours. Further, to the extent anyone happens to ‘find’ a case wherein mers and its pals have taken a position contrary to the one being taken in a particular case (yours), an argument might be made that it’s newly discovered evidence (subject to the rules regarding newly discovered evidence – frcp 60, I think).

    The statements offered in Nebraska and in Hilmon were not statements against interest when made, but they are judicially noticeable stmts which are now against interest in that mers, et al claim mers has a right to assign a note (something it is on record as swearing it has no interest in – NB) ) and that these notes are regulated by article 9, not 3 of the UCC (Hilmon).
    Also, imo the merscorp membership rules, etc. would be judicially noticeable. The rule provides more clarity on what may be noticed, as will case law on point as to the rule.

  61. Regarding TILA and I am not an attorney but this is laymens uderstanding.

    If prior to the US Supreme court the Lower courts were not enforcing TILA correctly than the The THREE Year recission should start from the time of the recent ruling by the US Supreme court as one option.

    Again I am not giving legal advice.


  62. Oregansonlybrain
    Law is the law – and if justice is not upheld according to the written laws of this land then what do we have ? We must fight for justice, the house is just bricks and morter, so if my thinking is old fashioned then im proud to be old fashioned.

  63. WAMU / refi / 2007 /. Foreclosing party Homeward Residential (re Ocwen) (claiming to own the loan). Freddie Mac claiming to own the loan at the same time Chase assignment to Homeward was presented as evidence . The note demanded in discovery came from Deutche Bank. The county recojrds at the date/time of the FC filing indicated WAMU as title holder. FC judgment entered in favor of Ocwen. Ocwen sends 14 letters threatening to foreclose long after judgement was entered in their favor (no def. jmt). All sent directly to us long after Ocwen knew we were represented by counsel. DBank and Freddie Mac were never mentioned in the case. I hope you post this for all the non-lawyers that read your blog so they don’t waste their money trying to fight a legal system that supports the origination fraud and predatory tactics that destroyed millions of homeowners equity value along with their trust and how they now view this country as nothing but a giant con-job.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: