How We Became a Nation of Renters

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



The above link has an excellent info-graphic about the mortgage crisis and the changing nature of our society. What is perplexing is that people who oppose what the banks were allowed to hijack the loans are still saying that the problem is that the paperwork wasn’t done right. That is true of course but it isn’t the point. The point is that the banks did the unthinkable and then continued to profit and leverage off of a business model which consisted of getting away with pure theft. That the paperwork was wrong is a natural consequence of that behavior. This reality continues to escape most Judges, lay people and their lawyers.

If you or I defrauded someone into thinking that they were investing in a real company and instead went out and spent the money on groceries and did a few things to make it look like the “business” was operating, we would be prosecuted and jailed. And that is what happened in the S&L crisis in the 1980’s where more than 800 bankers ended up in jail within 3 years.

In this case the banks had a plan. First they got the government to deregulate the securities issued by a REMIC trust, credit default swaps and insurance contracts. Second they created the appearance of an IPO — the sale of mortgage backed securities from a REMIC Trust. But the Trust never operated, never received any money from the sale of the securities, never purchased any loans, and sits as the passive party where  third parties are allowed to use the name of the trust in Court and non-judicial foreclosures as the owner of the loan. It never happened. But the banks need the courts to assume the trust does own the loan. And the reason for that is so the “servicers” can claim the right to service the loan, which derives from the trust instrument — the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. And that enables these robo-witnesses to testify what is on the books of that servicer — but never what is on the books of the alleged creditor (Trust). Are the books of the “servicer” the same as the books of the creditor? We never find out even in contested actions because the Judges are confused.

The truth is hard for the judicial system to swallow — the Trust doesn’t own the loan, thus the trust instrument is irrelevant by its own terms, hence the “servicer” (appointed in the PSA) has no authority to service the loan and the “trustee” has no power or right to assert anything about a default, collection or enforcement. Patrick Giunta and I have both — individually and together — settled or won cases outright on exactly that point and thousands of other cases are being won or settled based upon that essential truth. And those powers of attorney are meaningless – conveying power to the recipient that the originating party doesn’t have.

But the even harder truth to swallow is that the homeowners got their “free house” at closing. Sorry, but it is true. It doesn’t mean they don’t owe any money, but it is completely true that in most cases there is no valid security for the loan — i.e., the mortgage is void from the start because there was no valid enforceable loan contract for one simple reason — the “lender” was not the lender. The money DID come from investors but not through the REMIC trust. The note was also void from the start.

Somehow the Banks have succeeded in convincing Judges that despite the facts — that the homeowner had no deal with the payee on the note, the mortgagee on the mortgage, the beneficiary on the deed of trust — the Court should enforce the illegal transaction. Despite the plain misrepresentations at closing and the pattern of table funded loans (predatory per se under Reg Z) the courts are enforcing nonexistent deals where sham entities and bankruptcy remote vehicles were used to defraud both the borrower and the investors whose money was used in ways they never imagined. And ultimately these sham entities and sham relationships were used to “foreclose” on over 7 million Americans.

At the root of the problem is that in most cases the borrower should not have been presented with documents that plainly misrepresented the truth about the deal right down to who the lender was. That the borrower signed the papers in reliance on the misrepresentations at the “closing” should not be reason to enforce the false documents. Those false documents at “closing” should never have left the closing table. They should never have been signed. They should never have been released from the closing table and if the closing agent was aware of the facts, that agent should be held accountable. And if that is the case the documents should never have been recorded. That is the reason the mortgage was legally void when recorded despite the presumptions (rebuttable) of authenticity for a recorded instrument. And THAT is why the the great majority of foreclosures are and were all fraudulent.

Most people don’t like the result — that the homeowner owns the house free and clear of any mortgage encumbrance. But the alternative is worse — that the banks who stole the money from investors get to act like THEY were the lenders when they never had one cent in the deal. And the Banks get to have a literally free house without expending one cent — except by using the money from investors in ways they never imagined. When the homeowner gets the “free house” it isn’t free. They still owe money to the investors under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. And the investors, if they would finally get the message, could get a judgment against the borrower for not paying. And that judgment in most states is enforceable against the borrower except for statutory exemptions for homestead. But we all know from the actual figures that nearly all homeowners would enter into a new mortgage and note or modification in which the investors were named based upon reasonable, legal terms and conditions. So there is no free house for homeowners but there is a free house for the banks.

40 Responses

  1. Dont mean to ” hog the blog” but i think 1640 is something that they may worry about,

  2. Re rescission cornell law is great resource for research:

  3. Rock
    Im still arguing you do not know my case, but i understand what you are saying, and im good, thanks.

  4. Sorry Ms Wynn, that’s not how it works. You can have a common law rescission claim, but not a TILA rescission:

    12 CFR Part 1026 (Regulation Z)

    23(f) Exempt Transactions

    Any transaction to construct or acquire a principal dwelling, whether considered real or personal property, is exempt. (See the commentary to § 1026.23(a).) For example, a credit transaction to acquire a mobile home or houseboat to be used as the consumer’s principal dwelling would not be rescindable.

    Even if you have a common law rescission claim, its the opposite of TILA rescission, in that you must tender first.

    Moreover, arguing TILA rescission instead of common law rescission, could get you sanctioned!

  5. The point – i rescinded to the creditor.

  6. So SC
    They paid taxes after foreclosure/ sale of to the ” highest bidder trustee” and the foreclosure was after I had rescinded
    The teeth the Jesinowski case has are real.believe it.

  7. sC
    Stop pissin on my parade lol,
    Thats not how they matched into court and thats not it.

  8. Rock
    In answer to your point about my mortgage was a purchase money transaction – is that fact, they had 20 days to state their point thereto,
    Then i could argue that point – believe me i could then and can now, there is more to that ” mortgage loan” ” transaction” and you should know. Think about it.

  9. Common Law Recession. …..
    Fraud on the Face of the contract
    Fraud in the inducement of the contract

    Have you ever tried to enforce the contract?

  10. Deb… the servicer became a lender when they advanced the taxes and ins on your estate. Thereby giving them 1st lien position.
    The slush fund escrow accounts.

  11. Ms. Wynn, I though you had commented, at one time, your loan was a purchase transaction. What makes you think you’ve rescinded the transaction, other than the nonsense the scammer/nitwits have posted?

  12. Anyhoo – I RESCINDED within 3 yrs and they failed to file for declaratory relief – its a problem for them – forget tolling

  13. Yeah well SC re that 1099a ( shoukd be issued by actual lender not servicer and setvicing rights are not the same as lender) – i have been trying to find out – no 1099c – release from the debt hmmm

  14. This google voice is as annoying as auto spell check. 😰

    Where the get their information .. Not

  15. I really got fed up with offers to refinance MY MORTGAGE for $236000.
    I would call them and ask where they vote their information.

    Imagine that?
    I was not a borrower on the note but apparently I am a borrower under the Mortgage Note.

  16. If a party prepays a loan off… What do they owe?
    The amount the estate with leveraged ?
    The amount of the principal amortization?

  17. Deb…
    RE: selling the future payment streams principal and interest.

    Could that have something g to do with servicing rights?

    How do you sell “future servicing rights in advance”?

    The notes selling at face value now.should be a big eye opener.

  18. The trustee not in its individual capacity but as trustee for trust.

  19. Im sorry – flippin typos, you get my gist though.

  20. jG
    Right – the trustee does not own the note, trustee for a MBS
    All go to the source –
    “MBS are debt obligations that represent claims to CASH FLOWS ( caps mine) from POOLS of mortgage loans, most commonly resudential property. Mortgage lians purchased from banks, mortgage comoanies, and other originators and then assembled into pools by government, quasi- givernment, or PRIVATE entity.the entity then issues securitites that represent CLAIMS on principle ans interest payments made by borrowers on the loans in the pool, a process known as securitization”.

    Therefore, with MBS there us actually NO SALE of real estate or purchase if real estate, it is BACKED ONLY by mortgage securitites, so can a ” trustee” be a trustee of a MBS AND a buyer of property, if so it holds a contraductory position, my next point is are they in court as such, and are their actions correct ( or not).

    Not an attorney, not legal advice, just sharing my lay opinion.

  21. bob hurt: “Second, Regardless of whether the securitization trust owns the note, the trustee certainly owns it as assignee or as holder of a note indorsed in blank. And that gives the trustee right to enforce it.”

    jg: I’m on the same page, somewhat, re: NG’s take on void notes when it comes to a holder in due course because to be one, he had to take without notice, for value, and in good faith. So to the extent those 3 things are in place (and to the extent art 3 has anything to do with these notes), I’ve not been sure it matters who funded the loan. But, your quote above makes me shake my head. The trustee owns the note as an assignee? How’s that, pray tell?
    Why would notes be, are being, assigned to sec’n trustees and not to the trusts? If the trust doesn’t own the note, how does the “trustee certainly own it as assignee”? I don’t believe a secn trustee may ever qualify “as a holder of a note endorsed in blank” in his own right, as your comment seems to say. If a note is end’d in blank, any trustee of a remic with physical poss holds it as the custodian for the trust, not himself, or straighten me out….. por favor.

  22. NG: “That is the reason the mortgage was legally void when recorded despite the presumptions (rebuttable) of authenticity for a recorded instrument.”

    well now, just to make something clear: A properly certified copy of a recorded document only stands to evidence its recordation. But there really is no presumption as to the veracity of the information contained in a recorded document. This common misperception has lead to a lot of trouble for homeowners. Only a properly certified copy of a recorded doc is admissable and that’s just to show that it was recorded. The cert must be made by the recorder’s office generally. So I guess what I’m opining is that recordation doesn’t stand as rebuttable anything about the contents of a recorded doc. However, some states have laws which DO create a rebuttable presumption regarding the contents after a time certain, like say five years.
    It reminds me of the misperception from a couple years ago about an officer of a corp executing a doc. The law says if an officer of a corporation executes, say, an assgt, he has bound the corporation. It doesn’t mean the corp had anything to assign. Some judges misconstrue this law to mean the corp had something to assign.

    What makes one a corporate officer? A proper corporate resolution (by its board)? is that IT? As I believe deadlyclear is keen on, hultman appears to be using a resolution of the first or second, but not third and current, iteration of merscorp to appoint mers’ “officers”. Could it be said that the board of the current iteration has ratified his appts? I dunno. DC probably has an informed opinion. I believe hultman’s a crazy person and or MERSCORP is liable for all the acts of the robo-signers. (Did we ever find out if Arnold is alive and well?) Who’s head rolled? LPS’s, for a season. They were regarded as having the plague for that season and then it was right back to business when it became clear the dust had settled with no one in the deserved shackles and chains. That whole deal just boggles the mind, as does the mers m.o. and judges parroting, as I said, their schmiel as facts.

    But, as to what makes one a corporate officer, something never discussed that I know of, I find it curious that of the 20 or so alleged mers’ officers i’ve looked into, NOT ONE OF THEM has listed his or her lofty mers’ officership (generally v.p) on his or her linked page.
    Everyone imo should look up his or her very own mers” officer” at that person’s linked page and keep a record. I actually took some screen shots. (You’ll generally find that person lists herself as an employee of the servicer with, shock, no mention of any affiliation with mers).

  23. Neil, your considerations in your commentary have the dull ring of balderdash, or, if you prefer, BULL SHOUTS. I want to see ANYTHING you have won on the basis of your arguments.

    First of all, the nature of a loan’s funding, and the bankruptcy remote status of players in the mortgage industry, like MERS, has nothing to do with whether the borrower owes a debt to the owner of beneficial interest in the note, nor whether a servicer may service it, particularly since the borrower agreed to the servicer in the security instrument and to sale of the note.

    Second, Regardless of whether the securitization trust owns the note, the trustee certainly owns it as assignee or as holder of a note indorsed in blank.  And that gives the trustee right to enforce it.

    And that explains why, every court business day, courts across the land order foreclosures of notes which the borrowers breached.  Creditors foreclose because they have the legal right to do so in order to relieve an injury and obtain remedy for that injury. 

    When borrowers follow your logic, they ignore the fact that the lender and others injured them at the inception of the loan, such as by lying about the property value, falsifying information in the loan application, and charging excessive fees or interest.  If borrowers dig for and find those injuries, and show them to the court in contract breach or tort lawsuits or use them as affirmative defenses, counter claims, and cross claims in a foreclosure lawsuit, they might have some chance of getting the loan balance reduced dramatically at favorable terms, or of winning compensatory and punitive damages.

    Following YOUR logic, they will argue with your BULL SHOUTS, the court will order the foreclosure, and they will lose their house while your foreclosure pretense defense lawyer acolytes who “get it” bilk them $500 a month for the privilege of having an incompetent, malpracticing attorney walk them down the aisle to summary judgment in favor of the creditor.

    Of course, if you should encourage your readers to follow the Mortgage Attack dot com methodology, your “get it” minions will lose money, so I guess you won’t do it, will you?

    Bob Hurt

    Quoting Livinglies’s Weblog :

    > Neil Garfield posted: “For more information please call 954-495-9867 or > 520-405-1688 ============================== see > The > above link has an excellent info-graphic about the mortgage crisis and > the ch” > >

  24. And im NOT whining – just keepin it real.

  25. And like ive said before who would sign for a loan when the trye value of the home would not even cover that ” loan” by half. I had a home i could easily afford before the deal, i had great credit, i owned my vehicle, i had savings i had career prospects, i could still have those things and six years of my life enjoyed already – but for the crap ive endured in court.

  26. And java – thank you for seeing that the 1099a is a big issue it has my name on it, i will not concede because i know it is untrue.

  27. Hence i could not get a thing out of them under FOIA i got ” ask one west all files were transferred, so i face the corp veil, but i got ” one west were not the successor in interest – they bought certain assets – one being SERVICING rights, ” did not state they were lender, but the 1099a states that they are. So what can i rely on..? What can any of us rely on is the bigger question.

  28. I will tell you this much – indymac liabilities rest with the FDIC

  29. Ian – look who bought indymac – overnight deal literally question is – what exactly were the assets ( esp in regards to MY loan)
    ” this company is a debt collector”

  30. Part of my argument is simply if the paperwork is wrong and the accounting is wrong and the loan numbers differ then it is nithing but UNRELIABLE ” evidence” it evidences that these documents presented are in fact unrelieble and here is where the opposition need to be held to the strict proof thereto, of their claims with regards to their evidence, which amount to ?.. Let the doors to discovery be opened wide – as they should be giving equal oppertuinity to prove your standing on such questionable facts that the courts are relying upon to adminuster justice, questionable fact questionable justice – rule 60
    Just lay opinion not an attorney, check with council regarding your unique cases.

  31. This is why TILA 1635 ruling by Scalia is so important.

  32. The poor widow was not a borrower on the note and was kicked to the curb.

    No under my watch!

  33. It was not the title to the house they wanted but the title to the living estate (past present future). 10fold

    Irrevocably. ….

  34. Its a shame that Beekman presented such a disastrously rambling case. The parameters for pleading a case are well established and have to be followed.
    On the other hand, Indymac was another criminal enterprise, breaking every law, regulation, rule, and standard of decency. So whatever Beekman could possibly say would be true, but he didnt get anywhere of course.
    When the independent foreclosure review monitor reported their review of mortgage servicers’ compliance records, OneWest Bank, out of 100,000 modification requests (under HAMP), modified a grand total of……….0, as in Zero, loans. In 2014 they (onewest) was still telling “borrowers” that they had to be 3 payments behind in order to get a modification. They, like all the rest, are not a business, but a criminal organization.

  35. Its right in the mortgage the homeowners warrant transfer and convey free and clear of encumbrances and liens except those of record at closing.

  36. The Free House arguement is pure Propoganda not based on the Law. Ala the Nazi Propaganda.


  37. The Judge should follow the law in the spirit of the Jesinoski case as per Justice Scalia NOT LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH BASED ON PREJUDICE. And let the chips fall how they fall.

    The Judge is not above the law especially a law passed by Congress. UCC etc…….. We enter a court of Law not a philosophy Court. or even a Moral Court or a court of legislating from the bench court.


  38. Didn’t I post that hilarious yet tragic Beekman case recently?

  39. Not only does he not know how to write a proper affidavit, obviously the same thing is true about his complaints!

    Is this one of the wins (loses) Garfield is talking about?:

    A Florida federal judge dismissed on Friday a plaintiff’s second attempt at a complaint in a False Claims Act suit alleging OneWest Bank and billionaire George Soros finagled a loss-sharing deal with the government that allowed them to scam homeowners, finding the “shotgun pleading” didn’t give the defendants fair notice.

    The court agreed with OneWest that plaintiff James Beekman’s complaint was insufficiently pled and gave Beekman one last chance to refile the complaint. The government has not intervened in the suit.

    Beekman agreed that his first attempt in October 2012 was “so disorganized, vague and ambiguous” that the defendants couldn’t possibly be expected to respond, refiling in July 2014. But Judge James I. Cohn seemed unimpressed with his attempt to reorganize.


    Beekman, who originally took out his mortgage with third defendant IndyMac Federal Bank, alleged that when majority shareholder Soros and OneWest took over the fallen bank, they entered into a loss-sharing agreement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Under the deal, OneWest would shoulder the first 20 percent of any future losses on mortgage loans, and the FDIC would take responsibility for the rest.

    His complaint argued that IndyMac had used fraud, misrepresentation and other illegal conduct to get him to default on his loans and enter foreclosure proceedings. Further, he contended, the deal allowed the bank to force losses disproportionately onto the government and, in turn, taxpayers as the bank has to pay only 20 percent of any loss but can later buy the property at a foreclosure sale and keep 100 percent of the profits.

    , which said every count against the defendants in Beekman’s 30-page complaint incorporated all of the documents’ allegations and argued that they represent a violation of the FCA.

    “In other words, Beekman’s amended complaint is A PROTOTYPICAL SHOTGUN PLEADING WHICH FAILS TO LINK EACH CAUSE OF ACTION TO ITS FACTUAL PREDICATES, and is incapable of giving OneWest fair notice of the basis for his claims,” Judge Cohn said.

    Beekman’s last and final attempt to file a complaint, should he make one, must be made by Jan. 23.

    Neil Franklin Garfield, who represents Beekman, told Law360 he and his client are exploring their options but declined to provide further comment.

    The case is U.S. ex rel. James Beekman v. IndyMac Federal Bank FSB et al., case number 9:12-cv-81138, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

    Moreover, I found several foreclosure cases that Giunta has lost, but couldn’t find one win.

    Further, Garfield’s comment: “the Trust doesn’t own the loan, thus the trust instrument is irrelevant by its own terms, hence the “servicer” (appointed in the PSA) has no authority to service the loan and the “trustee” has no power or right to assert anything about a default, collection or enforcement. Patrick Giunta and I have both — individually and together — settled or won cases outright on exactly that point…”

    If they have won “on exactly that point,” how come they don’t use the same argument on every case, ergo, they would have won every case, instead they have lost every case. And other lawyers would have picked up the argument and used it–still no wins because the argument is asinine.

    Are these just more lies, from cult leader Neil Garfield the new Jim Jones. I guess that’s for the Bar and authorities to answer.

    Welcome to Garfieldtown, I’m making some Kool-Aid.

    “Death is just like sleeping.”-Jim Jones, the day everyone died.

  40. I agree with this 100%………told the judge the same thing. …..only one you are giving a free house to will be the servicer, debt collector, scumbags, who call themselves a bank…….although it got his attention, the end result is the same……..FRAUDCLOSED. FREE HOUSE TO SERVICER. (OR FREDDIE MAC)….I’M STILL NOT EVEN SURE ABOUT THAT PART OF WHO ACTUALLY GOT THE FREE HOUSE YET !!!!!! AS NOW THE STORY AFTER FRAUDCLOSURE CHANGES AS THE SERVICER BLAMES FREDDIE AND FREDDIE BLAMES THE SERVICER. AND DON’T GET ME STARTED WITH THIS FRAUDENLT INFO ON 1099-A.

Contribute to the discussion!