California Court Pierces the Curtain of Secrecy on WAMU Deals

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

NOTE: My new administrative assistant is Susan Rose. Danielle and Geordan no longer work for livinglies or my law practice.


Hat Tip to Dan Edstrom, DTC Systems, our senior forensic analyst.

This decision finally brings the real issue to the forefront: who, if anyone, actually has the legal status of creditor or the right to claim ownership of the debt, loan, note or mortgage? In this case the Court correctly centered on the real issue: if WAMU had ALREADY sold the loan before it “sold” the loan to a trust or anyone else, then the entire chain is not just defective, or corrupted, it is void. And then you have quiet title, wrongful foreclosure and probably RICO although that does not seem to be in the pleadings for this case.

Lawyers take note: This Judge still doesn’t like the rambling shotgun approach seen in so many of these pleadings. If you have 50 good arguments, then take courage, pick two and run with them.



Case No. 13-4249 SC.United States District Court, N.D. California.May 11, 2015.


FAC ¶ 12. Plaintiffs provide significant detail regarding the process through which
 allegedly sold their loan. See id. ¶¶ 12-19.


Plaintiffs allege that on or before August 22, 2008, their mortgage loan was contributed to a mortgage backed security (“MBS”) identified as JPMorgan Mortgage Trust 2008 R-2 Pass-through Certificates Series 2008-R2 (“JPMMT 2008R2″), of which Wells Fargo is the trustee. Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiffs allege that WaMu sold their mortgage loan temporarily to the depositor of the JPMMT 2008-R2, but that the sale failed to assign the DOT. Id. ¶ 16. As Plaintiffs, put it, “[t] his was the first sale of the Plaintiff’s mortgage loan, but without effectively assigning the [DOT] and indorsing the underlying original Promissory Note to the interim loan purchaser. . . .” Id. Next, JP Morgan Acceptance Corporation “sold and securitized the pooled mortgages (including Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan) into the JPMMT 2008-R2 Trust” on or before the trust’s “closing date” on August 22, 2008. Id. Plaintiffs allege that this sale, too, failed to properly assign the DOT or original note. Id.
. . . . .


Though Plaintiffs’ FAC is verbose, unclear, and at times appears internally inconsistent, Plaintiffs now allege, at the very least, that:

WAMU irrevocably sold all right, title and interest in Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan, for value received, to the JPMorgan Mortgage Trust 2008-R2 Mortgage Pass-through Certificates Series 2008-R2 (“JPMMT 2008-R2”), a private label mortgage-backed securities trust with a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit election and continuing qualification.

FAC ¶ 12. Plaintiffs provide significant detail regarding the process through which WaMu allegedly sold their loan. See id. ¶¶ 12-19.

Plaintiffs now sufficiently allege that WaMu not only had no beneficial interest in the Loan, but that it was no longer the mortgagee when JPMorgan purchased its assets. Because Plaintiffs now allege that WaMu sold its entire interest in the Loan, the facts render plausible the possibility that Defendants lack standing to foreclose on the mortgage. See, e.g., Subramani, 2013 WL 5913789, at *4Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. CV10-08185 ODW FFMX, 2011 WL 2173786, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2011) (“the above mentioned [similar] facts regarding the transfer of Plaintiff’s Note prior to JPMorgan’s acquisition of WaMu’s assets raise Plaintiff’s right to relief above a speculative level”).  . . . .
. . . . It is true that “[t]here is no stated requirement in California’s non-judicial foreclosure scheme that requires a beneficial interest in the Note to foreclose. Rather, the statute broadly allows a trustee, mortgagee, beneficiary, or any of their agents to initiate non-judicial foreclosure.” Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Indus. Grp., 713 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1099 (E.D. Cal. 2010). However, Plaintiffs now sufficiently allege that WaMu not only had no beneficial interest in the Loan, but that it was no longer the mortgagee when JPMorgan purchased its assets. Because Plaintiffs now allege that WaMu sold its entire interest in the Loan, the facts render plausible the possibility that Defendants lack standing to foreclose on the mortgage. See, e.g., Subramani, 2013 WL 5913789, at *4Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. CV10-08185 ODW FFMX, 2011 WL 2173786, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2011) (“the abovementioned [similar] facts regarding the transfer of Plaintiff’s Note prior to JPMorgan’s acquisition of WaMu’s assets raise Plaintiff’s right to relief above a speculative level”). The Court proceeds to discuss the effect of this finding on each of Plaintiffs’ claims in turn.

. . . . .

A. Wrongful Foreclosure

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ first cause of action must be dismissed because Plaintiffs do not allege any irregularity or illegality in the foreclosure process. As discussed above, however, the Court finds that Plaintiffs now sufficiently allege that WaMu ceded any interest upon which it might foreclose when it sold the Loan in 2008. To the extent that Plaintiffs allege wrongful foreclosure because Defendants were not the “trustee, mortgagee or beneficiary or any of their authorized agents,” Plaintiffs state a claim and Defendants’ motion is DENIED. See Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(a)(1).

B. Quiet Title

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claim for wrongful foreclosure must be dismissed because “the allegations concerning the `holder of the note’ have been invalidated.” Mot at 5. Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendants are not the holders of the note, this argument fails. The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ second claim, to the extent that claim is premised on the allegations that Defendants do not have any interest in the note as a result of WaMu’s sale of the Loan.

. . . . .

E. Cancellation of Instruments

Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs’ cancellation of instruments claim should be dismissed is again premised on the assumption that Plaintiffs fail to allege WaMu’s sale of the loan. See Opp’n at 8-9. Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs now adequately allege that their loan was sold, this argument fails. Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to the cancellation of instruments claim.

. . . . .


For the foregoing reasons, Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All of Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED with prejudice to the extent they are premised on deficiencies in the securitization process. Plaintiffs’ claim for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiffs’ claims for wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, cancelation of instruments, violation of Section 2923.5, and unjust enrichment survive to the extent that they are premised on the theory that WaMu sold its entire interest in the Loan in 2008.

Plaintiffs’ claims for slander of title, fraud, and unfair competition are DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiffs may amend those claims to add allegations sufficient to allege fraud under the standards set out by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). If plaintiffs choose to amend their complaint to add such allegations, they must do so within thirty (30) days of the signature date of this Order. Failure to amend within thirty days may result in dismissal of those claims with prejudice.


[1] Plaintiffs also allege that Washington Mutual Bank, FA changed its name to Washington Mutual Bank in April of 2005. See id. Plaintiffs apparently assert that WaMu therefore ceased to exist as a legal entity and that JPMorgan knew it could not buy any assets (including Plaintiffs’ loan) from WaMu. Plaintiffs in foreclosure cases like this one have repeatedly advanced that theory, and courts have repeatedly rejected it. See, e.g., Lanini v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, No. 2:13-CV-00027 KJM, 2014 WL 1347365, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2014) (“Plaintiffs have cited nothing to support their claim that the bank’s change of name means the bank itself ceased to exist.”). The Court agrees with the numerous other judges who have rejected this theory and holds that Plaintiffs’ claims regarding JPMorgan’s chain of title to the mortgage and Defendants’ knowledge of their lack of interest in the Loan may not be premised on WaMu’s name change in 2005.
[2] It is unclear why Defendants make this argument only in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Section 2923.5 claim and not all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Regardless, some of the Court’s reasons for rejecting Defendants’ argument apply to all of Plaintiffs’ claims.

42 Responses

  1. How many people realize that WAMU’s National Bank was also using WMBFA? A national Bank by by law has to have NA its name.

  2. It went over Christines head …. Whooooooooooosh

    The rape victim Christine would be found guilty by the foreclosure judge, the banker who raped Christine would produce a fabricated document that states… ” Christine opted to have sex with the lender and his other friends who work for the servicers, she bent over and agreed to have Mr. Mers act as nominee for her pimp, Mr. Wells Fargo”

    The judge would rule that Christine opted to have sex based on the fabricated documents of Mr. Mers who is the nominee of her pimp Mr. Wells Fargo …

    Christine suffers from that typical British lack of intellegence ..go bow down before your queen and get the hell out of our country you miserable anti-american moron ..Americans saved your ass from the Germans and don’t you ever forget it, you ungrateful little brat.

  3. DwightNJ, on May 21, 2015 at 12:09 pm said:

    “Trying to focus blame of the victims by accusing the victim of default is why so much bad case law exists. It’s akin to blaming the rape victim who was raped and robbed of her money of being guilty of loitering for not having money on her person…”

    By far the stupidest analogy I have ever read.

    The rape victim never signed on the dotted line and never got a chance to opt out.

    God is this country of self-proclaimed “victims” after the fact ever lost!

  4. E. ToLLe ,

    re: “Stork” , love the “Delta House” reference.

  5. DwightNJ, Bob Hurt is a good name for him. He is nasty and has to be right about everything. I avoid him like the plague. He enjoys inflicting pain and suffering.

  6. Bobs new blog has opened with a cruel and very personal attack on the reputations and credibility of Rod Ciferri and Neil Garfield.

  7. The fact that Bob Hurt would stoop to the lowest level by stealing Neil Garfield’s Blog name in order to disrupt the truth from being exposed and discussed, tells us what we need to know about him.

    If Bob Hurt was truly a good guy who cared about helping victims of this foreclosure crisis and the travesty that’s taking place inside courts because of the depth and influence of the corruption, it would show on the fruits of Bob’s tree … its a rotten thing to do when you attempt to destroy someone elses website or blog ..where people are trying to discuss strategies that might help the victims of this national disgrace.

  8. E. ToLLe. .. It sounds like something straight out of the illuminati Georgia guidestones playbook .. Very dark-sided belief system where the ruling elite serve a different master .



    Residential Capital, LLC et al.
    Southern District of New York, New York Division 05/14/2012

    Court Docket: #2382

    Document Name: Statement of Financial Affairs for GMAC Mortgage, LLC; Amended SOFA Question 3b and 3c

    Date Filed: 12/11/2012

    Court Docket: #0836

    Document Name: Amended Statement of Financial Affairs for GMAC Mortgage, LLC (Case No. 12-12032 (MG))

    Date Filed: 7/19/2012

    ourt Docket: #0685

    Document Name: Amended Schedules of Assets and Liabilities for GMAC Mortgage, LLC (Case No. 12-12032 (MG))

    Date Filed: 7/3/2012

    Court Docket: #0625

    Document Name: Statement of Financial Affairs for GMACM Borrower LLC (Case No. 12-12035 (MG))

    Date Filed: 6/30/2012

    Court Docket: #0600

    Document Name: Statement of Financial Affairs for GMAC Mortgage, LLC (Case No. 12-12032 (MG))

    Date Filed: 6/30/2012

    Court Docket: #0568

    Document Name: Schedules of Assets and Liabilities for GMACM Borrower LLC (Case No. 12-12035 (MG))

    Date Filed: 6/30/2012

    Court Docket: #0550

    Document Name: Schedules of Assets and Liabilities for GMAC Mortgage, LLC (Case No. 12-12032 (MG))

    Date Filed: 6/30/2012

  10. here bob christene,rock,

    I have learned of a court proceeding in which the Judge expressed the opinion that in order for any of the mortgages to be valid (where MERS is involved) they would have to redraft the mortgage without MERS and get the borrower to sign a new one. Exactly what I said in 2007. Only now we have over 7 million illegal foreclosures based upon fraudulent and illegal mortgages and notes. MERS’ attorney estimated that the total number of mortgages affected could be 100 million. The Judge basically said it wasn’t his problem — it was the problem of the banks and MERS who devastated title records.
    The question asked in Arizona Federal Court: Is there any case or statute under which MERS could be beneficiary of a deed of trust? The answer is no. Thus they cannot be the beneficiary, even for one second. Their title as “nominee” is as good as saying Donald Duck is the lender. MERS and Donald share something: they are both fictional characters.

  11. DwightNJ, do your self a favor and write off this idiot Bob Hurt as the complete waste of time that he is. He, Christine, and Stork are all cut from the same cloth…they’re smarter than the masses, above ordinary by leaps and bounds, and know what’s right for all and you/we don’t have a clue. It shows up in all their writings, individually and collectively.

    Take Bob Hurt….search Bob Hurt and eugenics, and you’ll find a treasure trove of this crap:

    “I have concluded that slavery became and remains a logically valid idea in the evolution of civilization because it provides a means of utilizing and protecting the stupid instead of slaughtering them.

    ….the need for a monumental sterilization project to prevent procreation by children, unmarried adults, welfare recipients, indigents, violent felons, the insane, and inferior or defective people.”

    ….I have proposed a government mandate that smart, fecund women earn ½ of a man’s salary or wage for similar work. That would force most such women to stay home, where they naturally belong, to bear and rear children and manage the household and home business.

    That sounds like it’s in jest, far from it. He’s a danger to society. This blatant mental disorder would also explain his obvious disdain for borrowers who he believes brought all of this on themselves through their ignorance, and as you DwightNJ have pointed out, has zero to do with bank accountability in his mind.

    The world would be a better place without assholes like them, but exactly who is to determine that they should be exterminated? Bob has a solution for that when it comes to others…just not for himself…..

  12. Christine: BOA/Countrywide: BOA was CW main warehouse lender. Had CW declared BK, everything would have come out in court. Couldn’t let that happen, so BOA bought CW.
    Banks don’t go BK, they go into FDIC receivership. CW could go CH 11 or 7, as they were never a bank.

  13. Christine: chase bought “certain”
    Of WAMU’s assets. Remember, a bank’s assets are its loans, (they make money on them), and a bank’s liabilities are its deposits. ( they have to safegaurd them and pay interest on them)

  14. Christine … There is no “Default” by the borrower.

    A default can only occur in a valid contract that can be proven to be legal and valid from it’s origination up and until the day of the alleged “default”. In most cases there was …
    A) no valid contract at the origination
    B) a breach by the lender
    C) a TILA violation which allowed the borrower the right of rescission and the right to stop payments
    D) Fraudulent, fabricated documents, broken chains of title, MERS assignments that constituted a nullity and are void, etc., etc.

    Trying to focus blame of the victims by accusing the victim of default is why so much bad case law exists. It’s akin to blaming the rape victim who was raped and robbed of her money of being guilty of loitering for not having money on her person, and for indecent public nudity for being naked after she was raped. Blaming the victims of the mortgage scheme for not paying the con-artists their money is an act of total desperation by the courts to justify their rulings against the victims.

  15. What I find remarkable is that pretty much all of the Burke’s claims have been dismissed with prejudice, with the exception of “wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, cancellation of instruments, violation of Section 2923.5, and unjust enrichment survive to the extent that they are premised on the theory that WaMu sold its entire interest in the Loan in 2008.” Inother words, the court qualified its decision to such an extent that plaintiffs will now have to PROVE what they say. Can they? Probably not… Besides, what people also don’t understand is that Chase was instructed by government to buy all of WAMU’s liabilities, and it has been well-documented. I can’t see a judge going against something Chase was very much forced to abide by. Hence the reluctance of all the government agencies to go after any of it. Ditto with BofA and Countrywide: they were instructed to take on those liabilities! Remember what Pinto was saying? The major problem was government interference with the market: it caused damages everywhere.

    If Garfield were honest, he would acknowledge that everything connected to securitization has been tossed and recognize that it really isn’t the way to go.

    What I believe will happen is a mod or a rewrite of the original contract will be offered by Chase and the plaintiffs will be strongly advised to take the deal, IF their income is judged sufficient, which wasn’t the case in 2010. I don’t see a free house anywhere in site in that case. Maybe a few bucks in damages but not much else, a short sale maybe, definitely not a free house. That case was mishandled from day one. Until people understand that they can’t first default and THEN argue everything under the sun to save their skin, however irrelevant, they will keep on losing.

  16. Bob Hurt … Everything you write in your post below is fine and dandy if you buy into the notion that the judges are nice people who don’t get it wrong. In order to believe that, one must turn a blind eye to the level of corruption involved in the government and its handling of the entire mortgage fraud Ponzi scheme and the billion dollar settlement with the states attorneys general … But for the rest of us, the vast majority of the citizens who can recognize how the judges are running cover for the criminal acts of the banks and lenders, we disagree with you.

    Just because “BAD CASELAW EXISTS” does not mean we should all be forced to accept it .. Justice Scalia and the other members of the Supreme Court refused to accept it.

    The judges have intentionally and deliberately leaned heavily in favor of the lenders to the point of disregarding the rule of law, to the point of creating bad caselaw, to the point of legislating from the bench, to the point of denying due process for homeowners, to the point of twisting and perverting law and statutes into new meanings and definitions in order to protect the lenders from losing their cases, to the point of allowing FRAUD to enter the courtroom doors by telling the borrowers that they are not allowed to raise the issue of FRAUD because they are a third party to the MERS Assignment of mortgage or because they are somehow time-barred from raising FRAUD in their contract because too many years has elapsed.

    The judges have gotten it wrong time and time again .. and they have an un-written agreement as to why they are behaving this badly … it goes something like this … “Nobody gets a free house”.

    The proof of the abuse is easily evident when you look at it objectively, you have to consider the following facts as being true …

    1) The 50 states attorneys general were all chomping at the bit to start prosecuting the banks and lending institutions for the crimes they committed including but not limited to .. fabrication and forgery of financial instruments and documents related to mortgage foreclosures, illegal mortgage origination schemes involving securitization, etc.

    2) The federal government intervened and stopped the prosecutions before they began (preventing the truth from being exposed and thus preventing new caselaw and defenses from being used by borrowers) the federal government orchestrated a 25 billion dollar settlement in exchange for the banks being given a free pass to get a free house from the borrower/victims. The judges understood the message from the federal government .. the message is as follows … “We have decided that, despite the banks getting caught in this criminal conduct, we as a nation must allow the citizens/victims of this criminal enterprise to take the hit and lose their homes .. because to do otherwise would undermine the confidence and credibility of our financial institutions, and in turn it could possibly lead to utter chaos and collapse. Our entire property ownership structure would come under scrutiny and question which would be a threat to national security”. This created bad case law to which Bob Hurt points to , but Bob needs to acknowledge that it is bad case law .. and bad case law can be over-turned.

    The judges believe that by denying us justice, they are somehow protecting the national security of the rest of the citizens. We the victims of the mortgage scheme have been deemed “expendable” in the eyes of the federal govt and the majority of judges. We are labled as “dead-beats” .. “in default” … “raising fraud in order to try and get a free house” … etc., etc.

    Bob Hurt .. you need to be honest and admit that the 2 factual truths listed above are in fact true .. in order for you to have credibility.

    (Bob Hurt posting below) …..

    bobhurt, on May 20, 2015 at 8:16 pm said:
    I am fleshing out LivingLiesTheTruth dot com (or to make it more useful to everyone who wishes he could get useful info from Garfield. In fact, I just added a HEROES & HEELS page where people can write the names of the lawyers who bilked them out of money and led them into the jaws of foreclosure without ever examining the mortgage, or where they can write the names of lawyers who DID examine their loans and used the causes of action to attack the malefactors.

    I intend to add pages explaining TILA, RESPA, and other regulatory laws, but honestly, the discussions in the rescission thread showed readers all kinds of case law that explains how the courts will rule in that issue. Google scholar and other opinion repositories have become excellent resources for people to look up cases and read them. I believe the law and regulations speak clearly for themselves, and the opinions show that judges, with help from the smarter lawyers appearing before them, just dig in and do the same kind of research all of us can do in order to come up with a viable opinion. Most of the time you will agree with them because their opinions make sense.

    That’s why I began a few years ago to hold Garfield in some disdain. First all, no lawyer can blog like does and represent clients and manage their cases. Second, he has formed an opinion about things and propounds it for the purpose of getting people to buy his services, seminars, securitization audits, “rescission packages” etc. So his blog entries tend to push people into his services, usually services they don’t need. And underneath it all, his firm has devoted itself to foreclosure defense, not to mortgage attack. That’s the biggest disappointment I have with him.

    And I suspect that most of the people who troll these pages have followed his suggestions and lost their houses as a result.

    ALL of them might still benefit from a mortgage examination. Neil will NEVER tell them that.

    He does bring up interesting cases, but he nearly always makes something of them that isn’t there. Like in the above article, he tries to make a big deal out of the fact that the court will let the RICO case go forward because it could survive a motion to dismiss.

    Also, he tries to say courts assume borrowers defaulted by looking at the foreclosure complaint that alleges the default. How many did not default? virtually none. Millions have defaulted on their home loans, so NATURALLY judges assume they defaulted. The judges want the borrower to come up and say “Yeah, judge, I defaulted, but they breached the note first, the loan was unconscionable, they lied about the value of the house in the appraisal, they bait and switched me in the loan deal, they charged me excessive interest, they didn’t give me disclosures, etc.” Now the judge will enjoy a venture into proof of injury to the borrower rather than having to hate the nonsense Garfield would bring up if he litigated foreclosure cases, like “where’s the note, there isn’t any money, the note financed the loan, the note and mortgage got bifurcated, MERS is an evil empire, securitization is evil, they violated the PSA, they robosigned the assignment, the dog ate our homework, etc”

    Look, folks. I don’t mince words, but I don’t go out of my to malign well-intentioned people. And it seems fair to me to jump on somebody’s case when I show them the law and the court opinions supporting my take on it, and that somebody goes on and on and on with pointless rebuttals and what-if scenarios, then calls the courts crooked.

    Realize that judges are the mothers and fathers of society. If they issue an opinion and you flout it, you will go down. Get used to it. That’s our system. So the judges are generally honest, and even the crooked ones are honest most of the time. They are NOT picking on you. YOU are coming into their court with a non-meritorious case, a poor grasp of the rules of procedure and evidence, no knowledge of litigation practice, mouthful of patriot myths and nonsense they have already trounced numerous times, and they simply will not sit still while you spout it at them. LEARN FROM THEIR OPINIONS. Stop acting like they don’t mean anything.

    See you on LivingLiesTheTruth

  17. Im having that tatted on my chest ” do your research” since you cant rely on any one and nothing is ever what it at first seems –
    And ukg ” nothing lasts for ever” ” this too shall pass
    It will be very satisfying when truth prevails, and it will. For sure, that law never lets us down. Good to see you checkin in and im happy to hear you are still batting.

  18. David, there are 47? different entities that were part of the SDNY Ally bankruptcy.
    GMAC is General Motors Acceptance Corporation
    GMAC Mortgage is GMAC
    GMAC-ResCap is GMAC
    Residental Finance Corporation is GMAC
    and so on and so forth.
    Do your research.

  19. David belanger,

    The secretary of state of your home place can tell you who is registered as whom and if they are the same or different or licensed or expired or doesn’t exist to do business there.

    In my dealings with that office they are kind, professional, helpful, useful

    They dont leave you hanging or feeling ignored; even if they have to refer you to a different extension to answer a question.

    Trespass Unwanted

  20. ronda, sorry to hear that. Judges go out of their way to exclude homeowner evidence of foul play at every turn. Remind me someday about how good it feels to be done with it, will ya? Seven years here, second adversary in BK going.
    Someday this may end, just not now.

  21. If my memory is any use I think there are those cases where someone tries to get a deposition or where they try to arrange for one by subpoena but it is stopped, those get traction and settled quickly.

    Deposition is not an everyday word or a word I could conversate about in my lifetime. I have not used subpoena to discuss anything with family, coworker, casual encounter, or friend.
    Those are my proof court business is not a place of words I understand as its not how I speak to people when I need to know something.

    Trespass Unwanted

  22. Yeah, Deb.
    Sue the fictitious name while the employees sue the real you.

    Trespass Unwanted

  23. Yeah Deb,

    Sue the fictitious name while the employees sue the real you.

    “They’re all gonna laugh at you!”
    quote if memory is correct i heard it in the movie Carrie

    Trespass Unwanted

  24. Woops – SERIOUSLY

  25. Serioisly i know trespass,
    How the heck are we supposed to understand the sophistication of it all. I try to keep it simple but its impossible to do so, because its just not.

  26. And here from wikipedia and excerpt re DBA ( doing business as)
    United States
    In several U.S. states, DBAs are officially referred to using another term. Oregon uses Assumed Business Names;[4] Washington calls DBAs trade names;[5] other states refer to trade styles or fictitious business names.

    For consumer protection purposes, many U.S. jurisdictions require businesses operating with fictitious names to file a DBA statement, though names including the first and last name of the owner may be excepted.[6] This also reduces the possibility of two local businesses operating under the same name. Note, though, that this is not a substitute for filing a trademark application. A DBA filing carries no legal weight in establishing trademark rights.[7] In the U.S., trademark rights are acquired by use in commerce, but there can be substantial benefits to filing a trademark application.[8]

    DBA statements are often used in conjunction with a franchise. The franchisee will have a legal name under which it may sue and be sued, but will conduct business under the franchiser’s brand name (which the public would recognize). A typical real-world example can be found in a well-known pricing mistake case, Donovan v. RRL Corp., 26 Cal. 4th 261 (2001), where the named defendant, RRL Corporation, was a Lexus car dealership doing business as “Lexus of Westminster”, but remaining a separate legal entity from Lexus, a Division of Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

    In California, filing a DBA statement also requires that a notice of the fictitious name be published in local newspapers for some set period of time to inform the public of the owner’s intent to operate under an assumed name. The intention of the law is to protect the public from fraud, by compelling the business owner to first file or register his fictitious business name with the county clerk, and then making a further public record of it by publishing it in a newspaper.

  27. Read here why they have separate affillated companies then further research for yourself –

  28. David, let me just tell you that they create multiple companies/corporations with similar names to hide who is who. The best way to tell is to look for the EIN number or the FEIN number that the IRS gives to the corporations. You can call the company and ask for it, but also you can get it from the IRS. In my case American Brokers Conduit went bankrupt and out of business, but the unsavory element at the servicers/banksters created another one in another state with the same name but totally different company. Hope this helps.

  29. let me ask all this, and if you can tell me what the different is .

    is gmac mortgage corporation, the same entity as gmacm?

  30. They will not have an action against Wells.
    We have to stop going after the business when they are coming after us by name!
    Name some names!
    They can only move against a man or woman. So who’s name will they put on the judgment against the business.

    Look at the 49 state AG settlement. Signed by names cause no bank is a living entity and cannot make a decision because it is not alive

    Look at the OCC settlement, signed by names, because no bank is a life, the bank cannot move,or act, or speak, so they got names of people who agree to behave.

    Then we sue a bank name and the attorney that is representing it, no one k owe if the CEO hired them or the board of directors, or employee number 5483412 working gi. The mortgage dept hired them

    Then they sue you by name and you sue the building without naming a so gle employee and don’t get discovery cause the judge and other attorney are laughing and under their breath saying Wells Fargo will speak when hell freezes over or some nonsense.
    That’s why court business is stupid.
    The entertain the papers coming in with no names of who harmed you or who you want info from and let you sue the building with no one having authority to speak for a building/business name. Heck whoever created the bank is probably dead anyway.

    Get from under the veil and take names.
    Who hired the law firm?
    What is their power at the bank? Where is their power of attorney is it full, partial, or limited?
    What powers did they pass to the law firm? Who at the law firm hold these powers.
    Its nonsense to let judges claim you agreed to let them decide the fate of your property cause you selected them! (Appeal is like a loan modification) you go to their table to negotiate and accept whether they give you what you ask for or not – mostly not and you paid them to say “no”.

    What we have been shown is not helping us, see something different.

    Trespass Unwanted

  31. When I read these cases I don’t understand any of it.
    Granted, denied, dismissed, with prejudice or without.
    I don’t speak like that day to day.
    In my world its yes, no, you can do it, you cannot do it, you have permission, permission denied, valid, invalid.

    I really can’t tell who won or lost.
    If the note was sold before they committed fraud and sold nothing the second time; how can the be given any granting or whatever by anyone in a court.

    At the base is holder or bolder in due course and not all the nonsense, like stating well they say we sold the note but they didn’t say we weren’t holder of the note, kind is nonsense.


    He mentioned Neil when he used the term pretender lender.

    I did not know we could ask for a life of loan accounting or many of the other defenses mentioned.

    Is it possible they are opening up this secret world so we can take a peek at what we are dealing with?

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

  32. rondag, I am sorry to hear about your loss. You have an RV, and you can have a good time and not worry about a lousy house. I still believe that the truth is going to come out in a big way. I just wish it was faster, much faster.

  33. Just lost my case in Third District Court of Appeals in Austin Texas against 21st Mortgage Corp. on the basis all my evidence was MOOT.
    Are you kidding? Judgement occurred days ago, my home is all ready sold. Sad day, and after 3 years fighting I’m walking. Bought an RV and out to hug the highway feeding HOMELESS VETERANS ACROSS THE USA. God Bless! Peace out!
    Ronda Guercio

  34. Does anyone have any contact information for Wells Fargo Legal Department or in House Attorney’s. I need to send them a Demand Letter.

  35. we mAy all be going to Supreme Court

  36. Being a truth seeker, i sincerely believe all these things will come back to haunt them.

  37. Louise
    The ” pretender lender” sells 100% of their loans and they already know who to, its already set up before i signed i believe. The developer ( and ” lender” affiliated company and ” beneficiary” and MERS member and affiliated title company as original ” trustee” who incidentally assigns several years after signing ( how did they still hold control over the asset? Did they ever ?) AND the liquidating of an ” asset holder” sall we say ) had me sign ” corp assignment deeds of trust” for same amount on same day to two other entities and one in blank making 3, one as it turned out ( though i was clueless then at signing because i relied on them ) was in fact a warehouser, so in effect i signed ( incidentally on a separate page that only has date of signing – TO THIS DAY never a date of assignment nor notorized nor was i present) a promise to pay 3 separate entities for a loan of a lotta dollars. Ill never know what ” for value received quantifies” unless we see their books. They sold , servicing rights, aka debt collection rights, imho looking at the evidence i have and the public record. note was not properly recorded and the rest is a cluster of unauthorized recordings messing up the public record. But i have to get all this through court – 6 yrs on im still trying. Complicated big fat mess it throw in a 1099a from a servicer claiming they are lender.

  38. Other questions to ask: When did they “sell” the loans? Was it before the 3 day period required by TILA. I know of loans that were sold within 1 hour of borrowers signature on closing papers. If all or most of the loans/notes were sold to Fannie and Freddie, who is this entity trying to collect your payments? So, we have an alleged Trust that owns the note, but Fannie/Freddie owns them in reality? Something is very fishy indeed.

  39. right Java same logic should apply, and does but thus far the courts are struggling with it as you and i are very much aware.onward. Tide will turn eventually- truth always prevails.

  40. Lovely. Great post

  41. So as WaMu had Wells Fargo Bank servicing 1.3 million and all the Ginnie Mae pooled loan were already placed into the MBS before Wells started mortgage servicing the loans. So as the blank Notes are endorsed and relinquished without sale of the debts per Ginnie regulation to Ginnie. The issuers must submit loans that are free of any encumbrances to Ginnie MBS.

    On Sept 25, 2008 when WaMu was seized and FDIC conducted a sale of the assets to JPMorgan, however there was not a sale of the Ginnie MBS as there could not be. JPMorgan is not claiming to own these FHA & VA loans, yet Wells who came to know these loans 3 years after the MBS have already been created, cannot be a party to, which Wells has already admitted. Yet still over 6yrs later you not had action against Wells!

  42. I won a CC case against scumbag debt collecting firm simply by questioning the Chase – WaMu transaction. And Chase couldn’t prove how they were asking to be paid for debt they had no rights to.
    I don’t understand why the same logic doesn’t apply to mortgages ???

Contribute to the discussion!