Livinglies Team Services: see GTC HONORS Services, Books and Products
===========================
For more information please email us at gtchonors.llblog@gmail.com or call us at 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688
This is not legal advice on your case. Consult a lawyer who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which the transaction and /or property is located.
Click to access osceola-county-real-property-records-forensic-examination.pdf
see http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/osceola-foreclosure-report-author-holds-news-confe/nm79R/
Krieger is right about the fundamentals. While I have not reviewed his report, it appears from what I have heard about it that in contains misstatements and inaccuracies. BUT the idea that the foreclosures are largely a fraud upon homeowners and the Courts is well-founded.
The parties who are initiating the foreclosures are mostly servicers. They want the foreclosure so they can collect on advances and fees. But they have no right to foreclosure on those claims because they have no contract, no note, and no mortgage in which they have the right to make such collections or enforce the terms of what they claim to be the original note and mortgage. They MIGHT have some equitable claim against the homeowner but it isn’t secured by any security instrument (mortgage).
The banks have painted themselves into a corner and you can be sure that past reports will be combined with new reports about the details of fabrication, forgery, and perjury from robo-signers, robo-witnesses and people with no knowledge of anything other than the script that some lawyer gave them before they appeared in court.
The plain truth is that there are no defaults in nearly all of the claims on which foreclosure is sought. That is because the creditor, frequently identified as a REMIC Trust (but in actuality is a group of investors) have continued to get paid through servicer advances. There is nothing about that in the note or mortgage signed by the alleged borrower. Since they received payment the party claiming to be the mortgagee shows no default on its books but the servicer wants the foreclosure anyway because it makes them money.
Then there is the other problem resulting in the conclusion that there is no legal “creditor” in the conventional sense. When you come right down to it there isn’t anyone who answers the definition of a creditor or lender with rights to enforce either the note or the mortgage because none of them are actually in privity with the borrower and virtually none of the parties claiming to “own” the loan never paid for it, never received it, and have no power to collect, much less foreclose on it.
Take a step back and look at the larger picture. Why wouldn’t the “real parties in interest” end the entire dispute by merely producing proof that they are holders in due course or were the original lenders. This is the essential problem for the banks and it is only in taking the longer view that you can see patterns that cannot be reconciled.
First they said they were no trusts, then they said there were trusts but the authority to enforce was with the servicer, then they kept switching servicers (an illusion) and producing a “power of attorney” instead of a transfer of servicing rights. Why couldn’t they produce a transfer of servicing rights? Answer: because they were not transferring the servicing rights which included the right to collect servicer advances (volunteer payments) made by the master servicer.
Now they are saying the trusts own the loan — but they can’t produce proof of payment. So they are saying we don’t need to produce proof of payment. We only need to show the note. This is circular reasoning but Judges are still going with this faulty line of reasoning. If you analyze the pattern you can see that they are not alleging that the trusts are holder in due course or owners of the debt because the trusts are not holders in due course and not owners of the debt. what does that make the trusts? Perhaps, depending upon the forged, backdated endorsements and assignments, it might make them an accommodation holder.
That still leaves open the essential question: who owns the loan. The investors money was used to originate and/or acquire the loans but they don’t appear on the notes or mortgages. The trust was supposed to pay for the loans but it didn’t. Why not? Because the investment bank diverted (Stole) the money. The key to this puzzle is that the investment banks created unregistered entities on paper and then had them issue “mortgage backed securities”. The trusts never operated, never received any money and therefore could never pay any money for anything. They didn’t even have a bank account.
Why did the world’s largest financial institutions fake the documents and lie to the courts? Because they had to do that. They needed fake documents because none of the real events and real documents would suffice. Hence, the claim of fraud is true even if some of the details were not exactly right. But the fraud is not just upon borrowers and the courts. It starts with the initial fraudulent transaction with investors (pension funds) who gave up their money thinking that the money would go into an operating trust that would then originate and acquire mortgage loans. That never happened. If it did happen the way the investors thought and were promised, (a) there would not have been the rush to push bad loans onto borrowers and (b) the foreclosure battle would be non existent.
Filed under: foreclosure |
Florida’s judicial system is such a mess, the foreclosure Judges are such a mess, the attny gen is as dumb as sh-t, the Florida Bar don’t know their a-s from a hole in the ground. WTF are they doing??? Just getting paid those big checks for doing NOTHING. It’s a GD shame!
“sc: “Remember you kept harping the trust couldn’t hold land…”
(jg) Which I still believe but can’t substantiate. It does explain the alleged assignment of credit bids, does it not?”
Maybe that was one real purpose of mers: to create an entity to take title to the real property when foreclosure was necessary (if and since the trust couldn’t). The rest of it was just a ‘how to do this’, resulting in the “club”, imo 1) a racket and nothing but, and 2) an illegal monopoly worthy of an anti-trust suit and breakup.
But then the Mers’ Consent Order messed them up (as they issued their mandate for no more foreclosures in mers’ name). So the mers umbrella was no longer handy to foreclose; none of the 5,000 or so club members could use their own employees to do the deed, at least not in mers’ name, nor be the recipients of credit bid “assignments” the members themselves no doubt drafted (if they even bothered), making the assignment to one of the club members’ own employees wearing a mers hat (the assignment would be to “mers”, but from WHOM? REally, when a credit bid assignment is purportedly done, who is the assignOR? Let us guess: someone else at the alleged servicer’s purporting to have authority for ….. a trust?
Even when foreclosures were done in mers’ name, they had to have been purporting to assign credit bids of the creditor to “mers”. Even as the ‘mers mortgage’ says mers may do this and that (leaving that alone for the moment), it doesn’t say ‘here take my credit bid’. If mers could foreclose, it had to pay up with real money imo. Also imo, it didn’t, not once, not one single time. Every single home snarfed by “mers” did so by the fact or more likely pretense that the straw officer (at the servicer’s, LPS, DocX, who knows) had poss of the note. Well, possession, even if article 3 did apply (over the language in the note re: transfer and right to payment, which mers sure as hell didn’t have), doesn’t make one in poss of the note the Creditor, the successor in interest to the mortgage agreement, at least imo; mere possession of a note doesn’t give rise to a right to a credit bid, even IF it provides for rights of enforcement. (There are some twists to notes which are collateralized – has to be. If I have your promissory note for 100k I loaned you and it’s unsecured, my recourse is generally to sue for judgment on the note (only) and hope you’ve got something I can attach the judgment to. Had I taken a dot on your house as security for that 100k note, certainly in states which adhere to “security first”
rules, I’d have to come after your house first and foremost – I couldn’t go into court and seek a judgment (for cash) on the note (so what good is possession?) If secured, and someone else got his hands on my bearer note, he would NOT be entitled to enforce it because he doesn’t have the dot, whereas with the unsecured 100k note, he could seek judgment (if I had turned it into a bearer note, which I’d never do. Or, hey, I might’ve put language in it to restrict enforcement by someone who took it from me by transfer and had the right to payment in case I lost control of it – which reminds me: we need chains of custody for these notes). I think when the dust settles on this scenario, these notes are, even in “recourse” states, not enforceable without the dot, meaning they’re not negotiable instruments because they can’t be enforced without the collateral instrument. The NV SC said under the Restatement 3rd, the (forget the word so I’ll use) ‘assgt’ (but it matters) of the note drags with it the collateral instrument. Okay, for here (though I only agree the transfer of a note creates a right to an assignment of its collateral, at least certainly when the collateral agreement is a dot, i.e., involves real property because of the statute of frauds, which the UCC art III doesn’t consider / encompass). But the word the Restatement does NOT use is “possession”, i.e., possession of a note doesn’t drag the collateral instrument with it OR even a right to an assignment of the coll instrument). So I guess this means / says these notes are only enforceable by one who also has the collateral instrument. If any attorneys / smarties are reading here, you might try to develop this with your own acuman. Or debunk it: possession of a note doesn’t create 1) an enforceable right where enforcement requires the security and 2) a right to a credit bid. Credit bids are available to those who have a credit because they’ve paid for a note. Whether or not a credit bid is limited to the amt paid for the note, got me (but it, too, matters). I’m sorry to feel this way, but if I”M the rube exploring this stuff, we’re still at square 2 if not 1. (But then I do see there is the ‘complication’ of the “mers’ purported assignment of both the collateral instrument AND THE NOTE, about which all one can say is “seriously?” And credit bids by “mers” – also “seriously?” If we’re not winning arguments that ‘mers’ has no authority to “assign” notes, then aren’t we making poor arguments?
Yeah, I got distracted, so back to trusts owning assets other than personal property. Aren’t these trusts single purpose vehicles or like that? They can’t “do business” and their assets are limited to one and only one type, way I get it. What they own is actually personal property, not real property. Their (personal) property / assets is rights to payments, accounts (money, green backs, moolah, sheckles) receivable. Title to real property (here by way of a trustee’s deed generally) isn’t personal property. So then there was “mers for the job” with a quick credit bid assgt (like I said if they even bothered) But then the Mers’ Consent Order messed them up (as they issued their mandate for no more foreclosures in mers’ name). Even when foreclosures were done in mers’ name, they had to have been purporting to assign credit bids of the Creditor to “mers” as ‘mers’ had no right of its own to a credit bid. And how absurd is that – assign a credit bid (if such a thing is actually possible in the first place), millions of them, to a corporation with no employees, such that the credit bid would really be used and was known that it would be used, by someone ELSE?
MERS HAS TO GO and take SECURITIZATION with it
Its all public record just disguised here and there,but its there and its at this point the greedy judges and lawyers who have taken the wheel and having fun getting money for NOTHIN.We the people have allowed it.Lets take this country back,get organized and take it.
So whole holder, securitization rabbit holes irrelevant? So ignoring law again. The only reason is courts, politicians are owned by Wall St.
Where as …. The Estate is Protected from the debts of only one settler.
A time is specified in the Instrument that Created the Living Estate.
I Play by the Rules!
PS. .. He has Great Life Insurance and has taken care of Me and his Family very well all these years without the governments help…
Thank You Very Much!
SECTION 305. NO CREDITOR RIGHTS IN TRUST PROPERTY. A creditor of a
beneficial owner or trustee may not obtain possession of, or otherwise exercise legal or equitable
remedies with respect to, the property of a statutory trust or any series thereof.
Comment
Principal Sources – Delaware Statutory Trust Act § 3805 (2009); Uniform Limited
Partnership Act § 701 (2001); Uniform Trust Code § 507 (2000); Uniform Limited Liability
Company Act § 501 (1996); Revised Uniform Partnership Act § 203 (1997).
By confirming that a creditor of a beneficial owner or a trustee has no recourse against
the property of the statutory trust, this section implements the concept that a statutory trust is an
entity separate from its trustees and beneficial owners.
With respect to a trustee, the rule of this section is familiar from the operation of
common-law trusts. See Uniform Trust Code § 507 (2000); Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 42,
cmt. c (2003); Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 308 (1959). The rule of this section is also
consistent with federal bankruptcy law. Property in which a trustee holds legal title as trustee is
not part of the trustee’s bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C. § 541(d) (2009).
With respect to a beneficial owner, the parallel provision in the Delaware Statutory Trust
Act is discussed in Wendell Fenton & Eric A. Mazie, Delaware Statutory Trusts § 19.4, in 2 R.
Franklin Balotti & Jesse A. Finkelstein, The Delaware Law of Corporations and Business
Organizations (3d ed. 2009 Supp.).
JG…YES!
That Trust was created in the “Instrument” that created the Estate.
Attack the Mortgage….Take a Bite out of Crime!
DB. .. NICE!
Pay those real estate taxes and insurance ….
Maintain the property and keep the butt parked…..
As per the trust agreement.
SECTION 305. NO CREDITOR RIGHTS IN TRUST PROPERTY. A creditor of a
beneficial owner or trustee may not obtain possession of, or otherwise exercise legal or equitable
remedies with respect to, the property of a statutory trust or any series thereof.
UNIFORM STATUTORY TRUST ENTITY ACT
Drafted by the
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS
ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS
and by it
APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT
IN ALL THE STATES
at its
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-EIGHTEENTH YEAR
IN SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
JULY 9-16, 2009
WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS
COPYRIGHT 8 2009
By
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS
ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS
March 31, 2010
needs to be read.
The Uniform Statutory Trust
Entity Act: A Review
By Thomas E. Rutledge * and Ellisa O. Habbart **
THE TRUST AS AN ENTITY AND DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION: IS NAVARRO APPLICABLE
TO THE MODERN BUSINESS TRUST?
Thomas E. Rutledge & Christopher E. Schaefer
The Securitization and Foreclosure Coverup by The Big Banks
Step1. Homeowner receives loan from Bank-X. Step2. Bank-X sells the loan to SPV and is paid in full. Step3. SPV transfers note into REMIC trust and is paid in full by Trustees. Step4. The note is now a Security, the process is irreversible and complete. Step5. Investors (OWNERS) of the Certificates (Bonds/Stocks) receive payment from the REMIC Trust.
Newscast Media HOUSTON, Texas–The process of acquiring or selling homes in the past few years has been forever changed by the securitization process that has affected homes of over 60 million Americans. I receive many emails and questions regarding this topic, and since I am not an attorney, I will direct the readers to a brilliantly written article by Rodaben Esquire, that explains the whole process and by the end of the article, you’ll be surprised as to what the banks are hiding from you. I have also created the chart above to show you the flow of transactions.
Understanding Securitization and Foreclosure:
Bank A issues a mortgage to Caprice to purchase a house. Two documents are produced, a promissory note and a trust deed. The trust deed is essentially the title of the property that is held in trust until the promise to repay the loan (promissory note) is satisfied. Once the loan is paid in full Bank A releases its claim on the Trust deed and ownership passes in full to Caprice. That is what most of us believe happens in mortgages because you are not informed as to what happens after the paperwork is signed and how it impacts the title and promissory note you are obligated to. This is intentional, and represents the entire scheme that allows securitization occur. If the process that is now used is too complex it can be used as a justification to allow the shenanigans that occur during a foreclosure process to happen while the judges and juries believe that the process described above is what is actually happening. Lets look next at the basics of securitization.
Once the mortgage has been formed between Caprice and Bank A, Bank A wants to get rid of it as fast as possible and recoup its funds. To take advantage of this and the tax benefits of securitization it has to form what is called an SPV, a (Special Purpose Vehicle) Think of it as a shell company. This protects the mortgage if something happened and Bank A went out of business. The mortgage would still exist. It also theoretically reduces the liability of Bank A to the mortgage default. It is important to realize one important thing here…the two documents that Caprice signed (the promissory note and the title deed) are now SEPARATED. The trust deed remains with its trustee. The promissory note—the asset that pays money—is SOLD to the SPV. The original note is paid off by the SPV and the stream of payments becomes the property of the SPV. Bank A has its money in full and no longer has ANY interest in the mortgage.
Now, the SPV forms a new trust entity. This trust entity is defined by the IRS as a REMIC (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit) and must adhere to the laws regarding such a trust. The benefit of doing this is that when the SPV transfers the mortgages into the Trust NO TAXES MUST BE PAID ON THE TRANSFER. This makes the trust is a much more efficient and profitable vehicle for investors. REMICs, in turn, cannot retain any ownership interest in any of the underlying mortgages. The Trust, then, is as its name states a Conduit where money flows in from the person who pays their mortgage and out to the investor as a payment. The right to receive those payments was purchased when the security (stock or bond) to the trust was purchased. Proceeds from that went back to the SPV who used them to purchase the mortgages from Bank A. It is a giant figure 8 circular flow of money with the Trustee coordinating it all.
Lets see who OWNS the mortgage then:
The first owner was Bank A who took interest in the property as collateral on its loan to Caprice. Simple enough. When Bank A sold the mortgage to the SPV its interest was extinguished. Ownership of the promissory note WAS transferred to the SPV who is now the note holder. The SPV forms the REMIC trust and transfers the note into the trust, thereafter it irrevocably changes the nature of Caprice’s mortgage. It becomes a Security. Once again, the SPV must transfer the note and pay taxes on the transfer. The mortgage now in the trust becomes for all purposes a blended group of monthly payments. These payment streams become the source of funds that the trustee pays out to investors. In essence the trustee—when certificates, stocks or bonds to the trust are sold—sells a beneficial interest in the mortgage. That is not ownership of any portion or any segment of the revenue stream but rather is simply a security—just like a share of IBM or Google doesn’t entitle you to any of the assets of the company. But who owns the note?
Because of the tax exemption of the REMIC it is PROHIBITED from retaining any ownership of the underlying assets it no longer holds any ownership to the note on the day it is formed. The investors in the trust do not hold any interest in the note either, they only hold the security which was sold to them. So what happened to ownership of the note? It was EXTINGUISHED when it entered into the trust in order to obtain the flow of cash back to the original lender and the tax-preferred investment proceeds to the investors. So, who does Caprice owe the money to? Who has authority to release the deed to Caprice when her mortgage has been satisfied? The answer? No one.
The trust is set up and cannot take an active role in the collection of the funds. It is a shell entity ONLY. Therefore it appoints a servicer to collect the payments every month. So what happens when Caprice defaults? How is his property foreclosed upon?
In this proceeding the servicer presents documents to the court (or the trustee of the deed in a non-judicial foreclosure state) that state that THEY are the owner of the note and have a legal standing to foreclose. This is not true, is not legally possible, and is fraudulent. The servicer is the agent of the Trust and will use that to claim that they are foreclosing on behalf of the trust. The problem? The Trust itself cannot hold ownership of the note because of its tax-preferred REMIC status! What about if they state that they are representatives of the investors? The investors have no ownership interest in the underlying mortgages, they only have ownership interest in the securities that were issued to fund the trust! So who does Caprice owe? The answer is nobody. The process of a note becoming a Security is final and irreversible. You cannot unscramble the eggs. A Security cannot be used to foreclose. The Kansas Federal Court Ruling decided once a note was securitized it was no longer a note and would NEVER be a note again. It becomes a Security. (Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834.)
Bottom Line -All Terms of Your Mortgage Were Fulfilled:
The Lender was paid from the SPV upon selling the note.
The SPV was paid from the Trustee who received money from the sale of securities.
The Servicer was paid on schedule by the Trustee from fees generated.
Owners of the certificates (bonds or stock) received a payment from the Trust.
The REMIC Trust itself was insured by the SPV to protect investors.
If the terms of the mortgage were fulfilled (i.e. everyone was paid) To Whom Does Caprice Owe Any Money?
There still exists a lien on the house that is unenforceable. You would have to go through a process to extinguish that lien by having an attorney file for you a Quiet Title, that silences or quiets any more claims to the property.
Opinion
MERS vs. Sherman Anti-Trust Act
MERS vs. Clayton Anti-Trust Act
Where is the connection to the felony of this institutions owners and operators?
Someone signing documents claiming to be VP of multiple banks in the MERs collusion to make assignments between multiple banks in the MERS collusion? ie, [wikipedia] any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations, if those corporations would violate the anti-trust criteria by merging [ which they may as well have by deception of the existence of MERS ]
The creation of the collusive MERS system to fix prices?
MERS creation for the purpose of sales of mortgages within the busy-ness on the condition that the buyer or lessee within the business not deal with the competitors, [ local clerks responsible for land records ],of the seller or lessor?
MERS with its potentially auditable internal mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition?
MERS as it relates to empty trusts assets and money laundering [would that be practices that are anti-trust – in the basic meanings of anti and trust ]
I know nothing. I do not know legal things.
Trespass Unwanted, :Creator Corporeal Life Free Independent State In Jure Proprio Jure Divino:
sc: “Remember you kept harping the trust couldn’t hold land…”
Which I still believe but can’t substantiate. It does explain the alleged assignment of credit bids, does it not?
It’s hard to find an Ethical Lawyer in MA especially one with balls who will fight against the Corrupt Judge in our case!We had our home almost 25 years and it was paid off and it was illegally foreclosed with no Notice or proof of MGL ch 244 sec 14. That is cause for an automatic DEFENSE! We have proof of every payment and extra paid toward our principal and proof zero was applied???????????
Remember you kept harping the trust couldn’t hold land…
I keep harping there are 2 trusts in a PPM…..
Land Trust?
JG.. MERS..holds legal title for someone else’s rights…
You don’t say…
The trust is in the Instrument that created the estate.
I forgot to add:
Investigate Wall Street, Prosecute Wall Street, Jail Wall Street.
The banks are NOT the government and the government is NOT the banks.
The politicians, once upon a time, may have had the luxury to believe otherwise, but that time has passed.
Fess up or get trussed up : your day is coming.
@ Hammertime, @ Deborah wynn,
The banking pigs want apprehension and chaos.
The trick will be to remain calm and resolutely refuse to honor the debt operating under the central banking 100-year-old-fraud.
The “Fiat v Commodity-Based, Currency Argument” is a deliberate misdirection.
There will NEVER be enough gold or silver to go around.
The ONLY currency system is one based on paper and the rule of law.
The ONLY Way the US Dollar will survive as the “International Sovereign Currency” is to bring LAW to bear on those that have subverted our Nation to their GREED.
Even that moron Ron Paul is shilling for investment opportunities, even while he is claiming he isn’t actively participating in an infomercial, sales pitch for investment opportunities…
It is ridiculous.They think We are ALL stupid.
There is no doubt the richest among US have sold US out and now We The People are supposed to pick up their tab yet again.
The courts are a pit of traitors. We need to dual track THEM TILA as individuals and crimes and deprivation of property and rights as a class .
Mk
They are caught,
The rest has to be dragged through court case by case which takes a looong time – unless some big class action firm has the guts to take it on, if they did, they would make history.
I have said it a gajillion times: the banking filth have intentionally misrepresented the debt owed by the American Electorate for the last 100 years.
Nowhere, in the Constitution, does it say: “a privately-owned banking cartel is allowed to manipulate the debt of the American Electorate”.
They are fixing to destroy All but the Richest Among US by rigging a currency collapse due to the hyper-inflationary nature of their intentional, central banking predation…
The wholly-corrupted, “Federal Reserve Notes” must be harvested and new issues of “Greenback Dollars” must be released as based upon a pro-rated collection of the “Federal Reserve Notes”.
They deliberately cooked-up this mortgage swindle as a criminal, time-honored, banking deceit, best understood as a “Boom-and-Bust Cycle”.
The Sovereignty of our homes has been stripped through fraud.
The “Trusts” are empty.
The pensions, as a direct result of the violations of the “Trusts”, are also empty.
The Sovereignty of the American Dollar as “THE INTERNATIONAL RESERVE CURRENCY” is the ultimate target of these criminal filth.
Minorities didn’t cook this one up, the banks did.
People in foreclosure didn’t cook this one up, the banks did.
Plant more acorns, We are gonna need more trees.
from David: “Most of us know the basics of the Statute of Frauds: Certain contracts, including those pertaining to real estate, goods worth more than $500, and guarantees, as well as those that can’t be performed within one year, must be in writing and signed in order to be binding. ”
No, most of us don’t, including the judiciary. And this includes sleeping thru agency when it comes to real estate. Maybe this guy’s readers by and large didn’t sleep thru certain legal classes, like, say, some judges. I mean geez oh man. One state’s SC said mers isn’t a ben, regardless of what it says in the dot (WA may have said this in Bain, also, and may have left it at that…?) Okay, if NV says so. But then, with absolutely NO explanation, no indication of reliance whatsoever, it found mers to be the agent of the orig lender, its successors and assigns. Osmosis? (The only way mers remains anyone else’s ben is if mers is thee ben and so as a matter of course it remains so until it alienates the dot) Even IF the merscorp mmsp agreement etc. could be found to support such a (ridiculous imo) proposition as agent for successors and or assigns, the mmsp agreement etc was not introduced in the case. So, yeah, what is that? IS it Osmosis?
MERS claims to own the ‘legal title’ to someone else’s rights (AS IF there is such a thing, for legal rights are ALL which are prescribed to a beneficiary in a dot), but as thee ben, it made for willful bifurcation, which is NOT ‘managed’ by the Restatement 3rd imo, as opposed to what the state SC said withOUT reference to the Restatement’s language to support the proposition, because the Restatement speaks only to REunification, as in there was originally unity in a deal, got split, and may now be RE unified. The facts be damned and full speed ahead, I guess. ()*&!*(%! 1) Agents may not convey the interests of their principals (get ready for new round of POA’s) and 2) if mers were thee ben, it means the note and dot were in fact originally bifurcated and are incapable of re-unification. But “they’re” not going to ever acknowledge this. Least they could do, however, is get the heck rid of MERS by ANTI-TRUST suit if the heck nothing else.
MERS HAS TO GO. And THANKS for taking up the cry, DW!
lay opinions – ask a lawyer or 10
Opinions of questions pondered lightly:
Would the military fire on American Citizens that usurped their county and displaced the peaceful inhabitants when they have a duty to protect us from foreign and DOMESTIC terrorist?
I shall hope they’ll fire on any criminal regardless if presumed or claimed citizenship status.
The question should be a non issue.
Are they or are they not a traitor to the people they encounter in the public duties they perform?
Have they given the sovereign people rights and property to a foreign agency for fiat in violation of their oath of office, whether filed on the record or not?
If they never took an oath for the office but the office requires an oath to be administeredand taken to hold the position; are they the imposter?
If no full disclosure of their seat in what is perceived by the public to be the official office; their contracts are void ab initio, and created under constrive fr—–; and not binding on the people and their acts are criminal whether prosecuted by their friends or not.
I further opinion, RICO shall, does, and will apply to any office, position, post, and show of authority where RICO statute violations are discovered.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life
Mr. Garfield also writes:
“… the investment banks created unregistered entities on paper and then had them issue “mortgage backed securities”.
This is a tax violation.
Google: “Pass-Through Certificates”.
Bravo Lauren!
RICO IT IS.
Mr. Garfield writes:
The trust was supposed to pay for the loans but it didn’t. Why not? Because the investment bank diverted (Stole) the money. The key to this puzzle is that the investment banks created unregistered entities on paper and then had them issue “mortgage backed securities”. The trusts never operated, never received any money and therefore could never pay any money for anything. They didn’t even have a bank account.
Google “Bucketeering”!
From the video and transcript.
Those findings, reported on by Estevez last week, were scrutinized by a lawyer who specializes in foreclosures.
Then Mainstream media did what it does best.
Nothing. Leaving the unlearned watcher to assume the unnamed lawyer found nothing wrong.
I’m going to opinion that that lawyer told that sheriff every document in the public record is evidence of a felony for the value of the property stolen and if he pursues one lawyer or nudge for that paperwork he’ll have to arrest them all; there is mo place to put them[ignoringthe uses for FEMA and Guantanamo]
Treason and Collusion are the best way to describe what has happened and when an oath is ignored because it can be the sheriff or his buddies at stake; there’s no need to have any show of authority if its not going to show when it should by oath or affirmation.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life
I have to point out again for whatever it’s worth, and I don’t know much about derivatives, that’s for sure, but servicer advances artificially impact the value of these derivatives (to the extent they’re still being traded or otherwise have value). How as to this issue is WS, guess it would be, dealing with these advances when posting the derivative prices? Overlooking the fact that the alleged “return” on the derviatives itself overlooks a gazillion dollars in indentures?! Again, admittedly I don’t know much more about deriv’s other than to spell the word, but to the extent they are alleged to have value and it matters, what are they doing? Pretending the trusts don’t have gazillion dollar accounts-payable? When there’s a receivable on someone’s books, there’s a payable on someone else’s. Are these trusts authorized to become indentured, to create an obligation to PAY? A payable is an indenture imo – think that’s an appropriate word for it, but by any name, it’s an (here financial) obligation. I don’t think it matters as to the organizational and operating mandates of the trust that the value of something else related (the assets of the trust) is or isn’t sufficient to retire the obligation, but it might*) Indentures have at least two parties. By owing the servicers money, the trust has created a servitude. Aren’t they just to receive payment streams which are not re-taxed when they go out to the investors and “do” nothing else?
Say a servicer has advanced 500k on a property now worth 375k and the trust’s balance on the loan is 400k.
(If advances are in fact made, this could in fact be the case as to these numbers) How’s that work? But I don’t know that this matters, because the point is the trust has allegedly created an obligation, which imo, based on limited info but some reason at least, is not within the parameters of the trust’s organization, read the laws by which it’s formed and operates. These trusts don’t get to “operate” like other organizations.
As to non-trusts and this advance issue, if one sits on his laurels and doesn’t assert his rights in a timely fashion, is the hope that the value of the underlying collateral rises a defense or bar to the other party’s aff defense of laches (which itself may or may not require damages, i.e., the party hollering laches, here the borrower, may have to allege if not demonstrate damages caused by laches. I don’t know) We care, I think, because feet have been and are being drug in hopes of that increase in value. An interloper has created his own reason for doing something in the middle of someone else’s deal. One may be damaged imo by this laches business. For one, whereas one may have said fine, I’m losing my home back in 2009, one may have (unavoidably) emotionally moved away from such a fate years later.
* kind of like if Home Depot leaves out its accounts payable to its suppliers when tendering a profit and loss statement. Pretty sure at least publicly-traded businesses have gone to jail for this.
Emails Can Satisfy the Signature Requirement of the Statute of Frauds
By Shep Davidson on July 13th, 2012
Posted in Contracts
Every once in a while, I actually do go on vacation. So, my colleague, Alan E. Lipkind, a partner in the Business Litigation and Real Estate groups at Burns & Levinson, has contributed this post on the recent decision by a Massachusetts court finding email communications can satisfy the signature requirement in the Statute of Frauds.
Most of us know the basics of the Statute of Frauds: Certain contracts, including those pertaining to real estate, goods worth more than $500, and guarantees, as well as those that can’t be performed within one year, must be in writing and signed in order to be binding. In a recent case where I represented prospective purchasers of real property, the Massachusetts Superior Court found that an email exchange among parties pursuing a real estate purchase transaction satisfied the signature requirement embodied in the Statute of Frauds.
In Feldberg v. Coxall, buyers’ counsel emailed to seller’s counsel a proposed offer to purchase real estate which included a financing contingency. The next day, the seller emailed buyer’s counsel directly, stating that if a written approval letter from the buyer’s lender was received by 5 p.m., “I think we are ready to go.” Buyer’s counsel provided a lender’s commitment letter the same afternoon, before 5 p.m.
The transaction then fell apart, and the buyers ran to court to try to protect their deal. The seller contended that the email exchange did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Quoting out of state authority, the Massachusetts Superior Court noted that the courts have “not yet set forth rules of the road for the intersection between the seventeenth-century statute of frauds and twenty-first century electronic mail.” Calling the issue presented by the case one of first impression, the court stated that the Massachusetts Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“MUETA”), was one attempt to provide those rules of the road to persons involved in real estate transactions.
That statute applies to “transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means,” and under that statute, whether the parties have so agreed is “determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties’ conduct.” MUETA §5. The Court noted that in using email to conduct negotiations, the parties could be found to have agreed to conduct the transaction by email. With regard to the signature requirement of the Statute of Frauds, MUETA §7(d) states that “if a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law.” An electronic signature is “an electronic…symbol or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record.” MUETA §2. According to the Court, both an email signature block, as well as the “from” portion of an email, may constitute a signature under the statute. Despite the lack of an agreement manually signed by the seller, the Superior Court denied the seller’s Motion to Dismiss and, effectively, held that the Statute of Fraud’s signature requirement can be satisfied through an email.
In light of this ruling, in-house counsel who deal with contracts that fall within the Statute of Frauds for any reason should be aware that any email exchange might satisfy the Statute’s requirement of a signature. Thus, if you do not want to bind your company by accident, you should consider including a disclaimer in your email. Failing to do so poses a risk of becoming unintentionally bound to a contractual obligation.
Wednesday 29 July 2015
Cheers Lauren:
Also in Chicago and in final stage of FC losing to a
judge, not the Pf. Judge ignored contract law, Illinois
case law, Ill supreme court law in order to have an
otherwise incompetent Pf be winning. Same premise
as you expressed, quoting the judge, “They have the
note, [securitized with zero endorsements], and you
owe the debt. You have no defense.” This was four
months prior to him granting summary judgment to
Pf.
Your pursuit of RICO sounds great. Can you send
me the case number for me to research at the
Federal building, and any other pertinent info, if
possible?
Doing a recession tomorrow, 8 years after the”meeting”
the other side called a “closing.”
mn at edgetraderplus dot com
tia…
mn
Lauren, good for you. RICO is what it is all about since the beginning. We would all love to see your complaint. I have the name of an expert on documents, forgery, signatures, etc. you might like to contact. It is time for the ripoff to end. The housing market is still reeling from this nightmare of fraud, RICO, forgery, fraud on the court, and people have no where to live. Rents are going sky high. I am in appellate court in SC. Two county register of deeds offices have sued MERS. It is ongoing and nothing yet. We want to hear all about your suit. Best of luck to you.
lauren – sounds like you’ve worked your tail off and have learned things many of us haven’t. Good work and good luck! But if I may, I’d like to caution you about something and hope you were just not stating it right here at LL: It may not matter, but it might.
“…. but i filed MY motion for summary judgment as I sent a NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL within the 3 years which was ignored….
Well, I hope that’s not literally what you sent or stated you sent in your complaint as there may be no value in it. Your intent may be inferred (if you mean literally what you said here). I don’t know and I’m a lay person to boot. But you mean you really sent a “Notice of Rescission” (pursuant to your right to rescind), right?
PS – love to read your complaint, btw.
NG: “The plain truth is that there are no defaults in nearly all of the claims on which foreclosure is sought. That is because the creditor, frequently identified as a REMIC Trust (but in actuality is a group of investors) have continued to get paid through servicer advances. There is nothing about that in the note or mortgage signed by the alleged borrower. Since they received payment the party claiming to be the mortgagee shows no default on its books but the servicer wants the foreclosure anyway because it makes them money.”
Well, now that most of us are finally onboard this deal, what do we think we can do about it? There are two sets of books, then: 1) the servicer’s, showing the default of the borrower 2) the trusts, showing payments from the servicers (tho I would have no way of knowing how, IF at all, this fact, i.e., that part of the payment received is from the servicers as an advance, is delineated.) But taking it for a fact that there must be two sets of books, how do we 1) get a court to see that if anything, we and the court are only seeing one set and 2) why it matters and in fact is critical?
Actually, there’s probably a third set of books, wherein the servicer notes its advances to the trusts, and my guess is this set of accounting entries is kept segregated from the set showing the borrower’s default. Didn’t we read that servicers of “fnma’s loans” – old definition of a fnma loan here a week or so ago – keep these advances in separate books? Of course they would. Any business owner here knows this. If nothing else, they can’t commingle because the accounts into which borrower payments go are essentially trust accounts (O balance – in and out).
I have every reason to believe that servicers finance these advances fwiw. Got that idea initially from an article stating that NationStar, when it ended up with Aurora’s servicing*, also ended up with Aurora’s 1 billion in advance-receivables. WHY are they receivable?
Got me – fnma, for instance has no receivables imo since its advances are clearly a result of a voluntary guarantee which they got the unknowing homeowner to pay for by an increase in her rate (.25%) to cover and then they don’t even credit the payments made in the alleged amts due on the notes – which she paid for every month by way of that rate increase!! Why were aurora’s advances treated as receivables if they have no real right to repayment, at least not under the notes themselves? (which brings up the age – old question – why did AIG waive subrogation if it’s insurance were proper? I used to know, I think, but I forget) Who’s paying back aurora now Nationstar for these advances but more importantly, why? Why do they make them and what makes them a receivable? Might it be our government, i.e. WE are? They initially took them from TARP funds? What? What’s the difference which makes these advances receivables – whether it’s under the notes or not?)
So for those of us who believe servicers make advances such that the CREDITOR has no beef, what are we going to do about it? With F & F, one may try introducing his own prospectus (good luck) or 10, but what about the non-conforming loans? When a servicer shows up as the foreclosing party, the party paying the law firm, etc., (even under terms of reimbursement) and claims to be acting for the real party in interest and even forks over some agreement, the servicer still isn’t the rpii under FRCP 17. How does one demonstrate that NS, say,
is purporting to act under color of some authority on behalf of the trust when the trust is being shown as the party bringing the action (which action MUST be beneficial to the trust) when in fact the servicer, with or without a poa, is acting in its own interest to recover advances? How do we demonstrate that the trust, to the extent it really is the CREDITOR, the lawful successor in interest to the loan, is not missing any payments and has no claim against the other party to the agreement, the borrower?
**Do we counter-claim against the servicer or ? then for disgorgement of its advances (since we’re not being credited with them)? ** Crazy? Maybe not. We’ve tried simply alleging third party payment – and we know, maybe, probably? because we were short on some facts, how that went.
NG also said in what I cited above:
“That is because the creditor, frequently identified as a REMIC Trust (but in actuality is a group of investors)…”
Have we discussed lately a trust not being a trust as a matter of law by its (initial, subsequent, whatever) non-compliance with trust law, such that the ‘organization’ is in fact merely a group of investors? We really haven’t fought FIRE WITH FIRE. Maybe we should do what that one judge suggested and en masse report what we know to the IRS and cc everyone and his brother in appropriate oversight and govt agencies (run ads, even) such that our chances of being ignored are diminished (and the judge suggested a person could receive a commission mol on the recovery of taxes due by that gang). We’ve been awfully kind to those allegedly on the other ends of our deals. They, on the other hand, have sought their own satisfaction from the
parties who’ve messed over ALL of us.
*(imo aurora actually turned itself into natonstar – new name, a few new principals MAYBE, new corporate registration, probably copies of the old bi-laws with a few tweaks, etc, but mostly same gang – they certainly took A’s employees with them. Why’d they do this? I think we can’t afford to not care. Maybe partly because the new company wasn’t dragging a big financial train, and hey! AURORA entered the Consent Order to knock it the heck off with their bs, not NationStar! Woohoo! But this isn’t the BIGGIE.
Beside turning up the heat best we can, some smarty pants or five should at least develop an outline to get at the stinking dispositive facts here regarding these advances, identify the obstacles, and go from there?
Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
Excellent analogy. It is becoming quite common in foreclosure defense to distort information by creating smear campaigns and disingenuous public assaults against foreclosure defense warriors…just to protect or rather hide and suppress the truth.
And Lauren. . look for the change in mid September .
Its a sad time for this country….
I only wish for the strength to forgive those who treaspased against us.
Greedy..War Mongering..Drug Dealing ..Treasonous baskers! !
Lord Grant me Strength
Many Blessings to All
Lauren.. Very good.
Just one thing….the fiat currency is being replaced with asset backed currency…not another fiat currency.
Make New Friends and Keep the Old..
One is Silver and the other Gold!
Neil…What in tarnations took you so long to spit it out!
Don’t Stop Now !
hi neil:
as a long time client of a securitization audit, consults by phone etc, as a pro-se i filed a FEDERAL RICO complaint on 7-1-2015 in chicago.
i have identified the ENTERPRISE as “Loan Origination to Foreclosure” and corroborated each allegation with PROOF: depositions by bank employees who each explain the creation of documentary evidence after-the-fact; the amicus briefs of Marie McDonnell regarding the secretive veil of MERS; the amicus brief of Harvard, Georgetown and a new york Law professors who expose the sham of MERS; how the 15-15d filings of the Trusts to the SEC no longer require reporting the activities of the trust, thus the Conspirators ability to SELL the notes multiple times by deceiving the Investors, deceiving the borrowers, deceiving the courts with (my opinion as a result of extensive research) the goal of CONTROLLING the collapse of the fiat monetary system which was going to collapse anyway and instituting a NEW fiat system with the same players at the helm.
it is up to us to UNITE for divided we fall.
it is up to us to expose this TRUTH to the courts in order to overcome their biases and provide a coherent storyline they can follow for if one is only operating with limited knowledge the conclusions one can only draw are upon that limited knowledge.
the time has come to expose the bigger picture as the brain is linear – a foundation must first be laid from which to build upon.
the lower equity courts are ruling based upon what they believe is EQUITABLE: you got the $$, too bad if the banks were drowning in paperwork and made some “mistakes.”- you’re only trying to exploit the poor banks mistakes and get a free house – shame on you!!!
however, this fraud is now being exposed for what it is – a much larger agenda with foreclosure as just one part of a multi-pronged attack.
i have contacted DOUCET and ASSOC who have been working on the Slorp vs. Bank of am case in federal appellate court as the appellate judges rolled out the red carpet for a RICO claim which i have followed.
i do believe that attorneys might be hampered as they are “Officers of the Court” – a mantle not worn by a pro-se thus we have an easier time exposing the TRUTH.
i know you can probably add unto the chronology of my case and i would love any additions you can make long with EXPERT TESTIMONY from any and all you might deem to help solidify this case.
feel free to pass on the redacted version to anyone who might benefit.
BAC’s motion to dismiss is undoubtedly en route – they just asked for an extension of time to 8-21 – joint status due 9-2 and appearance for status 9-8 and then in circuit court 9-9 as BAC is ready to motion for summary judgment, but i filed MY motion for summary judgment as I sent a NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL within the 3 years which was ignored….
many blessings for your hard work and diligence for it is indeed greatly appreciated,
lauren tratar
Even if Scalia hated to turn on his bank buddies he couldn’t deny the basic facts.
“…patterns that cannot be reconciled” -> fraud, lies and theft. Destruction of middle class and our democracy.
This is why TiLA Rescsission is so important and that is the wisdom of the Justice Scalia and unanimous Supreme court decission. We dont have to go into all of the fraud because they dont respond within the 20 days. Less feet to step on. Let the big boys fight the real war.
NEVER AGAIN