5th Circuit Revives FDIC Suit Against Deutsch and Goldman Sachs

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.


see http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/5th-circuit-revives-fdic-s-suit-against-63041/

see 5thCircuitOpinion

From the Western District of Texas, a place where Banks usually prevail, came a crushing blow to their hopes of evading responsibilities for securities fraud and fraudulent practices involved in the sale of mortgage backed securities. Essentially, the banks were arguing that the true facts that they had withheld or lied about could be covered up until the statute of limitations ran out. The trial court agreed. The circuit court disagreed.

Significant quotes —

The FDIC filed two separate suits against the Appellees and other financial institutions on August 17, 2012.2 The FDIC’s lawsuit alleged claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Texas Securities Act.3 The FDIC alleged that, in underwriting and selling the residential mortgage backed securities to Guaranty, the Appellees “made numerous statements of material fact about the [securities] and, in particular, about the credit quality of the mortgage loans that backed them” that “were untrue.” The FDIC also alleged that the Appellees “omitted to state many material facts that were necessary in order to make their statements not misleading.” [Editor’s Note: For example that the money from the investor never went where it was intended — to a REMIC Trust]

Senator Riegle, one of FIRREA’s sponsors, stated:

Although these provisions have attracted little attention from the media, they are of the utmost importance. Extending these limitations periods will significantly increase the amount of money that can be recovered by the Federal Government through litigation, and help ensure the accountability of the persons responsible for the massive losses the Government has suffered through the failures of insured institutions. The provisions should be construed to maximize potential recoveries by the Federal Government by preserving to the greatest extent permissible by law claims that would otherwise have been lost due to the expiration of hitherto applicable limitations periods. See Electrical Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U.S. 229, 243 (1976); Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 311–16 (1946).

Explaining the policies underlying the two types of statutes, the Court stated that “[s]tatutes of limitations require plaintiffs to pursue ‘diligent prosecution of known claims,’” id. at 2183 (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1546 (9th ed. 2009)), and “promote justice by preventing surprises through [plaintiffs’] revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared,” id. (alteration in original) (quoting R.R. Telegraphers v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc., 321 U.S. 342, 348–49 (1944)).

That Study Group Report was commissioned after Congress passed CERCLA, and Congress directed the study group to “determine ‘the adequacy of existing common law and statutory remedies in providing legal redress for harm to man and the environment caused by the release of hazardous substances into the environment,’ including ‘barriers to recovery posed by existing statutes of limitations.’” Id. at 2180 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 9651(e)(1), (3)(F)). The resulting report recommended, inter alia, that “all states that have not already done so, clearly adopt” the discovery rule for accrual of causes of action due to the “long latency periods in harm caused by toxic substances.” Id. at 2180–81. “The Report further stated: ‘The Recommendation is intended also to cover the repeal of the statutes of repose which, in a number of states[,] have the same effect as some statutes of limitation in barring [a] plaintiff’s claim before he knows that he has one.’” Id. at 2181 (alterations in original). [Editor’s Note: The court is using precedent on release of physically toxic substances to decide a case based upon financially toxic instruments]

But this is not the usual case. The FDIC Extender Statute did not create a new statute of limitations merely for the ordinary reasons, but also “to give the [FDIC] three years from the date upon which it is appointed receiver to . . . . investigate and determine what causes of action it should bring on behalf of a failed institution.”

“The purpose of FIRREA’s preemption of state statutes of limitations is to give the [FDIC] three years from the date upon which it is appointed receiver to . . . . investigate and determine what causes of action it should bring on behalf of a failed institution.” Barton, 96 F.3d at 133; UBS, 712 F.3d at 142 (“Congress obviously realized that it would take time for this new agency to mobilize and to consider whether it wished to bring any claims and, if so, where and how to do so. Congress enacted [the FHFA Extender Statute] to give FHFA the time to investigate and develop potential claims on behalf of [Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac]—and thus it provided for a period of at least three years from the commencement of a conservatorship to bring suit.”).

222 Responses

  1. Does anyone know what the number below means. I have the same CRPRDNRBS46b number on my


  2. IAN….2012_2013…time nod lien got released.
    Also the same time the Fairytail MERS assignments ..All in One.

    Some people…… learn things the hard way.

  3. Question?
    Are the tbills as worthless as the mbs?

    Make New Friends … Silver & Gold.

  4. Jg- by the way, you can look up NYC pension holdings 2008, and then 2012 or 2013- MBS vanished. Bulk of holdings now T-bills.

  5. Jg- Fed involvement is no doubt a big part of the criminality. As to what extent i’m not sure. Will look into it.

  6. Ian re: what you said at 10:35 about no pensions holding mbs, now holding US. Treasury bonds. This suggest to my unlearned -about -that-stuff mind that the U.S. govt bought out the mbs’s with bonds, making the U.S. govt the successors in interest on the loans (in so far as anyone may be with no endorsements, no delivery, etc)…..? I’d like to give this some thought fwiw, which admittedly may be nada, but I (and anyone else who wants to consider this) has to first get this part right….? IS that what you were saying?

  7. The real question is how these billions and trillions don’t translate into real jobs and businesses? Where’s Congress on this?

    The real economy like steel production is what’s really down because Congress won’t reel in Wall St and push for jobs, infrastructure and our own country because they hate the President.

  8. China elite and Wall St partners in crime.

  9. Hammertime
    Right on,

  10. …and jg
    Yes the SOURCE of the reserve means i CAN rescind.

  11. And i projected the growth if equity yo be about 11% over that 18 months which meant i could have got into a lower monthly payment – and managed the mortgage that was reasonable math at that time and more sophisticated investors in their homes agreed that was reasonably expected ( during the year the home was built it rose 20% 2006 – 2007 ) can you say pump and dump.

  12. The truth of the matter is i just wanted to be able to take care of myself in my retirement years, I was not being greedy, i based my decision on the value of the property, my risk appeared reasonsble i did not and could not understand the financial death it caused me. Ive heard statements like buyer beware and that property can go down and telling the borrower they were greedy, isnt that rich, like i said f you spread that around enough times people will start to believe it, well not happening actually more and more people get what went down, the cat is out of the bag.

  13. Ian, I hope you’ll speak more to what you said since many of us, including me, aren’t up on it. Of course, what we’d be interested in is how the purchase of any credit enhancement impacts our defenses, as in did someone else become a co-obligor by any name (which I think means they had no recourse)? FNMA has no recourse imo. They may buy the loan to end the guarantee, but that’s not recourse (including as to their at least 4 payments prior to repurchase). And Aig, for instance, is said to have waived subrogation, and btw, since (if) it did, like to know how it paid back its billion dollar bailout).

  14. The problem manipulation at height of crisis was banjs and politicians decided homeowners were evil lije stated income meant u were a liar. We were toxic not their predatory loans so tgey cut our credit closed down banks and left us to drown in manufactured debt, defaults and foreclosure. It was a giant predatory scam on the whole country, globe and we’re going through a manufactured crisis now.

  15. People trying to make a financial plan may think ‘well if i borrow enough money, I can float this deal for a year or two, long enough to sell the asset at a profit if I need to’ or like that. That decidedly isn’t how lenders get to look at a borrower’s financial picture. Borrowed money is not an asset to be considered when looking at qualification for a loan, at least certainly not as to a “reserve” to offset even slighlty high qualifying ratios.. Suggesting one borrow money to show a “reserve” is bs because borrowed money isn’t a legitimate reserve. It would be iffy (and not pure bs like showing borrowed funds) even if your mom and dad, say, GAVE you money for a reserve to offset anything off about qualifying. Further, qualification isn’t for 18 mos or even two years. These are 15 and 30 year loans. What’s gonna happen when the un-saved reserve runs out? Did these predatory goons know you were going to get a 30% raise after that to handle the 30% increase in your payment over the old one? Bah! The borrower didn’t and neither did the lender. Only difference is, the borrower’s idea of his finances and what a lender may approve have nothing in common: the home loan lender’s mandate is to apply his prudent lending standards to underwriting and he sure as heck isn’t supposed to suggest one borrow more money to supplement payments, which is really the unstated purpose of a reserve: ” I’ve saved 200 a month for three years with payments at X, so now that my new payment is 187. mo higher, I’ve demonstrated I can make the higher payment.” .

  16. Jg- yes indeed, the pension plans were allowed to purchase AAA rated bonds only. Thats why the brokerage firms,
    In many cases the sponsor, of the MBS purchased a “credit enhancement ” to illegally boost a junk-rated (in actuality) bond to investment grade, or AAA.

  17. DW, just saw this:
    “I was also made to pull out the REST of the remaining equity because the ” lender” stated to underwrite the jumbo Loan I had to have a big reserve in my savings account – meant I could ” last” approx 18 months…..”

    And that’s likely how long you did last. I understand what you’re saying – you wanted to improve your home to improve your equity position for your retirement years.

    It’s been a really long time now, but as I recall, the reserve they said you needed first of all tells me your qual for the loan was iffy AT BEST and or you had a high loan to value. “cASH OUT” in a refi (remember it’s been a long time) isn’t the proper source of cash reserve.. It does become a reserve in practice, but what it doesn’t do, which a saviings account, say, would do and which must be demonstrated, is demonstrate that at your lower pre-refi payment you could SAVE any moolah such that by that showing, one could estimate you could make the higher payment on the refi with the funds you made a practice of saving. In other words, the SOURCE of the reserve is critical. Using cash out to satisfy that ability to make a hgher payment is cheating. Not cheating, legit lenders look for what I said – some kind of demonstrated savings account at the lower pre-refi payment. imo.
    Also imo, THEY were charged with knowing this and you weren’t.
    lay opinions

  18. Ian, I didn’t know til the other day that pensions may only buy investment grade / triple A rated investments even as it stands to reason. I can’t substantiate this, but I ‘ve gotten a sense that suits out of labor unions settled fairly quickly comparatively..

  19. Jg- I think it would depend on who the servicers are to whom the servicers are reporting the loans being in default, if they are recoverable. If they are reporting to anyone. I dont think that the retail investors ever see a remittance report. You ever try to understand one of those things? The investors just want their payments.
    Also, in 2008, NYC controller Phillip Liu threatened to sue over MBS losses, which comprised a huge portion of their pension plan holdings. Suit dropped. By 2011, no MBS in pension holdings. All replaced with US Treasury certificates. Not a word in the media. Nothing.

  20. I’m going to throw something out there which is purely speculative. Something posted here in the last week says servicers make advances (non gse loans) as long as they think they’re recoverable. I wonder if they do this in trade for keeping the 5% late fee each mo.

  21. from yesterday
    Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, etc. v Harry Beauvais, et al
    Third District Court of Appeal Florida
    What that court said is like saying you lost so you didn’t sue me. imo.

  22. In Ukpe (NJ), as I recall – been a few years – the case WAS remanded to state court on arguments out of the homeowner. I think I’ve got the mtn at scribd.

  23. I haven’t read that thing thoroughly or looked into the codes he (def) cited, so it could be he cited the wrong ones. But it still irks me fwiw.

  24. TU, I’m posting this one here because it irks me.

    “This action was originally filed by the Plaintiff in the South Carolina Court ofCommon Pleas. The Defendant thereafter removed this action to federal court on July 24, 2015. In
    removing this case to federal court, Defendant apparently assumed that Plaintiff was pursuing relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, some other federal statute granting jurisdiction in this Court, or that there
    is diversity of citizenship in this case, as the text of Defendant’s Notice of Removal reveals that
    Defendant asserts jurisdiction “pursuant Title 28 US CODE SECTION 1446 for petition of this court for reasons of diversity: federal questions of law, diversity of citizenship, basic constitutional rights
    violation, C-TITLE 5 U.S. CODE SECTION 7061 & SECTION 556-D2 NO PROOF OF JURISDICTION.” However, Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand this action to the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, stating that it is only asserting claims in this case under South Carolina law

    1This code section deals with judicial review of rulings by federal agencies.
    2This code section deals with hearing requirements of federal government agencies

    and that there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case. In a response, Defendant states that she objects, but provides no additional argument.

    In order for this Court to hear and decide a case, the Court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation. It is well settled that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute; Willy v. Coastal
    Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-137 (1992); and because federal courts have limited subject matter
    jurisdiction, there is no presumption that the court has jurisdiction. Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 U.S. 8, 11 (1799). Further, a defendant in a state court case may remove that case to a federal district court only if the state court action could have been filed in a federal district court, and the defendant seeking removal has the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Wilson v.
    Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921); Altimore v. Mount Mercy College, 420 F.3d 763,768 (8 Cir. 2005)[The defendant bears th the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction by a
    preponderance of the evidence]. Additionally, because the federal courts have limited jurisdiction and removal jurisdiction raises federalism concerns, a district court must strictly construe the
    removal statutes, with any doubts about federal jurisdiction to be resolved against removal. Chesire
    v. Coca-Cola Bottling Affiliated, Inc., 758 F.Supp. 1098, 1102 (D.S.C. 1990); see also Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811, 816 (4th Cir. 2004)[Courts are obligated to “construe removal
    jurisdiction strictly because of the ‘significant federalism concerns’ implicated.”(quoting Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994))]; In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation, 591 F.3d 613, 620 (8th Cir. 2010))[“All doubts about federal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.”](citing Wilkinson v. Shackelford, 478 F.3d 957, 963 (8th Cir. 2007)).

    A review of the pleadings and filings in this case, as well as the complaint filed in state court (case number 2009-CP-10-4869),3 confirms that this is a state law foreclosure action, and
    that the Plaintiff has not asserted any federal claims so as to establish federal question jurisdiction in this Court. While Defendant also purports to remove this action based on diversity jurisdiction;
    see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); “[a] civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction
    under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C.
    § 1441(b)(2). Defendant is a citizen of the State of South Carolina. Therefore, removal of this case by the Defendant was not proper. Further, it is readily apparent that the Defendant also did not affect
    removal of this case within thirty (30) days after receipt by the Defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action
    or proceeding is based, as required by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).

    3 Defendant did not file all of the pleadings from the state court action, although a defendant desiring to remove a civil action from state court “shall file…a copy of all process, pleadings, and
    orders served upon such defendant…in such action. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Even so, this Court may take judicial notice of factual information located in postings on government websites. See Tisdale
    v. South Carolina Highway Patrol, C/A No. 0:09–1009–HFF–PJG, 2009 WL 1491409, *1 n. 1
    (D.S.C. May 27, 2009), aff’d 347 F. App’x 965 (4th Cir. Aug. 27, 2009); In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation, No. 05–4182, 2008 WL 4185869 at * 2 (E.D.La. September 8,
    2008) [noting that courts may take judicial notice of governmental websites including other courts’ records]. The complaint in the state court action is available on the Charleston County Public Index.
    See Charleston County Circuit Court Case Details Public Index, http://jcmsweb.charlestoncounty.
    org/PublicIndex/CaseDetails.aspx?County=10&CourtAgency=10002&Casenum=2009CP100486 9&CaseType=V (last visited Aug. 19, 2015).

    Therefore, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s motion to remand be granted. The parties are referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.

    Bristow Marchant
    United States Magistrate Judge
    August 19, 2015
    Charleston, South Carolina”

    The judge was fairly kind to Mr. B at a hearing given that I think he hadn’t, at least prior to the hearing, produced for the court his poa from his mom. Having said that, as to removal, guess it makes a difference who’s doing the asking.

  25. Had to look it up remember when show came out but never watched it. Can definitely see the connection! Interesting the anti Wall St regulation “smart Republican” is from “liberal” CNN.

  26. OMG Hammertime
    Now I know where they got the idea for sirus Bean in scandal
    I like mr Barney he calls it out ” names please give me names”

  27. Deborah wynn

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal,

  28. NG and I are doing fine … no panic from us about stock market because we have seen it coming for quite some time now. Donald Trump has tried to educate Shadowcat about China holding the keys to the US economy, but the cat has been napping and missed the memo. Enjoying a cruise on Trumps luxury yacht and preparing him with the critical info about the foreclosure fraud Ponzi scheme so that he can speak to the problem and hire a competent team to address the issues, NG probably to be named to the position of “Fraud-closure Czar” in the cabinet.

    President Trump points out that the Holy Bible is the most important book in the world ..and The Art of the Deal is #2. …

    The Word of God …is what we rely on as believers. It supersedes all other things in this world. What does it profit a man who gains a house and money and material things of this world, if he loses his soul .. Place your trust in Jesus as he returns as the King of Mercy and Just Judge.

  29. After recent events…including today…..he is either making final preperations for his family. …. Or recovering from shock and utter disbelief. ….

    Many Blessings to All

  30. Is NG ill?

    No new article for a week?

    If so, I’m praying but lacking specifics.





    RECORDED ON ø2,’23/2ø15 AT ø2:44 PM


    NO øøø4427953 ACK iøøø362øø76ø3378

    ORIGINAL FILE NUMBER: øøøøøøø181521998

    PAGES: aaøe

    Other Change(s)


    Expedited Fee

















    $25.00 $25.00




    UO – Original Financing Statement

    UOA – Original Financing Statement

    With Assignment

    UOTU – Original Financing Statement

    Transrnitting Utility

    UMA – Amendment

    UMDA – Amendment – Debtor Added

    – Amendment –


    Debtor Name Change UMDD – Amendment – Debtor Deleted

    – Amendment –


    Secured Party Added

    UMSC –

    Amendment –

    Secured Party Name Change

    – Amendment –


    Secured Party Deleted

    UMC – Amendment – Continuation

    UMT – Amendment – Termination

    UMZ – Amendment – Assignment

    UMZP – Amendment –

    Partial Assignment

    UMCS – Amendment –

    Correction Statement

    UOMH – Manufactured Home –

    Original Financing Statement

    UOPF – Public Finance –

    Original Financing Statement

    Documents Nine (9) Pages or More

    Certified Copies



    Mail to Address:





    Plain Copies




    URC – copies

    UNCP – Void – Non-Payment

    UCC – Cancellation

    UCR – Reinstatement UCO Departmental Action

    UCREF – Refund Recordation Tax

    UCIS – Incorrect ID Number

    XOVRU – UCC Overrides

    UMFC – Filing Office Correction Statement



    Number of Checks COMMENT(S):

    Credit Card


    ID : øØø3211373

    WORK ORDER øøø4427953

    DATE: ø2-23-2ø1S ø2:4S PH


    PAID: $75 .øØ







    3..M) Highland Drive rx 7506?

    of principal executive omcæ)


    l. DEBTORS NAME: Provide or 1b) name; modify. any pan if part M tho Individual Oabtor’s

    fit 1b, o: I here

    the hdhd&lal Debtor i:cm IC Addendum (Form UCC'”)


    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (as Trustees)








    CITY Baltimore

    2. DEBTOR’S NAME: 25) of if any the Irv’ividuaf

    end De-eter in item the Fin-endng AMeMum (F«m UCCtAd)

    •re! 2! Of Em 2 here





    TX 75067

    narm 3b










    $ 120000.00 $ 25440.51 0597692070




    350 Himiland Drive














    c/0 1640 Ralworth Roed



    Investment Securities Date Of

    Fixed Rate Note (the Note”) principal amount

    Fair Of Note on 0112032, which is the Date” tmals

    (iii). Financial Account Number. including atl amounts depcwited or rnninlained therein (the *Funds’ held in escrow)


    (b). Written to the Internal Revalue Code – Grantors and Others Trated Substantial (26 USC. 671 – 679)

    * * All assets the ‘*rsonal property of Alama R. Good, Beneficial (h•n«• arM havil* authority over the hereinafter described asets. e nis financing Statetnent togethe- with Shan be effective 08/ 22! 2007 for 25 years until tern’inaiio•n is med or otherwise.

    Owzz• 100% in the t*reklaav assets in a financial Wd

    in a Trust Or United State tax includize the right to the or along with u.y on account and any other light or title in any money or other property real or persona! which may have been conveyed. transferred, assigned. Or paid to another in eonnK•üon with a reaf or exchange that is stocR in trade or he’d primarily for sale to eustomH•s.

    5. CrM:k if md me Cdlatøral heß a TruM (see UCCIM, item 17

    Chæk if awEcüee aM check om box:

    PuMic-Fimrm Transac%on

    7. ALTERNATIVE OES’GNAT’ON Les—emes–sor


    mmiäered a Personal ntative 6b. Check H and check box:




    Whereas The Aama Rita Good Estate , of 1640 Ralworth Rd, Baltimore MD 21218 , by a bond

    (Place of Residence)


    for the performance of U.S. Govemment Contract Number (TIN)

    became a surety for the complete and successful performance of said contract, and Whereas said surety has placed certain personal property in escrow

    on deposit

    , and

    , being a duly authorized

    in Account Number



    located at

    Whereas l,


    (Name of Financial Institution)

    350 Highland Drive, Lewisville TX 75067 (Address of Financial Institution)

    Alama R. Good, Beneficial Owner

    representative of the United States government as a warranted contracting officer, have determined

    that retention in escrow of the following property is no longer required to ensure further performance

    of the said Govemment contract or satisfaction of claims arising therefrom:

    The whole Fixed Rate Note (the “Note”) principal amount of U.S. $ 120,000.00 (the “Funds”), plus interest, and including all; accounts holding buy-down funds, taxes & assessments of all nature due, insurance funds, suspense funds, and other escrow & impound amounts or similar charges and any proceeds therefrom, and amounts deposited or maintained therein for U.S. federal tax purposes.


    Whereas the surety remains liable to the United States Govemment for the continued performance of the said Govemment contract and satisfaction of claims pertaining thereto.

    Now, therefore, this agreement witnesseth that the Government hereby releases from escrow the property listed above, and directs the custodian of the aforementioned escrow account to deliver the listed property to the surety. If the listed property comprises the whole of the property placed in escrow in the aforementioned escrow account, the Government further directs the custodian to close the account and to retum all property therein to the surety, along with any interest accruing which remains after the deduction of any fees lawfully owed to

    United States Treasury

    (Name of Financial Institution)

    Presctit*d by GSA-FAR (48 CFR) 53.228(0) -2/094’




    LEPOER’S name, street city or town, state or province, country, ZIP or foreign postal cnde and telephone no.


    1640 Ralworth Road

    Baltimore MD 21218

    LENDER’S federal identification number BORROWER’S identification number


    Date of lender’s acquisitbn or knoWedge of abandonrnent

    8/22/2007 AM


    OMB No. 1545-0877


    Form 1099-A

    2 Balarwe of principal mjtstanding


    4 Fair market value of pmperty


    Acquisition or

    Abandonment of

    Secured Property

    Copy C

    For Lender

    For Privacy Act and Paperwork

    Reduction Act

    Notice, see the



    Instructions for


    Information Retums.



    BORROWER’S name, street address, city or town, state or provinæ,country, and ZIP or foreign postal code


    350 Highland Drive

    Lewisville TX 75067

    Account number instructions)


    Form 1099-A

    Instructions for Lender

    TO complete Form 1099-A, use:

    5 If diecked. the borrower was liable repaymmt of the debt

    6 Of property



    Accr# 0597592070

    http://www.10990nline.com – IRS Approved e File Provider

    File Copy A of this brm with the IRS by March 2, 2015. If

    file electronically. the due date is Mardi 31, 2015. To file electroniælly, you nwst have software that generates a file according to the specifications in Pub. 1220, Spedfications for

    Electronic Filing Of Forms 1097, 1098, 1099, 3921, 3922, 5498, 8935, and W-2G. The IRS does not provide a fill-4n form option.

    Need help? If you have questions about reporting on Form

    1099-A, call the infMmation reporting wstomer service site toll free at 1-866-455-7438 or 304-263-8700 (not toll free). Persons with a hearing or speech disability with access to TTY,TDD equipment can call 304-579-4827 (not tou tee).

    • the 2014 General Instrudions for Certain Inforrnation Returns,


    • the 2014 Instructions for Forms 1099-A and 1099-C.

    TO Order these instructions and forrns, go to f 099a call 1-800-TAX-FORM (1-800-829-3676).

    Caution. Because paper forms are scanned du-ing processing, you cannot file Forms 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 3921, 3922, or 5498 that you print from the IRS website. Due dates. Fumish Copy B of this form to borrower by February 2, 2015.

    12/2/2011 AM PAGE

    (Pago 3 8)









    BAL T


    BALTIMORE, MD 21218


    MD 2121B (Pr.rty AIMms)


    In return for a loan that I havereæiv41 promise to pay US. $

    120 , OOP. 00 (this amount is

    ‘heLenderis BAK OF MEAICA. N.A.

    I will make all paymente under this Note in the form of cash, check or money order.

    I undäStaM that the Leader may transfet• thig Note. Lender or anyone who takæ this Note by and who

    ig to under thie Note is the “Note Holder.•


    Interst will charged on unpaid vincipl until ttE amount Principal h” I vill pay Rt a

    ynrty rate of

    7.000 %.

    The interet raterequirui by this Section 2 is the rate Will pay both before and after any in 6(B) ot this Note.


    (A) Time and Place of Payments

    I will pay interest by makinga payment oyery mmth.

    . I will makemymoathlypaymentonthe 1ST dayöf.hmonübeginningon OCTOBER 01. 2007

    I Nil! make the.e payments every month until have Bid alt of the principal and interogt and eny Other cbrgw da:ribed that I may owe under this Note. monthly wment will be applied as of Its scheduled due date and wilt be

    tointerest If, on SEPTEMBER 01 , 2032

    I owe under this Note, I

    will pay thoæ amounts in Full on tbatdatq which is called t1E “Manrity Dato:

    Twillmakemymonthlypaymentsat BANK OF MERICA, N.A., P.o. BOX 17404, BAL TIERE, MD


    (B) Amount of Monthly Payments

    My monthly nyment will be in the amount d U.S. $


    or at a different plat* if required by the Note Holder.

    848. 14









    EREES IN TO awes.


    ouzz/D7 9:02


    FORBS – *521-7221

    (Page 4 Of 8)



    12/2/2011 AM




    It a which applies to loan and which sets loan ig sq that tbe interest or other loan chat•gee coilætd or to nliected in conrrcåon wiå this loan aceed the permitted limits, then: (a) any guch loan charge be by amount to tho chwge to the permitted limit; and (b) any Bums 81readJ&ilected from me which eweedd ermitbd limit will be reEund9d to The Note Holder may choose to

    already calected from me which pemitted limit will be refunded to me. The Note Holder may choose to make this refund by ruiucing the Principal I owe under this F•bt6 or by making a direct payment to me. ff a refund

    reduc5 Principal, the reduction will be treated as a Prepayment


    (A) Late Charge for Overdue Peyrnent8

    If the Note Holder has the full amount of any monthly payment by the end of 15 caleudar days after the date it is due, will py a late charge to the Holde. The amount of the char•gs will be

    % Of my overdi.æ payment Of Vincipal and interest. I Will pay this late Charge VompUy but


    only once an æch (B) Default

    It do not pay full amount of each monthly payment oa the date it is due, I will be in default,

    (C) Notice of Deraoit

    IE I am in ddault, theNoE Holder may sad me a written notice telling me that if I do not pay the overdue amount by a certain date, the Note Holder may rquire me tn pay immediately the full amount of Principal which has not been paid and ell the interest that I owe on that amount. That date mU5t be at 30 days afta• date an which the notice is mailed to me or ddivered by Other means.

    (D) No Waiver By Note Holder

    Even if, at a tims wh«t am in default. the Nob Holder does oot rquire me to pay immediately in full as above, the Note Holder will dill havo the tight do 90 am in default at a later time.

    (E) Payment of Note Holder’3 Costs and Eypenses

    If the bas required me to pay immediately in Edi as abovo, the Note Holder will have the right to be paid back by me all of and expen* in enforchg this Note to the extent mt prohibited by

    ap#cable Izw. expensæ include, for ämple, reasonaHe

    7. GIVING

    applicable law requires a different method, any notice that must be given to me under this Note will

    given by delivering it or by mailing it by tirst mail to me at the Proprty oc at a different addre5s if give the Note Holder a notice or my

    Any noticethat must iven to the Note Elolder this Note will be given by deliver•ing it or by mailing by first clas mail to the Note Holder at the address 9tated in Section 3(A) Of at a diffeRnt addr— if I am given a notic of that difterent


    If more than one ågns thig Notq-each person ig fully and personally obligated to keep all OE the prom— made in this Note, inciwfing the promiE to pay the amount Any pet50n who i5 a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note iB also obligated to do th3e thin9. Any 1*T$Ofi who over tha Obligatiaxs, including the

    Obligations OF guarantor. Orety Of endorser Of this Also obligated to 811 Of the made in thig Note. The Note Holder may enEoræ its rights under (Lis Note against each prson incavidully or against ell OE us together. This that any one of us may required to pay all of the owed under this Note.

    9. WAIVERS

    I and any other who has obligations under this Nate waive the rights OE and Notiæ of

    Dishonor. “Prcæntment” mans the right to require the Note Holder demand payment Ot amounts due. “Nodce 02 Dishonor” mealE the right to require the Noæ Holder to give notice otha• that amounts due have not been pid.


    This is a uniform ilMrument witl limited variations in some jurisdictions. In addiüon to the protections given to the under this Note, a MortBB Deed Of Trust Of Seari5• (the ”Sectrity Instrument”), dated the *sne date this Nab, protects the Note Holder from —ble which might result if do not keep the promise which I mnke in thig That S&urity Instrument how and tndet• what conditions I may be re«red to make immediate payment in EUII Of all I owe under this Note Some OE those conditions are

    as followß

    ES5R 02’22’07 9:02

    Recording requested


    When recorded






    Doc. 19887065833118150

    Cot-tuniemene« 5200

    Por value received, the undersigned, BÆ-JK OF AMERICA, N.A., 1800 TAPO CANYON ROAD, SZMI VALLEY, CA 93063, hereby grants, assigns and transfers to:


    ne xcxa nteres

    executed by: R GOOD, Trustor as per TRUST DEED recorded as Instrument

    on 10/30/07 in Book 010112 page 0624 of official records in the count Recorder’s Office of BALTIMORE crry county, t.-ARYLAND.

    Tax parcel — 09230Y970C033, cr•ry TAX COLLECTOR (SEMI)

    Original Mortgage $120, 000.00

    Together with the Note or Notes therein described or referred co, the money

    due and to become due thereon with interest, and rights accrued or to

    accrue under said Deed of Trust .

    Dated: 10/16/2012


    State of California

    County Ventura

    J. Mastrolonardo

    On 10/16/2012 before me,

    , Notary Public ,

    personally appeared

    to me on the of

    name (s) is/are subscribed

    the within%strumene and acknowyedged to me that he/she/ they executed the same in his her their authorized capacity(ies) , and that by his/her/their

    si eure(s on the instrument the person (g) , or the entity upon behalf of

    the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

    I certify under PENALTY OF pZRJÜRY under the laws OE the State Of California

    that the paragraph is true and correct.

    and official seal

    Signature :

    J. Mastrolonardo

    prepared by:

    1800 TAPO CMYON sxr.tx CA 93 063 (215) 345-0981


    COw. i 1952917





    ec COURT (Land CE ’64-238331 FMC 14680. p. 0491. printed 12/162013. onEne 1 ID52012.

    (Page 5. of 8)



    12/2/2011 8:55:42 AM PAGE 12/035

    Or any part Of the Property any Interest in the Property ig gold or (0T if Borrower is not natural person and a beneficial interest in Borrower i’ Eld or tramferred) Without Lender’5 prior written consent, Lender may immdiale payment in tull all sums sæured by fris Sæurity Ingtrument.

    However, this option not exe«iæd by Lender is prohibited by Appli’nble Law.

    If I-.ender this Borrower noüco of acæleration. The shall

    If Lander option, Lender shall give BOffOwef notice of acalntion. The shall provide a priod Of not than 30 days the not!ce is given in accordance with Seodon 15 within which Bormwer pay atl sums secura by this Secu•ity ff Borrower fails to pay tha Rims prior to the expiration oe this period, Lender may invokß any permitted by this Securitylnstfümoat without further notice or &mand un Borrowa•.


  32. David @12:43 from eggsistence 2013

    “So what gives Fannie Mae the right to come after me or you? Nothing! Fannie Mae is only a trustee of the pools of notes which are sold to benefit certificateholders. And the certificateholders never experienced a default, since Fannie Mae was the guarantor of all the Notes it securitized. And it’s Fannie/Freddie’s idiotic decision to be guarantors of trillions of dollars worth of notes that led to the ongoing taxpayer bailout of those two companies.”

    jg: The cert holders / trust never experience a default ‘as long as’ fnma honors its guarantee. We’ll assume it does. However, fnma may end that guarantee payment after 4 mos by repurchasing the loan, in which case fnma imo should be the foreclosing party as the party now with the right to payment – and which they weren’t in some well-known case where someone else was the named plaintiff, which torked the judge (as did the discovery in Nosek by another judge) when he learned that fnma, not Wells or whomever else was in the act did. (Was it Ibanez? I can’t keep them all straight). In my view, fnma was / is a volunteer hands down. Insult to injury, the source of funding to at least make the 4 payments before repurchasing these loans is the funds accumulated by the undisclosed .25% added to borrowers’ rate on loans headed to fnma (and prob fhlmc). I believe I read that this .25% is remitted to fnma monthly by the servicer as the borrower makes payments. Really does make me angry. fwiw. The borrower is charged an undisclosed guarantee fee for the ben of a third and fourth (non)party to the loan when it’s originated, and then not credited with even the payments made pursuant to that guarantee (at least 4) when it comes to alleged default figures. Imo not only is the borrower not credited those four guarantee payments before fnma’s repurchase, the default date is incorrect. The default date can only start when the party entitled to payment has not been paid – by anyone, also imo.
    What we need to know is if these cretans on non-agency loans are volunteers or sureties.

  33. TU
    Post a temporary email if you think you need the PDF
    I only found couple of things I do not want to post publically because it may be bad for Beeson
    I think it’s bad enough for him.
    Upshot is he was served according to facts and he was ordered by court order to vacate what appears to be post his ” petition” pro se, reading it is painful, he asked federal questions of law under constitutional rights and unclean hands doctrine and wanted to move case to Federal Court ( appears he missed this opportunity by not filing proper suit, he would now need to appeal but the judge ordered he would have to pay a $150,000 bond!) the guy is trying to save his mothers home at the end of day (in which he tried to tender offer to council for bank) appears undated unless I’ve gone blind which is distinct possibility.
    Pro se can suck because you can waiver rights due to not even knowing what questions to ask, and of course most can’t afford a great lawyer, let alone a huge bond to hold on to the home whilst you fight.

  34. Saw a post New Century trustee may be releAsing info, good example of discussion here.

  35. Re: repeated bites at the apple and the Statute of Limitations:

    Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, etc. v Harry Beauvais, et al
    Third District Court of Appeal Florida
    (the et al is a homeowners association which foreclosed on its lien)
    Apparently a servicer (AHMS) had brought an earlier action which was dismissed without prejudice.
    Questions which were to be answered after amicus briefs, I guess (haven’t looked into them)

    Where a foreclosure action has been dismissed with the note and mortgage still in default:

    1) Does the dismissal of the action, by itself, revoke the acceleration of the debt balance thereby reinstating the installments terms?

    jg: impossible

    2) Absent additional action by the mortgagee can a subsequent claim of acceleration for a new and different time period be made?

    jg: no

    3) Does it matter if the prior foreclosure action was voluntarily or involuntarily dismissed, or whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice?

    jg: no

    4)What is the customary practice?

    jg: who cares? An acceleration is an acceleration, win, lose, or draw.

    5) If an affirmative act is necessary by the mortgagor to accelerate a mortgage, is an affirmative act necessary to decelerate?

    jg: from the hip: maybe before the party impacted by acceleration was compelled to act (or lost a lot of sleep?), i.e., affected. see answer to no. 6.

    6) Is deceleration an issue or is deceleration inapplicable if a different and subsequent default is alleged?

    jg: you can’t “decelerate” imo. Maybe one may retract the acceleration (before the notice of acc has caused the other party to act or sweat), but even then there could be damage claims. Acceleration, in the first place, is a drastic remedy available to these lenders. They often swear to have tried to mitigate. As if. I guess their idea of mitigation is a letter, if that, stating they’re going to accelerate unless one does X. or that they are accelerating.

    Some of the cases cited:

    Singleton v. Greymar Assocs., 882 So. 2d 1004 (Fla 2004)

    Stadler v. Cherry Hill Developers, Inc. 150So. 2d 468 (FLa2 DCA 1963)

    I don’t know what’s happened in this case (which distinguishes res judicata and the sol, as well as dismissals with prejudice v those without prejudice) nor if it’s already been discussed here, but imo, so here’s my two cents fwiw, a fallacy of the decision (which to me was confusing, sorry to say) reached on Dec 17, 2014 is found on page 15:

    “Thus, in Singleton (and Stadler), the order of dismissal with
    prejudice served to adjudicate, in favor of the homeowner, the
    merits of the lender’s claim and the borrower’s defenses,
    thus determining there was no valid default

    jg: true enough so far; not true here:


    The court said this (whole para) in regard to res judicata (because a dismissal with prejudice (v without) is an adjudication on the merits. Even so, by virtue of the fact that adj on the merits settles all claims made and which could have been made, it doesn’t “undo” the fact that the note HAD been accelerated *(in the previous action). What an adj on the merits would encompass is the matter of the borrower’s default, but not whether or not acceleration had been called because it had been. What was adjudicated by a dismissal with prejudice is whether or not he was in default. They HAD accelerate the note; what was determined, what could be determined, is if it were warranted or not and that’s it – not whether or not acceleration had been called. What might be res judicata is the matter of finding no default by the borrower, and I’d even give them so far as a determination of ‘no basis for the acceleration’, but even that doesn’t change the act of having called acceleration. There was / is no issue that the lender called acceleration and they can’t put it back in the box for any reason, including dismissal w/ prejudice.
    The debt/ note was accelerated regardless of whether such acceleration were ‘validated’ or not by the court.

    Obviously, most of us would feel if they may put it back in the box as if it never happened, there is in fact no statute of limitations for breach of these particular contracts. The act of acceleration doesn’t turn on whether or not it’s validly called. It still an act done which compels the other party to act.. And that act of defense by the borrower (or anyone affected) made it effective, as well, for that matter. imo.

    *NOD comes to mind or the acceleration letter

    These are as always lay opinions.

  36. Item 2.01

    Completion of Acquisition or Disposition of Assets.

    On February 20, 2015, HLSS Mortgage Master Trust II (the “Seller”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., completed the sale of its entire portfolio of re-performing mortgage loans (“RPLs”) to the Securitized Mortgage Asset Loan Trust 2015-1, an unrelated third party purchaser (the “Purchaser”), through the execution of a Mortgage Loan Purchase and Sale Agreement (the “MLPSA”). Under the MLPSA, the purchase price for the RPLs was $337.6 (the “Purchase Price”). The Purchase Price is subject to a 5% holdback pending completion of the Purchaser’s due diligence.

    A portion of the sale proceeds were used to terminate the Master Repurchase Agreement and Securities Contract dated June 26, 2014, as amended (the “Repurchase Agreement”), between the Seller and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association under the terms of the Repurchase Agreement, which had been established to partially finance the purchase of the RPLs.

    This description of the MLPSA is not complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the MLPSA, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.1 and which is incorporated herein by reference.

  37. GO LOOK IT UP, Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd.

    c/o Intertrust Corporate Services (Cayman) Limited



    Washington, D.C. 20549

    FORM 8-K


    Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

    of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934

    Date of report (Date of earliest event reported):

    February 23, 2015 (February 20, 2015)


    (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

    Cayman Islands



    (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)

    (Commission File Number)

    (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

    Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd.

    c/o Intertrust Corporate Services (Cayman) Limited

    190 Elgin Avenue

    George Town, Grand Cayman


    Cayman Islands

    Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (345) 945-3727

    Not applicable.

    (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

  38. JG. ..the trustee sets idle…has no duties…until default.

    DB!!! Happy Birthday to you to!
    Honors Sir… Honors!!!!!!!

    Croak. 😂


    Section 7-2.1 Extent of trustee’s estate
    Section 7-2.2 When estate of trustee ceases
    Section 7-2.3 Trust estate not to descend on death of trustee; appointment,
    Section 7-2.4 Act of trustee in contravention of trust
    Section 7-2.5 Suspension of powers of trustee in war service
    Section 7-2.6 Resignation, suspension or removal of trustee
    Section 7-2.7 Accounting by trustee in supreme court
    Section 7-2.8 Commissions of trustee to sell real property for benefit of

    – See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/EPT/7/2#sthash.v7PzE6zr.dpuf

    I wish I were an expert on NY (or DE) trust law, but I know very little.
    But reading some of this got me thinking about fees to dot trustees. When a dot is executed, a trust is created and the trustee holds in the trust one of the two forms of title in trust for the beneficiary. I’ve always thought dot trustees were paid a flat fee. With all the substitutions, that fee is likely paid again, costing someone money, either the h.o. or the trust. Why should that be?
    We see trustees allegedly apptd in the original dot and then again by the (alleged) substitutions. I wonder where the contract is between the trustees and the bens, the one which must articulate this and that, including what a trustee is to be paid. I doubt they’re volunteers. I also wonder if these dot trustees by that contractual agreement get paid more money if they actually have to do something, like foreclose. I think what they’ve been doing for some years now is subbing in trustees with whom they have a relationship or just plain own – without disclosure – (because they created trustee chop-shops of their own as subsidiaries of theirs or their chop-shop law firms, which all is an outrage to me since imo it makes the trustee no more than a coll agency for the alleged ben by any name as against the legislative intent of a disinterested 3rd party in that role). If a dot trustee gets paid more money for the act of his trustee’s sale, he’s certainly more motivated to have one. In fact, he has zero motivatino to be the disinterested third party he’s supposed to be.

    And what about Section 7-2-8 above if it in fact applies to secn trusts?
    THAT guy (say Deutsche, U.S.Bk as trustee, etc) can grab some moolah when real property is sold?! If it does and he may, good reason for a secn trustee to actually TRY to accept late assignments against the interests of the trust and the governing law. Dang. But whatever, to the extent this section applies to NY secn trusts, so does the one which says a late assgt to the trust is void and therefore he can’t earn a commission on the sale, having no interest in it. Right?

  40. Louise
    Who knows what they did with our signatures
    They were copied onto a loose page undated

  41. david – if you want us to read it, why isn’t it linked?!

  42. Deb, Do not forget the loans/notes/mortgages were sold multiple times, which means that multiple entities think they have a valid (stock) security when, in fact, they are holding hot air. If we actually had justice, then mess would be unwound so that we could really see what happened and who the crooks really are.

  43. please all go and read this whole doc. wow. happy birthday to all who do

    EX-10.35 5 d456519dex1035.htm INTERIM SERVICING AGREEMENT

    Exhibit 10.35



    by and among












    Dated as of April 1, 2013

  44. Tu
    Im going to sit down after work and try to see wgat i get re the Beeson case watch for post.

  45. TU
    Check the docket to the case number get a copy it will be there if served correctly, by a certified process server which can affadavit to the fact that you were served – and filed it.

  46. Deborah Wynn,
    I was home when an unknown person handed me (with his hands) the fraud-suit. I didn’t verify who he was or his authority to deliver papers like a mail person. I took the paper in my ha ds and he said, this is time sensitive, if you plan to answer do it quickly.
    An attorney once told me if sued, even for a divorce, always answer.
    Be said, “even if the woman wants a divorce, the man should answer eve. If all he writes is, I love her.”
    I took the time, woman on the land kind of stuff, and answered my way by my conscience.
    What I wrote in my answer was the Creator in me responding to a claim that was neither fact nor true.
    My mind and my conscience was not represented.
    My answer was not hearsay.
    I wrote so I would not be presumed a statutory person.
    If the court had jurisdiction it would have invoked common law and made the real party face me.
    The unknown person, acting as a judge, committed fraud upon the court; moved without jurisdiction nor authority and did make a decision without viewing the facts, and let the unknown representative Plaintiff decide the case.
    What happened was not court. It was accounting and bookkeeping with invisible books and no witness on the Plaintiff side and ignoring the first pure witness
    After seeing the writ I did not want those same hands that delivered the fraud-suit or any other unknown person hands touching without my consent.
    I could not figure out what contract I entered that gave a stranger the power to send strangers to touch me without my consent. And have not seen such contract to this day.
    I affirm it does not exist and what was ordered to occur was criminal and had no immunity for the one giving the order.

    The writ was not hand delivered to me, it was on my door as a sticker, libel and slander in the public for a claim that was the lie.
    Shadowcat, true

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator

  47. SC
    In2007 the value of the subprime (80% being pmbs, private label) were valued at 1.3 trillion. Bad apples.

  48. TU. …back then…they used the Sheriff dept illegally.
    Not all took kindly being used to commit a. Fraud.
    As a matter of fact….In Illinois they took a stand after realizing it.

    Now days..they use private process servers.
    Imagine that?

    After seeing what was going on in Judicial States … I came here to find out how they got away with it in non judicial states.
    I can say this much….I will never purchase property in non judicial states.

    Heck…I could not even payoff a non existent lien holder.
    ……….. The booboogie man?

    Mortgage my Grass!
    Once you realize… We own nothing….everything thing.works in reverse.
    Then you have the power to make change…….

  49. Deb. .you refer to private label …..
    I refer to Private Placement Mortgages. PPM

    David. ..they buried some of the most important information ever posted here. The Agreement…


  50. And Bill Black has got to be the most Qualified on the planet.

  51. Did they all do it for the bailout

  52. “There are several resources available to attorneys
    who wish to pursue predatory lending and foreclosure rescue scam cases Many states have active consumer law bars that may also offer assistance and advice. The most thorough print resources
    are a series of volumes on consumer law published by the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) (www.consumerlaw.org). One volume is
    dedicated to a detailed analysis of TILA, while other volumes address foreclosure law and consumer banking law. All of NCLC’s volumes include sample pleadings, interrogatories, and other useful documents in appendices. The National Association of Consumer
    Advocates (NACA) (www.naca.net) also is an invaluable resource for attorneys contemplating developing a practice assisting homeowners with predatory lending and its attendant issues. ‘


    AZ 44-1221. Deceptive use of name; classification; attorney general

    A. It is unlawful for a person to deceive another person by misrepresenting the geographical origin or location of the person’s business in the conduct of the person’s business.

    B. A person who intentionally or knowingly violates subsection A of this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

    C. An act or practice in violation of this section is an unlawful practice under section 44-1522 and subject to enforcement through private action and prosecution by the attorney general. The attorney general may investigate and take appropriate action as prescribed by chapter 10, article 7 of this title.

    E. tolle – I thought of your bankster whose name escapes me when I read this.
    Wasn’t it identified as a (NY) corporation when it was in fact a fictitious name of another business?

  53. While predatory lending has been manipulated focusing on sub prime nd Fannie Mae still misses the boat of hundreds of trillions in derivatives and total control fraud William Black wrote about and got bank fraud focused on as expert witness on mortgage fraud case.

  54. Since at least fnma is on my S list, I’d like to address something from DW’s link (though I think fwiw the author is sincere and the article is a good one):

    “In an ill-fated effort to win back market share, Fannie and Freddie made a few tragic mistakes. Starting in 2006 and 2007—just as the housing bubble was reaching its peak—Fannie and Freddie increased their leverage and began investing in certain subprime securities that credit agencies incorrectly deemed low-risk.”

    I wouldn’t call what fnma did a “mistake” since a mistake is generally not something done on purpose. Prior to sec’n, the agencies bought or insured the majority of loans made. As such, they of all people were hip to default and its indicators, hence their own guidelines for loans they’d buy (before they started ignoring those guidelines). In short, imo, there is NO way in heaven or hell they wouldn’t have known the risks of subprime loans, despite any alleged credit ratings by WS hacks. Someone(s) got a Caribbean villa, a yacht, and Cayman account or I’m a monkey’s uncle. And what might this have caused other “investors” to believe? After all, those who sure as hey should know whaddup were investing in these securities. *(*&!*&^!

  55. Big fish originates loans, sells servicing-retained. Borrower defaults (big fish may keep paying loan-buyer), big fish servicer gets to keep
    the late fees he inspired with predatory lending for as long as the loan shows in default on HIS books. Late fees are generally 5% of the monthly payment amt. Cute .(not)

  56. State law, for example:

    NRS 598D.100  Unfair lending practices.

    1.  It is an unfair lending practice for a lender to:

    (a) Require a borrower, as a condition of obtaining OR maintaining a home loan secured by home property, to provide property insurance on improvements to home property in an amount that exceeds the reasonable replacement value of the improvements.

    ** (b) Knowingly or intentionally make a home loan, other than a reverse mortgage, to a borrower, including, without limitation, a low-document home loan, no-document home loan or stated-document home loan, without determining, using any commercially reasonable means or mechanism, that the borrower has the ability to repay the home loan. **

    (c) Finance a prepayment fee or penalty in connection with the refinancing by the original borrower of a home loan owned by the lender or an affiliate of the lender.

    (d) Finance, directly or indirectly in connection with a home loan, any credit insurance.

    2.  As used in this section:

    (a) “Credit insurance” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 690A.015.

    (b) “Low-document home loan” means a home loan:

    (1) Whose terms allow a borrower to establish his or her ability to repay the home loan by providing only limited verification of his or her income and other assets; or

    (2) Which is evidenced only by a deed transferring some or all of the interest of the borrower in the home property to the creditor.

    (c) “No-document home loan” means a home loan whose terms allow a borrower to establish his or her ability to repay the home loan without providing any verification of his or her income and other assets.

    (d) “Prepayment fee or penalty” means any fee or penalty imposed by a lender if a borrower repays the balance of a loan or otherwise makes a payment on a loan before the regularly scheduled time for repayment.

    (e) “Stated-document home loan” means a home loan whose terms allow a borrower to establish his or her ability to repay the home loan by providing only his or her own statement of verification of his or her income and other assets.

  57. Add a (7) to examples of predatory lending IMO: failure to disclose the charge to the borrower of the FNMA “G fee” (.25% per month). Anyone who ever got an FHA loan knows she’s being charged a mtg insurance premium (“mip”) because IT’S DISCLOSED ON THE GOOD FAITH ESTIMATE AND IS SHOWN ON THE HUD ONE SETTLEMENT STATEMENT. The mip, as I recall, isn’t disclosed as a separate line item on the Reg Z, but it IS calculated in the a.pr. if the a.p.r. is calculated correctly. FNMA’s G fee will be in the a.p.r.,also, because it’s added to the rate charged to the borrower, but imo, that’s no excuse for non-disclosure of the charge as a line item on the good faith estimate, as is any fha monthly mip. (The m.i.p is not added to the rate itself, like with the g fee, and it’s fully disclosed)
    lay opinions

  58. “What Are Some Common Predatory Lending Practices?

    Some (jg: these are not inclusive) common predatory lending practices include:

    Bait and Switch: This describes a lender offering one set of terms when the borrower applies for a loan, but later changing the favorable terms for worse terms at the time of the loan’s closing.

    Fraud: Concealment of the loan’s terms, or simply misrepresenting the loan outright may constitute fraud.

    Prepayment penalties: These penalties occur when a lender charges exorbitant fees if the borrower pays off the loan early or refinances the loan.

    Loan flipping: Loan flipping describes a lender providing unnecessary refinancing of the loan with no apparent benefits to the borrower. This may wind up extending the duration of the loan, and only benefit the lender.

    Balloon payments: These occur where an outrageously high payment due at the end of the loan’s lifetime.

    jg: If a high balloon payment is predatory, then I guess some loan
    “modifications” I’ve heard about fit this category.

    Equity Stripping: The lender makes a loan based on the borrower’s (jg: alleged) home equity, regardless of borrower’s ability to repay the loan.

    Insurance Packing: This describes a loan that charges borrowers for services that a borrower does not want, need, or necessarily even agree to.

    How Do I File a Claim against Predatory Lenders?

    The law provides many different grounds by which a claim can be brought against a predatory lender. These can include suits based on violations of:

    1) Breach of Contract
    2)The Truth in Lending Act (TILA):These statutes assure disclosure of credit terms
    3)The Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA): These laws protect against lenders offering loans with worse terms to residents of certain locales
    4)The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA): This act provides more effective disclosure to home buyers of settlement costs
    5)The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA): This act prohibits discriminatory treatment by lenders

    jg: Imo only attorneys well-versed in this area of the law should represent homeowners.

  59. And here’s where they put me

    Wall Street firms such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns packaged these high-risk loans into securities, got the credit-rating agencies to bless them, and then passed them along to investors, who were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of the loans in these “private-label” securities—those not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie—that led to the financial meltdown, according to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, among other independent researchers”

  60. I think everyone should read this:


    e.tolle – you’ll be interested in p.16 (bottom right, not pdf 16)

  61. trespass unwanted
    not sure re Texas but to get a writ of possession dont they have to file suit ” unlawful detainer/ forcible detainer type action, if so you should have been served properly, were you SERVED trespass – a notice, a summons, a complaint, then a chance for you to respond with your defence and date for an actual a hearing – Texas can’t avoid due process any more than any other state.
    possession of title ( choose how they got it) is not the same as rights to Possession – I myself have this situation in state court as well as an appeal,
    Your situation is more than likely different to mine but I think you need to have been served and had your time allowed to actually defend your right to possession AND burden of proof is theirs.
    Without the aforesaid,The writ of posession may be void or voidable. obviously stories are long and winding and can’t be told entirely on a blog but I come here to relate and help, as most others do.
    NOT Legal advice I’m saying look into it if you think they might not have followed the correct path to that writ if possession you would be amazed at the risks they took.

  62. FACT, under penalty of perjury, a LOUD NEON GREEN sticker was posted on my door that had the information in the WRIT of POSSESSION on it, and it was to all sheriffs in the STATE OF TEXAS and pretty much said any can answer the writ and be at my property on a specific day to put their hands on the people and possession and remove them from the property.

    When I saw that someone I do not know, gave someone else I do not know, permission to put their hands on me, against my free will, and knowing how they like to make contracts saying ‘you knew we were going to put our hands on you when we answer the order”, I left because I did not want to die, but I sure was not going to let anyone put their hands on me or my co-creations, or my property. They did not have my consent.

    I found out later, a realtor decided the property was abandoned at that given time, and marked it as such because I and my property was not there when he showed up at the property to ‘watch’ someone put their hands on me to make me leave.

    I have been disturbed by the entire situation ever since.

    I went from peaceful enjoyment of private property, to robbed by a business I did not owe and would not pay.

    They claimed a right to the property, they had no public filing revealing or exposing that right, only the papers put in the public, temporarily, [notice of acceleration] and permanently [self appointed trustee].

    Where the agreement I had with the prior business, by the paperwork we can show offer, acceptance, consideration, I did not know any of the people who threatened me or robbed me.

    The court answer stated, the court did not have jurisdiction in the matter, and the Plaintiff was suing the wrong party.

    The burden of proof was on the Plaintiff to prove they had standing and was suing someone who had a debt to their client.

    They didn’t care to prove that, only to make me leave because they had the power of the sheriff and the order of a judge I did not know.

    So, unknown persons, created a claim of a debt, and sent a man with a gun to make me leave, declared my property abandoned.

    I filed a complaint with the AG, the AG issued a cease and desist, the news stated a halt to all foreclosures until banks went through their papers cause they were violating state law, and warned people not to purchase foreclosed homes.

    A family took the risk and purchased anyway, and I am not accepting that I have to receive a cash settlement because they live there.

    They cannot purchase what cannot be sold, and one cannot sell what they do not own, so that family needs to move out. If it were them, they would not want their property stolen and they accept colored beads in return because someone else is living there.

    that’s how I feel about receiving fiat currency for them taking my home, and trying to claim it as theirs.

    I was told if I did not accept the judgement I had to appeal.
    I did not accept being pulled into a business I had no business with, so I did not create any new contracts with businesses of the business.

    I used the AG to tell them their wrong and they ignored the AG.
    But I have seen proof that the AG did send them correspondence and they ‘carefully omitted’ enough to not have to answer further, but that didn’t stop the AG from writing the cease and desist, and that didn’t keep me off their settlement. I got the $300 offer and refused that settlement, and got the $300 offer again and refused it.

    I sent information to Elizabeth Warren when she wanted to see what was going on from our perspective.

    I sent information to the Department of Justice when they wanted to get evidence of bid rigging for their recent call out for info.

    These agencies cannot do anything if we keep our contracts between us and the courts. If we don’t reach out to them as witnesses with complaint of a crime and give them evidence to investigate, they are useless to us, and the banks and courts prefer it that way.

    Had I known then what I know now, a lot of names involved, and I do mean a lot, would have had their own individual criminal complaint on file, but back then I used the bank name. I didn’t know about the lack of immunity of all the people who were co-conspirators to a crime.

    I thought it was a bad contract, and I disputed it as such, but once I saw the criminal side, I found ways to keep it alive and investigated by CFPB who had a complaint from me from the beginning.

    OPINION: MERS ended up with it under Quicken Loans, the 800 number was 1800 something MERS.
    I thought MERS had no interest, but there is a connection with owning the loan even if they don’t own the titles to the property.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

  63. Ok TU
    Were you served ? Did you defend? Was there a hearing? and then see if the appropriate time for your answer was tolled, check the date in the orders and for signatures thereto,
    Not an attorney but it may be worth a look see. If they did it to me I may not be the only one.

  64. I used to have that video, so I know the quote and the song.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

  65. Tu I’ll get back at looking.

  66. Texas, and a Writ of Possession
    I have a certified copy of the entire case, everything I gave, and what they put in there.

    It helped when I provided documents to CFPB. Especially since they are certified from the court used to steal the property.

    It also helped that I got the notice of acceleration as part of the case.
    That document was destroyed by the county two years after the theft, and it was the only document that started the theft, a public filing, not a recorded document that is forever and forever and forever like DOTs, and Trustee Deeds, and gave the illusion of authority to initiate the theft.

    I never could figure out how a temporary document gave so much power.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

  67. Quoting Kermit the frog

  68. Hear ha TU
    ” it ain’t easy being green” lol

  69. Side note TU
    I know you had to leave your home as I did-
    Did they file a forcible detainer against you
    If not I sugguest you go check to see if there’s a judgement against you.
    Just curious.

  70. I can’t see anything Deborah, if there is more, and it’s not an inconvenience, I’d like to review it.

    Did you look at any of it?

    Trespass Unwanted

  71. Deborah wynn

    There was a picture, a hand drawn picture of a stork with the front portion of a frog in it’s mouth, the arms of the frog was the farthest it got to swallowing it and the arms, lower body and legs of the frog were all that you could see outside the storks mouth, yet the hands of the frog were closed tightly around the storks neck and although that frog could not see; it was not letting go.

    The writing was:

    It’s not over, until it’s over.

    Hang in there Deborah wynn

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

  72. Tu
    I did not because JG was on it I thought, what is it you specifically want?

  73. Actually thats my story, to be precise, not my case, except the appraisal negligence/ fraud, and the wrongful actions in taking my home. We all know the why I’m asking about the who and the how they can go to court and do what they did despite my legal defenses.

  74. Deborah wynn,

    Did you get anything from that case you were checking in to?

    JG posted Docket 1 and 2, is there more?

    Not written specifically to anyone, just more ‘nothing’ that I communicate, periodically.

    From what I read, from the transcript you’d think the guy the loser.
    From the news article you find out there is more.

    Then you see the letter that the sheriff was informed that if he got involved in a foreclosure sale he would be violating the law.

    Then you see by law only the sheriff can sign a sheriff’s deed transferring the property.

    You see the sheriff did not file a timely oath.

    You see the sheriff does not sign the Sheriff’s deed, some other unauthorized by law sheriff position signed it.

    So regardless of the bank claiming to be owed, and regardless of the judge demanding the man leave ‘his home’, Yes the judge said he was making him leave ‘his home’, which if it belonged to the bank I’d have expected the judge to say he was leaving the banks home, but even if he did, no one has authority to transfer it to another, so they need that man’s mother to approve the transfer.

    It doesn’t give a trustee the right, no judge the right, no bank the right, and according to the sheriff’s own legal counsel he doesn’t have the right, and by law only the sheriff could have signed the deed and he didn’t.

    Their world is based on rules. Court distracts with court rules, but if you take the time to look at how they do things, they hold the offices without ever officially taking office, the sheriff’s untimely oath proves that.

    This man, made sure the court had papers on file, and everyone caught up in the programming are looking for case law and the ‘normal stuff’ to assume this guy can’t win.

    This guy pulled back the curtains.

    If there is anything else that is in the case that I can have before we never see it again, I would appreciate it.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life,

  75. And my personal savings as well as the ” equity” in my former home.

  76. JG they were all at it : my case in nut shell I’ll try anyway
    I re – thought my comment earlier re using hime equity as a credit card – similarly I was not different I now realize because ( eating my pie here) I pulled a line of credit to fund the new build out if my then primary res – THAT appraisal was in effect bubble wrapped and subject to a deliberately inflated market and so being totally mislead into thinking that equity was in fact real when it wasn’t real I was induced into thinking the new deal/ home would be a great investment for the future thus down sizing at retirement age. I was also made to pull out the REST of the remaining equity because the ” lender” stated to underwrite the jumbo Loan I had to have a big reserve in my savings account – meant I could ” last” approx 18 months right where the bubble burst and there bets would pay off – I stripped all the equity from my former home and btw I could easily afford that former home and would be STILL IN IT with my credit my career and life unspoiled if not for that deal. I was completely asset stripped – there definition of predatory. I’m sorry but I’m not letting it go hell will freeze over first.

  77. Ok, Deb Wynn, but some did and it’s because at least some of them were lulled and entrapped mol by rat-b lenders who didn’t give their own you-know-what’s what they originated, what pieces of home-losing dog-doobage they sold. And of course I know that there are those who WOULD have been able to make their payments had WS’s bs not put the skids on the economy. But as to predatory lending, I don’t see many cases alleging it, and it puzzles me. There are (or there were, I swear) laws on state books against predatory lending. I believe they state (or stated) that lenders must ascertain a borrower’s ability to pay. A problem, but imo not insurmountable, may be that one might have qualified at the orig teaser rate, but that’s garbage since it would be known to the lender that with the index (6 mo. libor, say) plus some heinous margin would make that orig payment skyrocket.
    LIke this: orig rate = 2.5% for all of 2 to 6 mos. Rate adjusts in month 3 or 7, say. They take the libor rate on the adj date and add the margin to determine the new rate, like this:

    March 2005 6 mo. libor rate 3.3876 (rigged? got me)
    ridiculous margin of 5%, say + 5.000
    = 8.3876 rounded to 1/8 up or
    down, I forget

    8 pt some stinking thing (around 8.3275) is the new rate. It’s unconscionable first of all for the increase, and secondly if someone 1) qualified only at the orig 2.5% or 2) if NO qualification were determined at all.
    Now, I’m saying these loans are predatory and unconscionable. The question or challenge is to make that case such that one is relieved of the contract. in my lay opinion.

    “Unconscionable” Contract:
    A contract which is so outrageous or immoral that it shocks the sensibilities of the courts. ….
    A contract can be found unenforceable by virtue of it being unconscionable.

    The doctrine of unconscionability comes from U.C.C. 2-302. However, courts apply the doctrine to all contracts cases and not just in cases dealing with the sale of goods. U.C.C. section 2-302 basically says that if a court finds that a contract or any part of a contract was unconscionable at the time it was made, the court either:

    1) refuses to enforce the contract,
    2) can enforce the contract without the unconscionable clause, or
    3) can limit the unconscionable clause so that the result is not unconscionable.”

    We don’t need these predatory loans found merely “unreasonable” or some such; we need them found what imo they are – unconscionable.

  78. A sentence from William blacks book ” best way to rob a bank is to own one ” (I recommend)
    ” audacity is the trait that sets control frauds apart”

  79. and this is what I do not get IT IS OUT IN THE OPEN
    But the white collars are walking on bloody water

  80. SC
    You just do your thing and wait for them to hang themselves with their very own rope. I guess that’s what’s called poetic justice. Its three fold karma. I would very much like the earthly kind though.

  81. DB. .. PPM agreement
    TU. …IPOs
    Deb. … Those who live by the sword , die by the sword.

  82. TU that’s one for the vault! When people start demanding the complete truth and put it out in the open the courts and politicians won’t be able to deny us or n as manipulate us.

    The “Peerless case” is Raffles v. Wichelhaus
    , 2 H. & C. 906, 159 Eng. Rep. 375 (Ex. 1864). It is a
    famous case, and still talked about. In Raffles
    , the plaintiff entered into a contract to sell 125 bales of Indian cotton to the defendant. The contract specified that the
    cotton would be arriving in Liverpool on the
    ship Peerless from Bombay (“to arrive ex
    Peerless from Bombay”). Unbeknownst to the
    parties, there were two ships named Peerless
    arriving from Bombay, one departing in
    October and another in December. The defen-
    dant claimed that he understood the contract
    to mean cotton on the October ship while the
    plaintiff claimed that contract was for the
    arrival of the December ship. In December,
    when the later ship arrived in England, the
    plaintiff tried to deliver the cotton but the
    defendant refused to accept it. The plaintiff
    sued for breach of contract. The court ruled
    that although courts will strive to find a
    reasonable interpretation in order to preserve
    the agreement whenever possible, the court
    was unable to determine which ship named
    Peerless was intended in the contract. As a
    result, there was no “consensus ad idem,” and
    the two parties did not agree to the same
    thing, so there was no binding contract. The
    defendant won.”

    A distinction, where we’re concerned, with this case is that it’s about a contract, not a promissory note. I only posted it as an example of a lack of meeting of the minds (one of the essential elements of a contract) which would vitiate a contract.

  84. JG,
    I haven’t read it in it’s entirety. Beeson is bringing into the court of record things that are of public record, and that’s a good thing. Some things are ‘known’ to be fact, but can be ignored if not part of the case being heard.
    My best example is when a court wants the one bringing the case to repeat, or cite well known case law. The judge knows these things to be fact, but wants it part of the particular case for when or if it were to be appealed, the facts presented are on the record.

    ….. ….. ——————— …. …..
    This is a fiction piece, an opinion, from one who knows nothing so I am not practicing law nor giving advice from all this nothingness that follows. Discretion is advised. You are your own Creator of your own experiences. You decide how you will do any act, and you get the consequences of any decision you make. No one can tell you that if you open that door right now, what experience you will have if you step outside, no more that we can say if you drink a cup of coffee at 7:45am, today, what experience you will have the rest of the day and week.

    So my opinion in nothing is as follows:

    Beeson has revealed in court where their allegiances lie, and the powers they have or have not, and who they answer to and what their supreme administrator has given them power to do or not do.

    When I saw that the Plaintiff wanted to remove the case back to state, and I admit, I take no time learning their laws because I want to be outside of them and want to govern my own life, not have it governed by the writings of men long dead who have no power of attorney over my life; but beside that argument that I live by regardless of the consequences, the case moving back to the state can easily disappear from the radar and we would be none the wiser because it did not look like the cases people have mimic’d hoping to get a win.

    We look afterwards, and then we hear about some case that may have settled with an NDA and by that time, it’s too late to see what was in it.

    We may never know it all, but this man is exercising a right he has to protect his property.

    Courts are not the place for the remedy, that’s why some that receive it get it outside the court when they settle and settle with confidential agreements and NDA. (you don’t hear me. a settlement is outside the court, a settlement with an NDA or nondisclosure agreement is outside the court).

    CFPB is outside the court. These people have been paid and they are doing what someone on the internet once called a ‘passover’ and coming back to be paid again. A sort of double dipping, but if One accepts, there is no fraud, and if one does not accept, we have been told our only place to disagree is in their world of ‘court’, where the most fiat by purchase order or some other check the bank receives to an account that never has a balance at the end of the day, wins.

    CFPB is our remedy. They owe us a remedy for everything they do.
    I have found their three letter agencies are our remedy, but our complaint has to be public, not private, and as private as I am, I am pulled into the public when someone makes a claim that is not fact nor true, and pays someone else to collect, like mafia people do.

    CFPB has already written an amicus about MERs, and they have one about lawyers are debt collectors, and now trustees are debt collectors, and they have a whole bunch of attorneys who do not work for any bank or financial institution, sort of like that FDIC guy who saw the fraud and wasn’t paid by any bank.

    Our documents, the ones of record from the courts, with our complaints are exposing them to have to answer to where they got the idea they were owed money.

    We can’t get discovery but CFPB can, and does make them open those books and show ‘your’ account and where they claim payment was not made and what they claim is owed.

    We can’t get discovery, but CFPB makes them answer to who gave them the authority to collect the debt, regardless of if they are an attorney at a law firm, a self appointed trustee on someone’s deed claiming to represent a bank who claims to be owed, or some credit bureau who refuses to remove an account that has been under dispute because the account came from a debt collector who collects for a court. They have to answer.

    The remedy is outside the courts.
    I know someone who got a ticket for not registering their property with the state, and they got another, and another, and after a while they had 4 such tickets for having something that was private and not public, and they took the time to file a complaint with an agency, naming the man who keeps stopping him knowing full well the property is private, demanding to see his identification, so they can write up yet another contract of debt to try to force the man into insolvency, or force him to enter a contract he does not want to enter. The man does not want to make his property public, he owns it, so who has a right to tell him what to do with his property? Everyone if he does nothing and no one if he does something.

    He filed that complaint under penalty of perjury since it could not be notarized online. He named the man who took his identity and used it to create a contract he didn’t want, a contract for debt.

    Let’s say, that man that did that, no matter what costume he wears or what weapon he carries has to answer where he got the authority to stop the man he stops to demand the man enter a contract he does not want to enter.

    I can guarantee you the man’s who’s doing the stopping, his identification doesn’t give him that right, nod the identification of the man he stops to tell him he’s got to pay for not registering his property.

    Now in a different world, the man stopped would have taken this to court, lost, appealed, and probably lost,, because courts like to assume there was an agreement to have the encounter in the first place, and that both disagree on how the encounter should have ended.

    But a criminal complaint says, there was never an agreement to have the encounter, and one has taken advantage of a situation they caused, to try to benefit from it. A fruit of the poison tree kind of benefit. Criminal complaints are public, and their names sit there.

    Who do you think comes to their rescue? Their boss? What boss will say, ‘yeah, I sent him out there to stop Joe and tell him he better register his car or else.” You know the boss will remain mute.

    We have the power, we just let them, [those people we don’t know, who we trust and believe what they say, because they sound so intelligent when they dump all that information on us] we let them tell use what to think, or say, or do, and let them tell us how we should live our lives. We let anyone represent us and our interests, and we are afraid to stand on our own and say, ‘no’, and protect our own rights and interest our own way.

    Court speaks a different language. I cannot learn that language in 21 days and the rules too and go there and protect my rights, and I don’t have the money to protect it and I am not going to beg anyone to let me protect my rights if they will allow me to do it for free. Forget them!
    They do not matter.
    A crime has been committed, over a million times, and I guarantee there are a million court cases, but not a million criminal complaints.

    Criminal complaints are free, just make the fact known under penalty of perjury, but to feed the beast that eats you, they are not scared of you, or what you bring, and if they are afraid they seal your ‘knowledge’ away and pay you for that privilege to seal your knowledge away, [why do you think it’s accompanied with a confidential agreement, or non disclosure]

    For a fee, many will sell their knowledge to keep their home for today.

    They always come back and get it later, but those people are under NDA and can never reveal that they settled and the people came back and took it.

    They can only talk about the new ‘crime’ where they are quote “losing” unquote their house again.

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

  85. I can relate!

  86. Chess takes patience and patience – God knows it – is a virtue. I think I passed that particular test.

  87. Hammertime
    I’ve said this before – walk in truth walk without fear, NEVER GIVE UP
    The universe will surround the enemy FOR YOU just keep working at it, it’s chess not poka

  88. KC attorney say…somebody owes her a lot of money.
    KC attorney asks…What do you want?
    KC reply… The House.

    How much do KC owe?

  89. After the wet funding fiasco….they changed their policies and required fax backs at closing…before releasing funds.
    The closing package is then dropped for next day delivery to title company.

  90. creation of the promissory note.
    If the funding is “dry,” the original
    promissory note and mortgage assignment
    documents are signed and transferred to a
    warehouse lender prior to the closing on
    the home buyer’s purchase transaction, and
    therefore, a warehouse lender’s possession
    of the original promissory note becomes a
    factor in the warehouse lender’s agreement
    to release funds to the mortgage lender so
    that it can fund the home buyer’s loan. Typically,
    warehouse lenders prefer “dry” closings
    because they are most protected when
    they have actual possession of the promissory
    note prior to releasing funds. As noted
    below, dry funding may also be critical to
    coverage under the Financial Institution
    Bond, Standard Form No. 24.

  91. One Half of Estate….
    The Plaintiffs Note…..

  92. What can I say Neil….?
    DB beat you to the punch line and moves to the Head of the Class.

    Many Blessings to All


  94. Courts are a circus when you’re in there and see how judges, lawyers on both sides work hand in hand. If you’ve ever asserted ur rights in court it gets comical. But we’re screwed from every side. All this info db and the rest of us have posted don’t you all think lawyers and judges should have studied thus stuff?

    Did they forget? That’s what kills me when NG says we have to be patient w lawyers, judges.

    Then we have cases when judges, courts tell homeowners and their lawyers they screw up like admitting ur in default!

    So you CAN get justice but u better make sure the circus has left.

    In the end it’s about rights and the basic universal law of our Constitution and God that Supreme Court applied.

    So we have to keep pushing and working to expose these criminal banks and supporting each other as we have until we get a fair day in court but we have to force justice somehow outside the courts imo by getting laws,settlements enforced and demanding our share abd restitution by holding our elected officials accountable at every level no matter what party.

  95. It’s the unwritten laws of too big to fail and my piece of the pie lol!

    SC definitely all about boom/bust to cover their bets and keep the scam going.

    As Sen Edwards said it’s time to break them up and all the debates, wars will magically disappear.

    Very simple invest in us and build real businesses and real trade for the rest of us.


    Section . Unpermitted Transfers: For the purpose of protecting Mortgagee’s security, keeping the Mortgaged Premises free from subordinate financing liens and/or permitting Mortgagee to raise the rate of interest due on the Note and to collect assumption fees, Mortgagor agrees that any sale, conveyance, further encumbrance or other transfer of title to the Mortgaged Premises, or any interest therein (whether voluntary or by operation of law), without Mortgagor’s prior written consent, shall be deemed to be an unpermitted transfer (“Unpermitted Transfer”) and, therefore, an Event of Default, which Unpermitted Transfers shall include but shall not be limited to:

    a). any sale, conveyance, assignment or other transfer of, or the grant of a security interest in, all or any part of the legal and equitable title to the Mortgaged Premises, the Beneficial Interest, [or the beneficial interest in any land trust holding title to the Mortgaged Premises];

    b.) any sale, conveyance, assignment or other transfer of, or the grant of a security interest in, any share of stock of any corporation which (1) holds title to the Mortgaged Premises (other than the stock of a corporate trustee or a corporation whose stock is publicly traded) or the Beneficial Interest, or (2) constitutes a general partner of [Mortgagor] [the Beneficiary]; or the failure at any time of the Guarantors, collectively, to be the true and lawful owners of the unencumbered title to 100%, in the aggregate, of all classes of capital stock of ____________________, a _______________ corporation (the “General Partner”).

    c.) Any sale, conveyance, assignment or other transfer of, or the grant of a security interest in, a general partner’s interest in any general partnership or limited partnership that holds title to the Mortgaged Premises or the Beneficial Interest, or the General Partner otherwise ceases to be the sole general partner of [Mortgagor] [the Beneficiary];

    d.) The failure at any time of the General Partner and the Guarantors, collectively, to be the true and lawful owners of the unencumbered rights, title and interest in and to at lease 51%, in the aggregate, of the partnership interest, general and limited, in Mortgagor [the Beneficiary];

    e.) Any lease of all or any portion of the Mortgaged Premises other than __________________.

    Notwithstanding the foregoing:

    i.) Mortgagee may condition its consent to an Unpermitted Transfer upon the payment of a fee to Mortgagee and/or an increase in the rate of interest due on the Note; and

    ii.) in the event of a consent by Mortgagee to an Unpermitted Transfer or a waiver of a default by reason thereof, the same shall not constitute a consent to or waiver of any right, remedy or power accruing to Mortgagee by reason of any subsequent Unpermitted Transfer.

    In the event of an Unpermitted Transfer, Mortgagee may declare the Maturity Date (as such term is defined in the Note) accelerated, and may declare the Indebtedness immediately due and payable in full, together with Additional Interest (as such term is defined in the Note) accelerated, and may declare the Maturity Date accelerated. Any consent by Mortgagee permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited under this Section ___ shall not constitute a consent to or waiver of any right, remedy or power of Mortgagee to withhold its consent on a subsequent occasion to a transaction not otherwise permitted by the provisions of this Section ___, and notwithstanding the giving of such consent, Mortgagor shall not engage in any “prohibited transaction” with any “party in interest,” as such terms are defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended from time to time.

    No such consent shall be considered by Mortgage unless the appropriate service fees and legal fees are paid in advance and no such consent shall be given unless Mortgagor agrees, in addition to any other conditions to such consent imposed by Mortgagee, that immediately upon closing of the subject sale or transfer, Mortgagor will provide Mortgagee with a copy of the deed or other instrument of conveyance and, if applicable, with an affidavit and agreement of indemnification regarding Internal Revenue Code Sections 1445 and 7701 in form and substance satisfactory to Mortgage executed by the transferee under oath.

    Section ___ Permitted Transfers. Mortgagee, for itself and its successors and assigns, agrees that, notwithstanding Unpermitted Transfers, the following transfers or assignments, upon written notice to Mortgagee, will be permitted without Mortgagee’s consent (collectively “Permitted Transfers”):

    a.) transfers by the Guarantors of a part of their respective interests in the General Partner to each other, or to themselves, as trustees, by inter vivos transfer in trust for the benefit of themselves or members of their immediate families (a spouse, lineal descendant or any spouse of a lineal descendant), PROVIDED THAT, following such transfers, Guarantors (or any family members or conservators thereof described in clause d below) shall remain the sole shareholders of the General Partner and shall be the owners, for themselves or in trust for the benefit of themselves or members of their respective immediate families, of not less than one hundred percent (100%) of all classes of capital stock of the General Partner;

    b.) transfers by the Guarantors of a part of their respective interests in the General Partner to third party trustees, by inter vivos transfer in trust for the benefit of themselves or members of their immediate families, PROVIDED THAT, following such transfers, Guarantors (or any family members or conservators thereof described in clause d below) shall remain the sole shareholders of the General Partner and shall be the owners, for themselves or in trust for the benefit of themselves or members of their respective immediate families (as described in clause a above), of not less than one hundred percent (100%) of all classes of capital stock of the General Partner;

    c.) transfers by the limited partners of Mortgagor [Beneficiary of their respective interests in Mortgagor [Beneficiary], PROVIDED THAT (i) General Partner shall remain the sole general partner of Mortgagor [Beneficiary] and (ii) the General Partner and the Guarantors (or any family members or conservators of the Guarantors described in clause d below), together, shall be the owners, for themselves or (in the case of the Guarantors) in trust for the benefit of themselves or members of their respective immediate families (as described in clause a above), of not less than fifty-one percent (51%) of the partnership interest of [Mortgagor] [Beneficiary];

    d.) testamentary disposition or intestate distribution to members of the immediate families of the Guarantors or to conservators pursuant to court order, upon the disability of the Guarantors;

    e.) any sale, conveyance or other transfer of the Mortgaged Premises where the Indebtedness evidenced by the Note is paid off in full pursuant to the provisions of the Note;

    PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that Permitted Transfers are not intended to circumvent the restrictions against Unpermitted Transfers set forth hereinabove; PROVIDED, FURTHER, that Permitted Transfers shall not effect in any way the obligations of ________________and _______________ under the _______________ Guaranty.

    Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary (i) [Mortgagor] [Beneficiary] shall notify Mortgagee ten (10) days before any such Permitted Transfer (other than a Permitted Transfer under clause (d) above) and (ii) no such Permitted Transfer (other than a Permitted Transfer under clause (d) above) shall be effective as to Mortgagee and General Partner shall remain as General Partner vis a vis Mortgagee for all purposes; and, further provided that as an additional and independent source of recovery for Mortgagee, and as a condition to the effectiveness of such transfer as to any persons other than Mortgagee, the General Partner shall execute a guaranty of its recourse liability to Mortgagee under the Loan Documents, which guaranty shall be in form and substance satisfactory to Mortgagee. The failure of the General Partner to deliver such guaranty shall be an Event of Default hereunder.


    Paragraph ___. Transfer or Encumbrance of the Property.

    (a) Reliance on Borrower. Borrower acknowledges that Lender has examined and relied on the creditworthiness and experience of Borrower in owning and operating properties such as the Property in agreeing to make the Loan, and that Lender will continue to rely on Borrower’s ownership of the Property as a means of maintaining the value of the Property as security for repayment of the Debt. Borrower acknowledges that Lender has a valid interest in maintaining the value of the Property so as to ensure that, should Borrower default in the repayment of the Debt, Lender can recover the Debt by a sale of the Property. Borrower shall not, without the prior written consent of Lender, sell, convey, alienate, mortgage, encumber, pledge or otherwise Transfer (as defined below) the Property or any part thereof, or permit the Property or any part thereof to be sold, conveyed, alienated, mortgaged, encumbered, pledged or otherwise Transferred.

    (b) Definitions. A “Transfer” within the meaning of this Paragraph __, shall mean any sale, conveyance, alienation, mortgage, encumbrance, pledge or transfer of the Property or any interest therein, or any change in the control of Borrower or any person who controls Borrower, and shall be deemed to include: (i) an installment sales agreement wherein Borrower agrees to sell the Property or any part thereof for a price to be paid in installments; (ii) an agreement by Borrower leasing all or a substantial part of the Property for other than actual occupancy by a space tenant thereunder or a sale, assignment or other transfer of, or the grant of a security interest in, Borrower’s right, title and interest in and to any Leases or any Rents; (iii) if Borrower, any Guarantor, or any managing partner, general partner, member or manager of Borrower or Guarantor is a corporation, partnership, limited partnership, joint venture or limited liability company (an “Entity”), the voluntary or involuntary sale, conveyance or transfer of such Entity’s stock, general or limited partnership interests, membership interests or other indicia of ownership (the “Interests”) (or the interests of any Entity directly or indirectly controlling such Entity by operation of law or otherwise) or the creation or issuance of new interests, in one or a series of transactions by which an aggregate of more than 10% of such Entity’s interests shall be vested in a party or parties who are not now stockholders, partners, general partners, limited partners, joint venturers or members, or there shall occur a change in control of such Entity; and (iv) if Borrower, any Guarantor or any general partner, managing partner, manager or joint venturer of Borrower or any Guarantor is a limited or general partnership, joint venture or limited liability company, the change, removal, resignation or addition of a general partner, managing partner, limited partner, manager, joint venturer or member, or the transfer of the interest of any general partner, managing partner, limited partner, or manager, or the transfer of the Interest of any joint venturer or member. As used herein, the term “control” means the possession by an individual or Entities or group of individuals or Entities, directly or indirectly, of the right, by virtue of any partnership agreement, articles of incorporation, by-laws, articles of organization, operating agreement or any other agreement, with or without taking any formative action, to cause Borrower to take some action or prevent, restrict or impede Borrower from taking some action which, in either case, Borrower could take or could remain from taking were it not for the rights of such individuals.

    (c) Risk or Impairment. Lender shall not be required to demonstrate any actual impairment of its security or any increased risk of default hereunder in order to declare the Debt immediately due and payable upon any Transfer which occurs without Lender’s consent. This provision shall apply to every Transfer regardless of whether voluntary or not, or whether or not Lender has consented to any previous Transfer.

    (d) No Waiver. Lender’s consent to one proposed Transfer shall not be deemed to be a waiver of Lender’s right to require such consent to any future occurrence of same. Any Transfer made in contravention of this paragraph shall be null and void and of no force and effect.

    (e) Reimbursement of Related Expenses. Borrower agrees to bear and shall pay or reimburse Lender on demand for all reasonable expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees and disbursements, title search costs and title insurance endorsement premiums) incurred by Lender in connection with the review, approval and documentation of any such proposed Transfer.

    (f) Permitted Transfers. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Paragraph __, the following Transfers shall be “Permitted Transfers”, which may occur without Lender’s consent, provided that (i) Borrower gives Lender written notice of such Transfer together with copies of all related instruments at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the Transfer, and (ii) each such proposed Transfer complies with and/or satisfies all of the following requirements:

    (i) Investor Interests. “Interest Holders” in Borrower (i.e., limited partners, members in a limited liability company, or shareholders) as of the date of this [Mortgage] [Deed of Trust] shall have the right to Transfer their Interests, provided, however, that, after taking into account any prior Transfers of any nature after the date of this [Mortgage] [Deed of Trust].

    (a) Aggregate Limitation. There shall not occur a cumulative Transfer of more than 49% of Borrower’s Interests (including directly, indirectly or beneficially and including through one or more entities or trusts) as of the date hereof; and

    (b) Individual Limitation. The proposed Transfer shall not result in that Transferee owning in the aggregate, together with all “Immediate Family Members” (i.e., the spouse and children of any Interest Holder) or any affiliates thereof or a trust established for the benefit of one or more Immediate Family Members, more than 20% of the Interests in Borrower (directly, indirectly, or beneficially and including through one or more entities or trusts), unless (1) approved in writing by Lender (an “Approved Interest Holder”), or (2) the Transfer occurs to or for the benefit of an Immediate Family Member of an Interest by inheritance, devise or bequest or by operation of law upon the death of a natural person who was an approved Interest Holder.

    (ii) No Change in Control/No Default. No such Transfer shall result in a change of control of Borrower or the day-to-day operations of the Property, and no Event of Default or event which with the giving of notice or the passage of time would constitute an Event of Default shall have occurred and remain uncured, and in any event ______________ shall be the person who shall exclusively hold and exercise control of Borrower and in that capacity shall be responsible for and in effective control of Borrower, the Property and Borrower’s day-to-day operations.

    (iii) Bankruptcy Remoteness. The legal and financial structure of Borrower after that Transfer and its shareholders, partners, or members and the single-purpose nature and bankruptcy remoteness of Borrower and its shareholders, partners or members satisfies Lender’s then current applicable underwriting criteria and requirements to the same extent Borrower would have satisfied those requirements without the proposed Transfer. At Lender’s request, Borrower shall deliver to Lender written confirmations from the Rating Agencies that such Transfer or series of Transfers will not result in a qualification, downgrade or withdrawal of any rating initially assigned or to be assigned in a Secondary Market Transaction.

    (iv) Reimbursement of Costs. Lender shall have been reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred by Lender in connection with the review and, if approved the approval and documentation of the proposed Transfer.

    For purposes of the foregoing provision and limitations, (1) a change of control of Borrower shall be deemed to have occurred if there is any change in the identity of the individual or Entities or group of individuals or Entities who have the right, by virtue of any partnership agreement, articles of incorporation, by-laws, articles of organization, operating agreement or any other agreement, with or without taking any formative action, to cause Borrower to take some action or prevent, restrict, or impede Borrower from taking some action which, in either case, Borrower could take or could refrain from taking were it not for the rights of such individuals; and (2) an “Immediate Family Member” shall mean a spouse or a child of any Interest Holder.

    (g) The following shall not be considered Transfers subject to the foregoing provisions and requirements:

    (i) The sale or other disposition of obsolete or worn out personal property that is contemporaneously replaced by comparable personal property of equal or greater value that is free and clear of liens, encumbrances and security interests other than those created by this [Mortgage] [Deed of Trust] or the other Loan Documents.

    (ii) The grant of an easement, if prior to the granting of the easement Borrower causes to be submitted to Lender all information required by Lender to evaluate the easement, and if Lender, in its sole discretion, determines that the easement will not materially affect the operation of the Property or Lender’s interest in the Property and Borrower pays to Lender, on demand, all costs and expenses incurred by Lender in connection with considering and reviewing Borrower’s request.

  97. Oops that came out a bit wrong
    ” thou and thy attorneys shalt walk free” for screwing the vulnerable ( and prob many times their pledged debt worth)
    Yea where does it say

  98. So doesnt exactly instill confidence in US ability to lead by honest example
    But when it comes to the globe- its all about the money, however obtained
    And white collar thieves get fined instead if jailed, now where does it say that in law, thou shalt walk free for screwing the vulnerable and your attorneys

  99. the law is settled that a land-contract transfer constitutes a violation of a due-on-sale clause. The final regulations issued in connection with the Act define a “sale or transfer” as the conveyance of real property “or any right, title or interest therein, whether legal or equitable . . .,” which includes outright sales, deeds, installment sales, land contracts, contract for deed, leasehold interest with a term greater than three years, lease-option contract or any other method of conveyance of real property interests.” 12 CFR Part 591 (1983), sec. 591.2(b). The final regulations also provide that the creation of a vendor’s or vendee’s interest in a contract for deed does not fall within the exceptions contained in sec. 1701(j)(3)(d) of the Act, i.e., the limitation contained in sec. 1701(j)(3)(d) on the exercise of a due-on-sale clause in a residential real estate contract in the event of the creation of a secondary lien or encumbrance does not include a transfer of the property pursuant to a contract for deed. Sec. 591.5(b)(1)(i).

  100. Deborah yes this is where Europe is ahead of us and there has been reference to financial terrorism here. In Europe they are referring to financial tyranny without war or violence.

  101. China hit with another Chemical Explosion..coincide with Market Crash and devaluation of their currency.

    Undeclared War?

  102. Those who print money for free and charge usury on our money is in recivership of the Global Debt Facility.
    The reset in world reserve currency is underway.

    The US minus the FED.

  103. H, agreed. I hope this all comes to a head this September or through the fall. If the currency crashes or goes down in value radically, we might see some movement to remove these abusive loans and debt. I want to return to silver certificates and get rid of the Federal Reserve and its notorious alleged money and debt scam.

  104. Hammertime
    Tell me how can you get justice otherwise – other than the Court, its only a circus if you consider what the bank lawyers present, the law is there and the case law to demonstrate it.

  105. Hammertime
    What you describe is not far short of act of terrorism.
    Read the whole thing definition

  106. JG MANY people did not use their home equity like a credit card
    They were preparing for retirement, something I will And god knows how many others in the end now can NEVER have that because of the BUBBle Market which are by design always always burst.

  107. Wall.St set it all up to fail in ’07/’08. They used divide and conquer, liberal /conservative bs to blame the “deadbeat” homeowners. The banks stopped being banks and admitted they destroyed the economy. That’s why we’re in our rights to cancel these fake loans and break up the fake banks and stay out of the court circus. The law made nothing perfect.

  108. TU, Beeson apparently wants the case removed to DC so that he may
    “exercise his constitutional rights”. Second doc at scribd:
    “Beeson Memo in Supp of Removal Dkt 1”

    In my view, no one who got a predatory loan got the “benefit of the bargain”, especially if that predatory loan meant making payments was or would be impossible. I don’t care how many boats or hot rods or six packs of Miller anyone was able to enjoy at the cost of their home. People who had temporary spending power which they shouldn’t have had and didn’t really have created artificial demand which caused yet others to create businesses (for instance), often with money they DID have, only to find themselves in dire straits, sans their life savings and losing their own homes. I won’t even get started on the other losses in any kind of other investments, including stocks as a result of the banksters’ bs. It may be that homeowners generally don’t raise this issue of a predatory loan, maybe for fear of their own complicity. But in the world of comparative fault, the lender’s the loser or should be since it’s the more sophisticated party and the one charged with seeing to it that loans are only made to those who have the ability to repay them by using prudent underwriting guidelines.
    I can’t get to the bottom of “seasoning”, but if they want this bs to stop, it should be required and buybacks should be rote for loans which go belly up within a time certain. Lenders wouldn’t be so hasty in making bs predatory loans if they were the ones to eat it when they go belly up. They’d have to decide if the incredible a.p.r.’s (due to charges to the borrower and teaser adjustment rates) justified the risks. Looking at this Beeson case and his apparent utter haplessness reminds me of all this junk.
    It wasn’t broken (though historically default is nothing new, but no stinking way like this). They broke it. Spewing this nonsense in mainstream media, etc. that securitization is the backbone of lending is just that – nonsense.
    And mers should get the h out of dodge. I’ll never be able to prove it, no doubt, but speaking of doubt, there’s none in my mind that seven year contract with Genpact is some sort of attempt at sanitation. I honestly don’t know how they all live with themselves nor how they’re allowed to continue.
    I sure hope someone is working on that antitrust lawsuit.

  109. My mentioning of the Bible and Christians and Jews has sent Hammertime into a liberal nervous breakdown and caused Shadowcat to foam at the mouth like a rabid liberal abortionist executive selling body parts over lunch … This is a classic example of how liberals react to the mere mention of the Bible. It was all fun and games as long as they were bashing Trump .. But once I mentioned my explanation of Trumps support and my beliefs in the Bible .. I became “The Enemy” of Hammer & sc & Louise. This is the tolerant liberal left hypocrites who cry for same sex marriage, abortion murders of babies, no rule of law… as they display their own intolerance for the Bible, Christians and Jews and anyone who doesn’t support their views. These are the people who ruined our country when they forced their agenda, Hammer is just a Barney Frank and Shadowcat is a Hillary Clinton , crying for their agenda. Yeah we all come here for foreclosure information, but the true colors, arrogance, ugliness and incompetence of these people quickly take over and steer the discussions into the ditch every time. The three stooges mentioned bring nothing to the table and only add confusion. SC has sat here for years ..around the clock .. Day & Night … No Life .. But in hundreds of thousands of posts, has never been able to write a clear , well thought out, intelligent message about anything relevant . Louise posts the other day asking the same old questions about the rescission 3 years , like she has absolutely no clue , but yet she wants to post her misguided misinterpretations and adds nothing but more confusion for any new readers coming here .. Hammer talks a big game but has shown us nothing , can’t even show a simple motion that he has submited to a court ..just talk, talk, talk …none of these people ever put it all together and lay it out ..they bounce along flip flopping around going from one arrogant opinion to the next , but never get anywhere.

    I have won more than any of them. I have defeated Wells Fargo and forced their best substituted lawyers to give up and ask for dismissal.

    And now I’ve got them time-barred with a 6 year SOL and a lack of standing that will finish them off for good.

    In the meantime I come here to learn and discuss , but the confusion caused by a few arrogant people ruins the board for everyone else. This is why you see very few new people ever post here, because it’s obvious to anyone coming in that there are confused, arrogant, mean, trolls like Shadowcat that sit here 24/7 offering nothing of value but getting her jollies by tryin to be a board bully to Charles Reed, Rod Ciferri, myself and others … All the idiots had nothing to say when Ciferri was here, and Shadowcat his in her litter box until he left ..and now the trolls run this board again as shown when I posted my Trump analysis after they showed their typical misguided arrogant hateful behavior ..but when I went against the group .. Well , just look at them.

  110. TU. … BINGO!

  111. A court of chancery operates in personam not in rem.

  112. I was in a county clerk’s office at a time a man wanted to get a DBA.
    The clerk asked him if the DBA was going to be in his name, because if it was, he didn’t need a DBA, but if it was going to be in a different name, he did.

    One day, I just happened to notice the name of a bank building was the actual name of a male, not using a DBA.

    The things they know we don’t, to create a bank using their own name, sort of like JP Morgan Chase who would trademark variations of the name.

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

  113. But that does not stop them…they try anyway.
    Right Neil?

  114. There are two types of jurisdiction


  115. Aha…abandoned property.
    You get my point.

  116. The reasoning of the Pennoyer 896 rule , that seizure of property and publification …………….
    For forfeiture ofvabandoned property.

  117. /Constitution/us/amendments-14/43-actions-in-rem-estates-trust

  118. Law.justia.com

    Actions in REM.
    Estates, Trusts,Corporations

  119. Agreed JG. I operate a business under dba.

    But the trusts are different.
    They conceal the identity of the parties.

    I could be a dba and aka or fka simultaneous. ..right?

    You should look into corporate estates.

  120. The plaintiff wanted a remand, I hope to find out what if any the Plaintiff doesn’t want adjudicated in a district court. If it goes back to the state court and the Plaintiff decides to settle and seal, we’ll never know.

    I know we want to see the fight, fight, in courts to get the ‘decisions’, but the remedy is not in the decisions, it’s in the cases the Plaintiffs do not want to have a decision on; the Plaintiff wants it to disappear, and they have disappeared and we never see them.

    I hope we can get a peek into it.
    Deborah wynn said she’d try to get info. I hope to see what she comes up with from it also.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People

  121. sc: I don’t know what a “corporate estate” is, so have no answer.
    When businesses (corporations most specifically, but also individuals calling themselves, say, “Joe’s ChopShop”) operate under an assumed name, like what was it – So and So dba America’s Such and Such, they are generally compelled to file that fictitious name affidavit or what not somewhere in the jurisdictions where they’ll do business under that fictitious name.

  122. thanks johngault,

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal

  123. mn: “Quote from j gault: re Levitin mention servicer should FC and not trustee:

    “In fact, I’m a tad incredulous at this claim since it seems to me that really should fall on the trustee.”

    jg: a) feel free to disagree anytime, but as you do, please correct me with facts. b) please don’t misquote me – drives me nuts. I never said anything about whom should foreclose, nor for that matter did Levitin.
    I believe I cited him saying servicers are to act on behalf of the investors / trusts in regard to misrepresentations to sec’n trusts re: the loans they were buying, which IMO should (and actually may) fall on the secn trustees.

  124. Well, that’s taken me long enough. I f i n a l l y found some info on
    default law:

    “Default laws are laws (or rules) that apply when the parties haven’t made other choices. Like the default font settings in a word processor, the law also has default settings that apply in the absence of an affirmative choice. If you open a google doc and begin typing without selecting a font, you will use Arial 11pt. Arial 11pt is the default setting. If you don’t want to use Arial 11pt, you’re free to make a change but that requires action on your part. Similarly, the law has default settings – what I’ll call “Arial 11” laws. These default laws appear throughout statutory law and are based upon common law principles….

    Another example of an Arial 11 law is what happens if there are terms missing from a contract. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is one set of default rules that applies to contracts though there are many[2]. Courts will apply these default terms whether or not the parties actually know they exist or understand them. If, however, the terms WERE CLEARLY SPECIFICED IN THE CONTRACT (my emphasis), the court would abide (me: must, to the extent the terms are lawful and not unconscionable, say, l & s) by those instead of the default rules….”

    2] For one example of the complexity of interpreting contracts, see, The Law of Interpreting Contracts, Texas (2007). http://www.orsinger.com/PDFFiles/Advanced_Civil_Appellate_2007_Interpreting_Contracts.pdf

  125. Friday 21 August 2015

    Quote from j gault: re Levitin mention servicer should FC and not trustee:

    “In fact, I’m a tad incredulous at this claim since it seems to me that really should fall on the trustee.”

    I scan these comments on occasion. I do not read your comments john gault, primarily because they meander and come to no practical conclusion, often asking for answers. Comments also tell me you have little to no actual court experience.

    I know little in life, less and less. One invaluable lesson I have learned
    is that all answers come from within…not automatically, and not without
    expending effort in so many ways, but all answers lie within. Not
    everyone need agree, or will…

    Earlier, I posted about taking the time to read a PSA. You have not.
    Servicers are the parties to FC, not the trustee, straight from the PSA.
    No further need to be incredulous, tad or otherwise.

    There can be issues with what Levitin says, but making incorrect
    factual statements is not one of them.

    This leads to yet another hint that the wrong party is foreclosing if it be
    the trustee. Like I said, knowing the contents of a PSA can lead to
    crafting some strong attacks on the not so informed/intelligent attys and judges.

    Due diligence is a necessary requirement. Everyone’s vision of the
    same thing can vary, sometimes significantly.

    Appreciate the “if…were” connection. Those who speak English often
    fail to know how it is used. Blame the federal school system, in part.

  126. also Levitin:

    “Finally, as an initial matter, let me also emphasize that the problems in the securitization world do not affect whether homeowners owe valid debts or have defaulted on those debts.
    Those are separate issues about which there is no general controversy*, even if debts are disputed in individual cases.”

    “finally as an initial matter”, well, okay, Mr. Levitin if you say so.
    *Says who? I don’t suppose NG has much use for this paragraph!
    I haven’t finished this material, but I can only hope he offered a solution or five, because well-meaning or not, without solutions, his portrayal of the problems may have encouraged or at least caused his audience to say there’s no fixing it (and thus has possibly been instrumental in causing this class of peoples to fend for themselves. Those here know what that looks like). I mean, if the

    “House Financial Services Committee
    Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity”

    did nothing of any real substance to call a spade a spade and staunch the flow of sewerage, why do we think courts by and large will?
    That mn had at least one thing right: “prove it”. The “prove it” has proved to be “difficult”, starting with the fact we haven’t learned ways to make claimants prove the transaction, as we allow courts to take recorded documents as evidence of a transaction, to rely on article III provisions as to the note, and imo, and apparently only mine, to disregard the actual language in the note re: “transfer”.* And then there’s the (sale and) assgt of the note by “mers”. If the blank end is the bomb as to the note, why is the (sale and) assgt of the note included in assgts of every collateral instrument?

    *”transfer” isn’t defined in the note per se (altho the note does further call for right to payment), so it may be appropriate to see the default law UCC’s def:


    (a) An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument.

    (b) Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument.

    if nothing else and if for no other reason*, is it not then that the trust isn’t a hdc because as the (alleged) transferee, the secn trust trustee is engaging in illegality by attempting to accept and enforce a “late note”, the transfer of such note his governing law says is VOID? I was going to say another reason a trustee can’t be a hdc is because the note’s in default, but if services make payments and trustee’s in fact have no knowledge of this, are they immune from a charge of knowledge (not to mention there’s no default unless there is because a third party, such as the svcr, has stopped making payments?). And how would we prove servicer advances? Deny the default and demand the “real” books? These are the solutions we need imo.

    (c) Unless otherwise agreed, if an instrument is transferred for value and the transferee does not become a holder because of lack of indorsement by the transferor, the transferee has a specifically enforceable right to the unqualified indorsement of the transferor, but negotiation of the instrument does not occur until the indorsement is made…..”**

    “unless otherwise agreed” (in c): imo, there was nothing otherwise agreed since the psa’s call for endorsements.

    **so if they throw on some endorsement stamps in 2015, that’s
    when the negotiation occurs, right? making the date ‘sort of important’, at least if courts will deign to uphold all the law,*** including remic trust law to the extent it finds such a negotiation after a closing date void. Void is void and no one may “ratify” a void act.

    *** every dot calls for compliance with ALL laws. It’s in there tho I forget where. Contract provisions which are unlawful are not enforceable (like if I agree to buy your meth lab for 500k), but these guys put the req for compliance with all laws in these instruments.
    lay opinions

  127. Like depositing deed to capital assert funding co. dba as pretender lender.?

  128. JG. .so the corporate estate could do business under a ficticous name?

  129. Adam Levitin said this:

    “Mortgage servicers are responsible for prosecuting, on behalf of MBS investors, violations of representations and warranties in securitization deals.”

    Say it ain’t so. As he points out in his testimony, they’d be trying to sue their own affiliates (me: including parent companies who were the originators, aggregators, settlors, depositors, what nots.)This poses (and was known by one group, the servicers, to pose), such a conflict of interest, I can’t imagine what all the ramifications are or should be. In fact, I’m a tad incredulous at this claim since it seems to me that really should fall on the trustee.

  130. Trump runs his mouth before he thinks.
    Do you really think we need a hot head in office in this very fragile situation our country is in?

    Build a wall between US and Mexico and get Mexico to pay for it..
    Bah Hahaha!!!

  131. Real nice, Dwight. Is that the Christian way?

  132. Sadly…Another loses self control and looks to blame others.

    Yet…I watch as he sets Ridley buy and does not redeem those taxes.

    How is your denial my fault?
    The Judges Fault?

  133. mn …is exactly right …case in point: Shadowcat was left standing outide the courtroom holding her own testicles and lost her case. So now she spends 24/7 on this board crying and complaining about the rest of us who answered the complaint correctly by denying a valid loan contract was ever consummated. We can initiate a TILA rescission on an invalid loan …because we’re that good. Shadowcat can go lay down in her litter box now and watch Donald Trump speak to a stadium of 30,000 legal American citizens and think about where she went wrong. Maybe Shadowcat needs to get her fat ads off the computer and get a job , spending her entire day cluttering this message board with her delusional babble proves she is a jealous loser who can’t stand watching the rest of us win as Pro se warriors destroy Goliath.

  134. And actually, for that matter, when a trustee of an alleged secn trust is the recipient of a “mers” or other “assgt”, there’s no evidence 1) this alleged trust exists nor 2) evidence that the ‘trustee’ is any such thing. I mean, how does anyone know “Structured Asset Trust 4024-5” is an entity at all? I know it’s unlawful to hold one’s self out as a corporation when not; how bout a ‘trust’ created and regulated pursuant to specific laws, like NY or DE trust law? There are a bunch of diff business structures – corporations, s-corporations, llc’s, llp’s, and so on, many of which (if not all) may be found at the sec of state’s office (because they’re regulated by common law). Where does one go look to see if “Structured Asset Trust 4024-5” is a legal entity? Trusts, like family trusts, apparently aren’t registered anywhere. However, “if the trust earns income, it would be required to apply for and obtain its own IRD number, and to file annual tax returns.” Now, this is just for family-type trusts or common law ones (not those regulated by say NY trust law).
    There’s nowhere to go look for trusts which aren’t required to be registered anywhere. So how DO we know there really is one, such that it may DO anything, including be the assignee of a coll instrument and seek enforcement of a contract? At even common law, I don’t know if a group of people may call themselves a trust when no trust was formed. Doubt it. I think one (one subject to common law, that is) may contract under a fictitious name, but one may not have a party to a contract who doesn’t exist by any name. In other words, I could enter a contract with Jack Brown with him using the name Sam Stone, but I couldn’t make up a Sam Stone (who doesn’t exist by any other name). As to the latter, “Sam Stone” wouldn’t be a fictitious name – he’d be a fictitious person and that’s not allowable.

  135. Unsecured Debts of the individual granters are settled when the proceeds are dispersed upon liquidation of the estate.

    They seek the Foreclosure on the Estate..Why Again?

  136. The only thing the Estate can be foreclosed on t is failure to maintain trustee duties in the trust expressed in the instrument that creates the Estate for the trustees and their heirs.

  137. Ok… Lets presume the court recognized it 7 years ago and same goes for the lien they filed. But banker is dead and settled with investors before they disintegrated.
    Oh yes…Recons marks are all over it.
    Did that bar the investors claims?
    Did the settlement bar further claims?
    Just who was released from liability in those settlements….was the the indentured and the estate parties to those settlements?

    Simple Enough!
    How much does KC owe…?

    Don’t sign nuttin. .cause nobody knows nuttin….unless you say its so.

    Many Blessings To All..
    Time to put my Grandma Gloves on.

  138. “…..and then also dealing with void v voidable issues committed by the trustee, ”

    well, there’s never really any evidence the trustee did anything, actually. There’s no evidence the trustee accepted the late assgt, only a doc recorded which purports to give him what the assignor has. Functionality-wise these are more akin to quit claim deeds imo except for the attempt to recite consideration (and as a current event) and for the fact that “mers” may not in any capacity sell or assign something in which it has no ben interest and has repeatedly made clear it has no beneficial interest in: MERS has sworn over and over it holds only “legal title” to the collateral instrument, so that’s all it may confer, or really abandon, assuming arguendo even that statement holds water.
    That doc (“assgt”) and its recordation don’t stand as evidence of a transaction, although clearly that’s how courts are taking it.
    Recorded docs generally don’t even warrant a presumption of validity / veracity for five years (see state law – don’t ask me where it is, but I vow I’ve read it – try “presumption of recorded documents” or “presumption in recordation”). Apparently, this is a result of thinking that if a doc is of public record and no one has squawked for five years, it should be accorded the (rebuttable) presumption. But yes, I agree, the harder row to hoe is trying to be a third party beneficiary of a contract such that one has standing to argue. Better to find law which one may stand on – it’ll make you taller, like some people’s wallets (couldn’t resist). A new problem, however, is that in a move I’d say is calculated to try to (key words) distance themselves from bad acts, sec’n trustees are now bestowing poa’s on their alleged servicers, which means in practice that the servicer, in hiring the law firm / others, is acting for the trust (to the extent this activity is authorized in these “limited powers of attorney” or even to the extent the trustee may enter such an agreement). I don’t like these poa’s, of course. I think they’re bull and are de facto but unallowable amendments incognito to the PSA.

  139. Ok… I know…but I know nothing.
    Its a petpieve of mine when they snooker the elderly and their families because of the MERS FRAUD NIGHTMARE.

    Illinois already knows the outcome.

  140. Okay, Trespass UW, I put some of the Beeson info at scribd as
    “Beeson Dkt 1-2 docs from State Court”.
    His 83 year old mother is losing her home, most likely imo to a predatory lending scheme. There isn’t much else, but I’ll get it if there’s a reason. It’s just one more sad saga involving the class of Americans targeted as grist for the insatiable mills, made even sadder by her son’s unlearned efforts and apparent lack of funds for talent if he could find any.

    mn: can’t say that I understand all that you’re stating or that I would agree if and when I do, but my word it’s nice to see someone who knows that “were” goes with “if”! Even courts get this one wrong. Arrrggg.

  141. If in the court trap or bk people, lawyers definitely g ave dropped ball on POC. But if not in court trap or sale done rescission puts burden of proof on them.

  142. They can’t! As one half of the Estate I am entitled to…..?

  143. Filing the Proof of Claim…. Goes to show they are debt collectors .
    Here comes the Trustee..
    Bad Trustee……

    Proof of claim is required in both federal and state courts.
    That is how you deal with a thief who returns your property damaged.

    Tell me again….how his insurer can hold me liable?

  144. No Hammertime…the Nail is in makingbthem prove Standing from the Start.

  145. Mn that’s where rescission again is the hammer, tHEY HAVE TO PROVE IT!

  146. ThAt would make Iran war nonsense make sense

  147. Investment Tip….
    When Gold Prices stArt rising….that is the end of the dollar as world currency reserve. There are those who want war to stop this currency reset.

    Get Out Now….

  148. The elements of standing clearly define what must occur to have standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
    Lets not forget … They have not been injured..


  149. The Investors got the Mortgages….but not the notes.
    MERS had no authority to transfer the mortgage loans(note and mortgage together).

    Notes must be Endorsed. .. YES!
    Not Standing to invoke Jurisdiction of the court.

  150. Could help to “look under the hood” nut starting point is invalid contract, invalid transaction of ur FAKE LOAN.

  151. Friday 21 August 2015

    Quote from d belanger: [not presented as a criticism]

    “And what Garfield has said is this: there is never a default on your Note….”

    Prove it.

    “…The payment may not have been made by the borrower, but it was made by someone, either a guarantor or an endorser….”

    Prove it.

    ” So the Noteholder never experienced a default….”

    Prove it.

    “…In other words, if your Note is/was securitized, the person who was ultimately supposed to receive your payments always received them, just not from you.”

    Again, prove it.

    While statements like these may appeal to reader sentiment, without
    proof, none of them will fly in court. None.

    “If your Note is/was securitized,…”

    Which is it? The theme on this site is that notes never made it into the
    purported trust. If true, the above statement cannot be.

    Has anyone actually taken the time to read and analyze a PSA? Most
    courts support the premise a foreclosure defendant does not have
    standing to have the terms of the PSA contract enforced, 3rd party and
    all that.

    If one is familiar with what is required of the securitized-claimed
    plaintiff, there are a lot of hoops that actually require jumping through,
    IF there were a valid and existing trust.

    Given a choice between the failed arguments of having plaintiff comply
    with the PSA, and then also dealing with void v voidable issues committed by the trustee, OR asserting lack of jurisdiction because the
    loan was never actually transferred into the trust, the latter will bear
    much more fruit.

    It is likely true in most states that jurisdiction must be proven on the
    record by the court. It cannot be obtained by fiat or presumed. More,
    a court’s jurisdiction does not come from any pleading or statute. It
    comes from the constitution, although stet legislators may impose
    specific conditions precedent the court MUST meet. If not, the case
    is void.

    [If jurisdiction is never challenged, the court need prove nothing. Also,
    jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in any court.]

    How did the trust acquire the note? By assignment? Did it follow the
    true sale, complete chain of endorsements, complete chain of
    assignments REQUIRED? Knowledge of the PSA contract will give
    one incredible leverage in crafting a challenge not to have the terms
    of the PSA enforced by trustee, but to prove the note never made it into
    the trust. A subtle shift in challenge, but with huge implications more
    favorable to defendant.

    Was the note purportedly assigned? Notes cannot be assigned. They
    must be endorsed, UCC 3-302[a], if I recall correctly. Nowhere in the
    UCC does it say a note can be assigned. Of course, knowledge of the
    PSA sections pertinent to how the trust acquires each and every note
    makes this all clear.

    Most assignments, if not all, do not follow PSA contract protocol, and
    the assignments fall like a house of cards. How was the previous
    assignment assigned to the trust? Almost always, the note is
    mentioned as a part of the transfer. Impossible. One cannot enforce
    what what never received.

    Go ahead and chase rabbit holes about how default never occurred. I
    have yet to see that argued successfully in court, nor have I seen it presented by Garfield that would stand up in court…and court is the last
    resort. There are easier and more effective ways to attack a securitized plaintiff, really the law firm “representing” [?] the trust. Turns out the law firms are not that smart, nor are the judges that side with them.

    When you have them by their jurisdictional testicles, their hearts and
    void decisions will follow…

    As for any advice presented, always do your own due diligence…

  152. You have to look under the hood of the Trust.

  153. If they lacked knowledge and made notice by publification to parties with an unrecorded interest. Want of Knowledge

    KC always notified seperatly. et al

  154. David B good point on no Sig of lender. But wording of lender, borrower nay be way around that. Wasn’t clear on endorser being responsible for full amount. Thimking in terms of rescission and rewind could make sense.

  155. TU… Yes! And my attorney did just that long ago.
    DB. .. Yes..the Note! Now compare that to what the mortgage says.

  156. Common sense is really what’s missing in all this all the way around that Sen Dornan was screaming about in ’99 w $100 tril in derivatives then.

    The note/deed also refers to complying with local laws and all laws that courts are saying is unconstitutional. But when we say fraud, stealing our homes is unconstitutional thet cry it’s all about the contract and our signature.

    NG also made the point you wouldn’t just transfer hundreds of thousands over to anyone makes no business sense or common sense. Only reason is it’s criminal.

    So now the settlements required the proof of transaction and valid transfer tgat they aren’t doing and will be getting a pass from National Monitor Joseph Smith.

  157. david belanger,

    “Fannie Mae is only a trustee of the pools of notes which are sold to benefit certificateholders.”

    All the more reason, the CFPB amicus that trustees are debt collectors will make for a powerful remedy for those of us that took the time to file the complaint with their agency, allowing them to investigate the wrong we allege, and finding our allegations are fact.

    The game is over.
    Let the games begin.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

    Posted on June 19, 2013 by eggsistense
    Well, maybe…hopefully…because in most, if not all, promissory notes—particularly in the context of mortgages—this clause appears toward the end (often under section 8):

    “If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully and personally obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note, including the promise to pay the full amount owed. Any person who is a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note is also obligated to do these things. Any person who takes over these obligations, including the obligations of a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note, is also obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note. The Note Holder may enforce its rights under this Note against each person individually or against all of us together. This means that any one of us may be required to pay all of the amounts owed under this Note.”

    Now, this is written very unambiguously and in straightforward, plain English. Let’s break down a couple of the main points.

    Sentence 1:

    “If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully and personally obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note, including the promise to pay the full amount owed.”

    This is obviously to keep both husbands and wives bound to repay the Note, even if they get divorced or one of them dies or becomes incapacitated. Also note that this is why the lender doesn’t sign the Note, which is a circumstance that many people have pointed to as being an inherent problem with the Note to begin with.

    Sentence 2 (THE BIG ONE):

    “Any person who is a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note is also obligated to do these things.”

    The phrase “these things” is a clear reference back to the first sentence which requires those signing the note to “keep all of the promises made in this Note” which includes “the promise to pay the full amount owed.” This sentence, while also clear and unambiguous, opens a giant can of worms, because it means, as Neil Garfield has said for some time now, that there are multiple co-obligors on these promissory notes. That is, there are (or can be) multiple persons who are on the hook to repay the loan just as much as the borrower is on the hook.

    Robo-endorsers and GSEs in a world of hurt

    So to put this in the context of a case I know a lot about, i.e. my own, this second sentence of section 8 means that Michele Sjolander and Laurie Meder—both of whom are endorsers on my Note–are obligated to “keep all of the promises made” in my Note which includes the promise to “pay the full amount owed.” And that’s gotta be a bitch for Sjolander and Meder, because their names are allegedly on a hell of a lot of Notes, so they are “fully and personally obligated” to pay literally billions of dollars, according to section 8 of millions of promissory notes.

    Furthermore, Fannie Mae was/is a guarantor on my Note. That is, Fannie Mae explicitly states the following in the prospectus supplement for the pool my note was supposedly placed in (I’m paraphrasing): that Fannie Mae will pay the principal and interest payments due under my Note to the holders of certificates issued by that pool whether or not I pay Fannie Mae. I’ll get the exact quote later, but that paraphrase is practically a quote. And Fannie Mae has put this same guarantor language in other prospectus supplements as well, so Fannie Mae itself is on the hook for literally billions or trillions of dollars. QE Unlimited starts to make a lot more sense in this context, does it not? The ongoing conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie also can be seen in a much clearer light in the context of this section.

    Why Neil Garfield is right

    As mentioned earlier, Neil Garfield of Living Lies has talked about this phenomenon for some time. I don’t remember him ever actually specifically mentioning section 8 of a promissory note, but he may have. One of Garfield’s collaborators—Dan Edstrom—talked about this issue recently in an article entitled “Failure to Allege Lack of Default,” which nicely sums up what Garfield has been saying for a while now.

    And what Garfield has said is this: there is never a default on your Note. The payment may not have been made by the borrower, but it was made by someone, either a guarantor or an endorser. So the Noteholder never experienced a default. In other words, if your Note is/was securitized, the person who was ultimately supposed to receive your payments always received them, just not from you.

    Now some might say, “Well, since Fannie Mae made the payments to the Noteholder in the borrower’s stead, the borrower really does owe Fannie Mae because Fannie Mae has made good on the borrower’s promise.” Section 8, I think, argues otherwise. After all, no one forced Fannie Mae to become a guarantor of my Note. Fannie Mae knew very well that by becoming a guarantor of my Note, they were “fully and personally obligated” to keep all the Note’s promises, including full payment of the amount due. Fannie Mae wrote the Note, so they can’t say they didn’t know what it said or what it meant! So that’s on Fannie Mae, not on me or any other borrower.

    What right do they have to take my house, then?

    So what gives Fannie Mae the right to come after me or you? Nothing! Fannie Mae is only a trustee of the pools of notes which are sold to benefit certificateholders. And the certificateholders never experienced a default, since Fannie Mae was the guarantor of all the Notes it securitized. And it’s Fannie/Freddie’s idiotic decision to be guarantors of trillions of dollars worth of notes that led to the ongoing taxpayer bailout of those two companies.

    IMPORTANT NOTE/DISCLAIMER: The above article is not and should not be construed as legal advice and was not written by an attorney. It is merely a collection of common-sense, rational observations written by a sane, rational layperson with common sense. It is recommended that you consult with an attorney for any and all legal advice and/or action.

  159. definition – person
    statutory person

    definition – statutory person – [just look in the definition of any statute, they all conform]

    corporation, association, partnership, conservatorship, trustee in a bankruptcy

    Trespass Unwanted

  160. Thanks Deborah wynn.

    Trespass Unwanted

  161. have any of you really read word for word on the promissory note, under section 8/ at lease that is the section on my note. it reads like this.


    PERSONS!!!!! #1

    If more than one PERSONS signs this NOTE, each person is fully and personally Obligated to keep all of the promises made in this note, including the promise to pay the full amount owed. Any PERSON who is a guarantor, SURETY OR ENDORSER of this note, IS also OBLIGATED TO DO THESE THINGS. ANY PERSON who take over these OBLIGATIONS, INCLUDING THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE GUARANTOR, SURETY, OR ENDORSER OF THIS NOTE, is also obligated to keep all of the promises made in this note. The Note Holder may ENFORCE its rights under this NOTE against each PERSON individually or against ALL OF US TOGETHER. This means that ANY ONE OF US MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY ALL OF THE AMOUNTS OWED UNDER THIS NOTE.




    and let me know how you feel about the wording.

  162. Yep JG. … The trust is expressed in the instrument that creates the estate of the Trustee(s).

  163. Tu
    I’ll try to get that case up

  164. Sc- FYI
    They haven’t gotten away with it, no way. Karma. I’m detached from the outcome now, I’ve done all I can. Waiting on the fat lady.

  165. Shadowcat rebukes, saying,

    “They sure as hell did not set on the computer all day….”

    That little gem was expressed in her 73rd post of the day, which defines the term “Asshat Paradox”.

  166. Friday 21 August 2015


    Case info appears only available on Pacer, for which
    I do not have access. Too recent to obtain from the
    law library in Chicago…

  167. from a decision:

    “The holder of the note and the owner of the note are not synonymous under NRS 104.3301(2), which contemplates that a person entitled to enforce the instrument may be one
    who is not the owner of the instrument. Id.”

    Our notes say they may be enforced by one who has taken by transfer and who has the rights to payments. This doesn’t describe the holder the court above is referring to as that guy has no right to payments; only the owner does. And under what theory is a guy who is merely a “holder” entitled to an assgt of the collateral instrument? If a coll instrument is assigned to a holder (v owner), seems to me the note and coll instrument are bifurcated (f they weren’t already by the presence of ‘mers’).

  168. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/EPT/7/2/7-2.4

    N.Y. EPT. LAW § 7-2.4 : NY Code – Section 7-2.4: Act of trustee in contravention of trust –

    “If the trust is expressed in the instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every sale, conveyance or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, except as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is void. ”

    How is this open to interpretation by courts, courts whose mandate it is to follow and uphold the language of laws, esp that which is PLAINLY stated? This doesn’t address the conduct of an alleged assignor, but doesn’t this say the trustee, the assignee, may not accept the assignment, that his act of doing so (which is never evidenced) would be void, and by trying to or doing so makes him subject to whatever is the ramification of trying to break this law? And what about aiding and abetting this illegal act by the (alleged) assignOR?

  169. N.Y. EPT. LAW § 7-1.8 : NY Code – Section 7-1.8: Duration of trust for benefit of creditors


    Maybe someone here has some thoughts on just what this means

  170. “OCC Imposes Restrictions on Six OCC-Regulated Mortgage Servicers

    On June 17, 2015, the OCC announced certain business restrictions related to mortgage servicing activities of EverBank; HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Santander Bank, National Association; U.S. Bank National Association; and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A

    (hey, NG, LOOK! Here’s WF)

    The OCC determined that these banks have NOT met all of the requirements of existing consent orders. The restrictions include limitations on:

    acquisition of residential mortgage servicing or residential mortgage servicing rights (does not apply to servicing associated with new originations or refinancings by the banks or contracts for new originations by the banks);

    new contracts for the bank to perform residential mortgage servicing for other parties;

    outsourcing or sub-servicing of new residential mortgage servicing activities to other parties;

    off-shoring new residential mortgage servicing activities;

    jg: Forgive me, Father: to this one I say a BIG F U – now they’re stinking off-shoring servicing? MERSCorp’s off-shore contract (bahamas and India) with Genpact wasn’t bad enough? Or how bout Nationstar bragging it’s cutting costs by off-shoring this and that? I’d like it if they have to off-shore this stuff because honest Americans won’t do their dirty work, but the real reason is 99.99% more likely cost savings.

    and new appointments of senior officers responsible for residential mortgage servicing or residential mortgage servicing risk management and compliance


  171. “Before discussing specifics of the above examples, it is important to provide a little background. The heyday of mortgage loan securitization was from 2001 to 2008. Evidence that securitization (and the private money printing that goes with it) got out of control is shown in the fact that the Federal Reserve stopped tracking M3 money supply in 2006, after the chart started to go parabolic. What this means is that the private money (a/k/a debt) creation of Federal Reserve banks became untethered in 2006, the height of the housing boom. Unsustainable mortgage loan securitization caused the financial collapse in 2007 and 2008. The resulting October 2008 bailouts funneled $16 trillion (and probably more) to MBS and MBS-insurance/derivative holders.

    Although the October 2008 bailouts satisfied many MBS holders, perhaps multiple times, the bailout banks, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac added insult to injury by subsequently attempting to seize the collateral—the homes—securing the loans that had been satisfied or paid off. Just imagine that you borrow $100 in a Monopoly game, you fail to pay the $100, the “banker” prints the $100 you owe and gives it to himself, then demands the security you offered for the loan—your house on Park Place. That is what the October 2008 bailouts enabled.”

    Interesting read:


    He says these bailouts occurred inn October 15th of 2008, one month too late for Lehman who app got thrown under the bus, not that I give one tiny hoot since they had it coming (as did the others had they been appropriately left to sink for their sins).

  172. TU. …
    et al

    Defiantly out of court settlement in the near future.
    But if the defendants want to prove a point….ut oh.

  173. Deb. . Lubs ya back! Hang in there. They would have never cotton away with what they did to you in Judicial States. What they got away with in non Judicial states is beyond my comprehension.
    Keep Up the Good Fight.

    Dwight…. You are starting to sound like Ivent. That is alarming.
    She knew their was no liens… yet she did not want to talk about the taxes either. She did not want to talk about attornies nor did she hire one.
    Don’t take this wrong but I know people teachers..police officers amongst them get second jobs to protect their interest.
    They sure as hell did not set on the computer all day looking for a free ride.

  174. thanks mn,
    rumor buzz is acting like this is one of those that may get sealed or end up with an NDA. Trying to figure out what’s in it that’s got it like that.

    Do you get to see any silver ‘b’ullets in there from the defendant?

    Trespass Unwanted.

  175. Thursday 20 August 2015


    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. It is recommended that Plaintiff’s motion to remand be granted. Objections to R&R due by 9/8/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 8/19/2015.

    A work still in progress…

  176. Can anyone disclose info on this suit?

    Bank of America v. Beeson et al
    Plaintiff: Bank of America
    Defendant: Florine Beeson and Henry Beeson
    Case Number: 2:2015cv02926
    Filed: July 24, 2015
    Court: South Carolina District Court
    Office: Charleston Office
    County: Charleston
    Presiding Judge: Richard M Gergel
    Referring Judge: Bristow Marchant
    Nature of Suit: Real Property: Foreclosure
    Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure
    Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

    Thanks if you can.

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

  177. Hey Louise, I was just giving a personal opinion explaining why most Americans are showing support for Donald Trump , because they are sick and tired of corrupt career politicians from both sides. And I also gave my personal views of how we are seeing biblical prophecy play out before our very eyes.

    Now the fact that Hammertime responded to my personal held views and beliefs by attacking me, is typical of most far left liberals. Most far left liberals hate Christians and Jews. Not rhetoric, just a fact. Look at the way Hammertime reacted to any mention of the bible, it made him get angry and attack ..this is typical behavior of liberals, they hate any mention of Christian held beliefs .. I would venture to guess that you’re a far left liberal too just by your reaction.

  178. Hey, Dwight, are we getting into overheated political/religious rhetoric? Speaking of divide and conquer, here we go again. Why is it that anyone who is on the left is automatically anti-Christian? Let’s work together.

  179. Re the concept of ” void” rescission – bring it- let them try to void it
    They missed the 20 day deadline 1. Inform true creditor 2. To properly defend what ever their interest is, Why is it so hard to accept that SCOTUS UNANIMOUS decision
    It goes like this :
    ” because this is ALL (caps mine) a borrower must do in order to exercuse her right under the act”
    Being drop the notice in the mail.

  180. I didn’t even talk about immigration but even Bill O’reilly thinks his deportation plan is a joke!

  181. If I follow Christ’s message against fear and hate I would not be one of THEM whatever THEM is. ThAt us against them bs is what they’ve manipulated us with using hate and fear. It’s BOTH left AND right. We need to stay focused and I won’t be shut up like ban kkk s and Trump would like.

  182. Hammer must be one of the typical far-left anti-Christian democrats?

  183. Hammer … I haven’t fallen for anything, if you go back and re-read what I posted you would see that I was only offering an explanation of why people are backing him …he admits the system is corrupt and that he was part of it …so nobody is falling for anything, we all agree with him and respect the fact that he speaks the truth. He would make a better president than the disaster we had for the past 6 years .. You, who sits here crying about laws not being enforced against the banks, now flip flops and cries foul when Trump says we should enforce immigration laws and force people to enter legally … Make up your mind ..Jesus has a lot to say about people like you who only wants to obey laws when it suits your cause ..are you an angry black man? Are you a racist? What’s your agenda? Hate the white man?

  184. SC I see what ur saying on rescission once you do it you need to have the conviction to end all ties to fake “creditor”. That’s where tender was getting confused unless you end up having a void rescission. Do you or whoever else posted have example?

  185. MK and FC Phil’s wife too, a real pair of..

  186. It in the : whom are we obligated to pay UNDER THE CONTRACT we were induced to sign onnthe basus of what a PRUDENT MAN would gave done under the circumstances. how can we be sure we are in fact paying the party known as CREDITOR – that will be harmed if it doesn’t reach them, a SERVICER is not the true creditor.
    Hence rescission was a sensible option.

    Debt instruments are a way for markets and participants to easily transfer the ownership of debt obligations from one party to another. Debt obligation transferability increases liquidity and gives creditors a means of trading debt obligations on the market. Without debt instruments acting as a means to facilitate trading, debt is an obligation from one party to another. When a debt instrument is used as a medium to facilitate debt trading, debt obligations can be moved from one party to another quickly and efficiently.

    Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debtinstrument.asp#ixzz3jNq13ovh
    Follow us: @Investopedia on Twitter

  187. And add deceit as the real evil, not deadbeats, immigrants, people across the globe…


  188. Dwight agree w u on rescission as i’ve posted but how u see Trump as the answer makes NO SENSE. The only way to fall for his schtik is because of fear and hate and Jesus had alot to say about that.

  189. SC re ” those who rescinded properly, I did,
    Then six years on – I have in front of the court more than any power of rescission could say – but – I did rescind – think about that. Never mind.lol. Luv ya anyway.

  190. Rod Ciferri schooled and spanked Shadowcat on rescission in the Back to the Future thread .. Shadowcat was exposed as the board fool. She left with Rock and the others…did they kick her off their board?

  191. The mailing of a TILA rescission letter is not an admission by the borrower that a valid contract exists , it is a notice that the borrower has discovered disclosure violations and is terminating the payments. The party who attempts to contest the rescission needs to prove that they have legal standing to contest the rescission … SLAP !!!!!

  192. SC….You are spiritually blind and that’s why you place all of your trust in the corrupt system …while you panic over losing your money and things, you don’t even realize that you’re spiritually bankrupt and it will cost you the ultimate prize at the end. Get right with Jesus before it’s too late.

  193. Its attached to the living bodies or body of a living corporate estate.

    Trespass Unwanted

  194. Your Estate have a Right of Redemption…. Even if not a borrower.

    The Lien is NOT attached to the Land!

  195. Dwight… You are starting to panic…do not go down that path.
    You are right about some things and wrong about others.

    One of the biggest mistakes I see is….that people who rescinded properly…..by their own acknowledgement ….. Were just as much admitting a valid contract when they did not immediately resume their duties they granted to a trustee.

    Letting them pay escrow payments./ advances….admission?
    Lack of denial?
    Tax Sale?

    No Escrow.

  196. Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal and commented:
    Blog post from Neil Garfield discussing how the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a case against Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs that was filed by the FDIC. The banks convinced the trial court to agree with their arguments that the statute of limitations ran out. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed the decision of the trial court.

  197. Trump admitted the political system is corrupt ..people would rather take their chances with Trump because it’s obvious that both Party’s are corrupt …all of the politicians in office from both sides have allowed this foreclosure Ponzi scheme to continue against American citizens.

    Ted Cruz seems like a decent human being who actually cares, but the sheep are all asleep …the ones who are awake don’t want to vote for more corrupt politicians .. This is exactly how the current pres got elected, by people who are fed up with Washington politics, but this current pres turned out doing more harm …which will hurt Bernies chances … People are looking at career politicians and realizing that they are the problem and are the reason our country has fallen. Term limits for all senators and congress , local and state politics too ..When you have people in power for 30 years this is what you end up with.

    The judicial system too …corrupt as he’ll.

    The dept of justice and the politicians together have allowed this bank fraud Ponzi scheme to go by with no prosecutions, no jail time ..but yet they continue to steal citizens homes using this scheme? And the corrupt politicians and judges are winking and nodding approval?

    This country is done ..we not ever be able to recover as long as these corrupt leaders told their positions of power. This is spiritual warfare as much as it is a physical warfare against humanity .. Evil has their hands in all of this …the banking collapse was engineered and orchestrated, they were bailed out and still continue to utilize the Ponzi scheme to take the homes of the victims anyway … It’s pure evil stuff that we are all witnessing … The banking industry is just as evil as the abortion industry …we are in the final days described in the Bible, no doubt.

    The Iran deal will lead to WW3 …nuclear world war. … Which will lead to martial law, seizure of your property and money by implementing a new form of banking with the mark of the beast chip implant , they will control your ability to buy food, etc …but bottom line these elite powers look to cause chaos and destruction to de-populate , to control the world in order to steal souls from God ..this is the goal of everything we are seeing …their goal is to collapse the entire world so that the antichrist can come to power as a “peace maker” and he worshipped by the blind souls who are deceived .. Once Israel attacks Iran anything can happen and escalate … All of our politicians in Washington have allowed these things to come about …it’s all a facade acting like they disagree ..but at the end of the day when they all fly home for vacation they find a way to allow the evil to keep growing and getting worse.

    The foreclosure fraud and the recent abortion exposure prove just how bad a shape we are in …they will never allow the foreclosure crimes to be adjudicated properly in the borrowers favor as long as they have power to control the judiciary and law enforcement dept of justice, they have not prosecuted anyone in 8 years while millions of foreclosures have been unjustly granted.

    All of the billions of dollars in settlement monies was shared with the corrupt state politicians … They got rich while the criminal based foreclosures were allowed to continue.

    This is why people jump on the Trump bandwagon, because he called it like it is “Corruption”.

    People are starving for the truth to be told.

  198. Agree with you, MK. Trump is part of the corrupt system no matter what krap comes out of his mouth. The “Wall” should be enough for anyone,but we have a 40-50% of the sheaple are obsessed with immigrants being evil. Those beliefs have been going on since the beginning of the U.S. It is very tiresome; and they do not learn. Trump is playing to that. It is a losing proposition. JEB and Hilary are basically the same. They take money from the same people and parties. It is all about money. Totally corrupt.

  199. @Hammertime,

    Phil Graham is the first, among many, that should go to prison for a very long time.

  200. Bernie Sanders 2016.

    HillBillary is a Wall Street STOOGE.

    Donald Trump is all about Big Money. His dog-and-pony show is for theatrical effect only. He will never change the system that has made him rich.

  201. Thee who runs with Elizabeth has the best chance.

  202. The only thing Trump can bring to the White House is his experience in debt default and bankruptcy.

    It should be a hoot…
    Watching his biggest in history.

    I think its time for a new doo. ..too….hahaha

  203. Here’s a Trump 1%ee, “Foreclosure Phil”, Delusional, greedy bastards!

  204. Lol Deborah, talk about casino economy! Bernie’s Warren before Warren. And he’s not politically correct either and not Democrat or Republican. He was main guy behind getting BANK BAILOUT MONEY exposed.

  205. Can’t get past the name ” trump”

  206. Trump is a business man

  207. I’m sorry I’m not politically minded, I just wish there were someone like Elizabeth Warren.

  208. Trump the king of bk and shady deals? #Bernie16

  209. And as for Trump he’s a good S,*#^ stirrer I agree there but that’s about all I can say, other than his hair color might have improved

  210. DB the SYSTEM is broken look at the ” revolving door” conflicts if interest fine example Eric Holder- the Electorate are fooled- the media is manipulated, we gotta start somewhere though.

  211. ok someone said new election. your right until all in office is fired nothing will change

    thats why trump is the man, he will tell the world bring it. or shout the f up, to china

  212. Another example of tables being turned. SOL has been used against us just like TILA presumptions. Pretty amazing and shows arrogance and malice that environmental law and even language “toxic ” was manipulated. This came from Wall St and their money spread the cancer to courts and government. What sticks with me is note in my credit report that says loan that was never even late was “affected by natural disaster”. Don’t snatch defeat from jaws of victory.

  213. Well an election is coming up Louise!

  214. Kinda closing the barn door after the horse got out. She shall see how far this goes.

  215. The damage to borrowers arises naturally and proximately IMHLO

  216. Omg such hypocrisy with the FDIC who totally stone walled my foia request and appeal,
    Look at the indymac/ onewest conservator ship overnight success “sweetheart deal.”
    You know that stick analogy – “you can’t pick up one end if it without picking up the other,” your best metaphor mr Garfield.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: