Writ of Certiorari to SCOTUS: Transfers to Trusts Are Void, not Voidable

In observance of the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, my office will be closed Wednesday, September 23. The following article was scheduled in advance:


See Anh N. Tran, et al. v. Bank of New York SCOTUS Certiorari_SRCH


I think we have another case here where the pen of Justice Scalia (if they grant the writ and hear the case) will be dripping with sarcasm , just like we saw in Jesinoski. The New York Law says that the “transfer” to the REMIC Trust is void if it violates the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The problem for the banks is that they MUST rely on the PSA in order to give standing to their trustee and servicer. If the trust does not have the loan, then the trustee has no authority over the loan and neither does the servicer. SO the Banks are trying to use the PSA and then Bar the borrower from inquiring as to its terms and provisions.

This isn’t an academic exercise. The Trusts are now known to have existed only on paper and not even registered in any state or anywhere else. They never had a bank account, they never received the money from the offering and sale of the trust’s certificates, they never had any money, they never had any liabilities, they never had any assets, and they they were never operated as a business in any sense of the word. Thus the Trust COULD NOT have acquired the loans because it never had the money to do so. And the paper transfers to the trust, all of which occurred in reality far beyond the date of the cutoff period would be void and mean nothing.

This is not a problem caused by the borrowers. It is a problem intentionally created by the banks so that behind curtains they could take or steal the money of investors, covering their tracks by making it appear that there was a transaction when there was none. The fundamental question presented to the courts is whether we are going to allow nonexistent parties to exercise rights in court with respect to nonexistent transactions.

The courts, once again, read into a perfectly clear and unambiguous statute and converted the word “void” to “voidable.” This is an impermissible “interpretation” of statute because it changes the law rather than clarifying it.

I recommend the brief because it appears to be complete, and it is the best (better than mine) brief on the subject of why the trusts do not have “prudential standing” which is a jurisdictional threshold question. It is clear to me that an entity created only on paper and never used for business activity, except for the purpose of foreclosure on a loan it does not own, is not an entity that should be given any right to appear in court.

One thing is clear: this brief should be used by all attorneys drafting memorandums of law on the subject of “Borrowers cannot invoke the provisions of the PSA because they are not third party beneficiaries.” If they were not third party beneficiaries then what assurance would the borrowers or the investors have that the certificate holders would receive the money promised to them? What assurance would the borrower have that a manufactured default would be declared despite the fact that the real creditors have been paid, or that a manufactured default would arise simply because the servicer and trustee refused to pay the creditors?

136 Responses

  1. ELECTRONIC CURRENCY is unlawful because it’s place of origin, cyberspace, is unknown. Therefore, ELECTRONIC CURRENCY can only be considered to be UNLAWFUL SURVEILANCE by unknown ASSAILANTS who could be the PALESTINIAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATION, THE NATION OF ISLAM, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, THE BLACK PANTHERS, THE KKK, the FSB/RUSSIAN MOB, etc.

  2. The reason why ELECTRONIC CURRENCY should be banned is it because it’d TOTALITARIANISM which is complete control of society by the GAY ELITE AKA CULTUS DIABOLICUS of RELIGIOUS ABOMINATION:




  4. Of course the KNIGHTS TEMPLARS
    do rat on themselves because that’s what “they” do.


    You have to scroll down some to read the story



    Thst way, the KNIGHTS TEMPLAR RELIGIOUS PERSECUTORS could not possibly hide behind the CORPORATE LOGOS & pretend to be the U.S. GOVERNMENT.

  6. Correct typo: _ORGANIZED_ CRIME

    Furthermore, OBAMA & members of his “ADMINSTRATION” can be connected to msny RADICAL ISLAMIC MOSLEM FUNDAMENTALIST TERROR GROUPS.

    OBAMA msrched with the BLACK PANTHERS & met with memberd of THE MOSLEM BROTHERHOOD in the WHITE HOUSE.

    So do radical terror groups invest in MORTGSGE FRAUD?

    OBAMA does, his pension is invested in VANGUARD & you can look that up on OPENSECRETS.ORG.


  7. Can the connection be made between ORGANZED CRIME & the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?

    Definitely by the way they operate in open secret.

    We have their innocent victims like me, being forced to defend FRAUDULENT TITLE TRANSFERS PRO SE in FRAUDCLOSURE COURT, under FALSE PRETENSES by these OBAMA ADMINISTRATION GANG BANGER KGB MOBSTER ATTORNEYS who TITLE COUNTERFEIT to murder, steal & cheat by OPEN SECRET RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION of CATHOLICS like me just for fun.

    The reason is HITLERCARE because these mobsters want to PERMANENTLY MARK the people with their FRAUD IN THE ISSUING & OBTAINING OF CREDIT.

    We know this is true because these MOBSTERS should be in prison for FORCED COERCION with INTEND to cause PERMANENT HARM to every AMERICAN CITIZEN born here for TITLE COUNTERFEITING, which is criminal EXTORTION by these FRAUDCLOSURE CRIME SYNDICATE MOBSTERS.

    If this were not true, there would have been DISCOVERY into the PRINCIPAL INTEREST bringing these FRAUDCLOSURES by the U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.

    Therefore, the U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICED instigated it because FRAUDCLOSURE is UNLAWFUL in these UNITED STATED because the SECURITIES DO NOT EXIST & they never did.

  8. The whole DEPOSITOR thing is scary because we don’t have the slightest idea what they’re DEPOSITING.

    It could be some really gruesome stuff by the pushy sentiment of these bankster ATTORNEY’S, & the “devil may care nonchalance” of these FRAUDCLOSURE JUDGES, who behave like stripping people of their TITLES unlawfully is done for some lawful purpose called LAWLESSNESS.

    That’s the horror show that results from lies being told like fact.

    Like when OBAMA said NEGLIGENCE is not criminal.

    Tell that to the victim of someones NEGLIGENCE.

    Or when OBAMA said what WALL STREET did was not necessarily CRIMINAL just RECKLESS.

    Tell that to the victims of 9/11.

    Which leads me to believe what WALL STREET DEPOSITED in varying locations on behalf of the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK BOARD OF GOVERNORS could be MURDER HIT CONTRACTS of every AMERICAN.

    They were stockpiling AMMO like ARMAGEDDON was here so it would not be surprising.

    The reports of the FEMA CAMPS & FEMA COFFINS really make you shudder to think what these evil underlings really have done up on WALL STREET.

  9. Therefore, we’re being handed false claims in TORT by way of FRAUDCLOSURE by fraudulent PRESENTMENT of fake, phony, fraudulent CREDIT SLIPS or fake CREDIT VOUCHERS to say it in the correct literal verbage. It’s CREDIT JARGON for the cyber AFFICIANADOS who make this stuff up for their comrades up on WALL STREET.

    Fake CREDIT VOUCHERS have no monetary value or VALUE FOR REDEMPTION because they’re used by the top brass to use chumps like us to TAX EVADE.


  11. If you were to GOOGLE SEACH the words OBAMA IS LUCIFER you would see my point because he is not just registered with the COMMUNIST PARTY U.S.A. he belongs to the big FREEMASON CLUB too.

    That’s why i never take my Gold Cross off of my neck or my Rosary bracelet off of my right wrist.

  12. I’ll post the support for the interpretation of “doing business” in the state, when I relocate it.

  13. Yes, Bob G., I agreed with you that it is a capacity issue.

  14. Answering the question presented: The NOTE is a “Security.”

    Kal. Corporations Code

    § 25019. Security

    “Security” means any note; stock; treasury stock; membership in an incorporated or unincorporated association; bond; debenture; evidence of indebtedness; certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement; collateral trust certificate; preorganization certificate or subscription; transferable share; investment contract; viatical settlement contract or a fractionalized or pooled interest therein; life settlement contract or a fractionalized or pooled interest therein; voting trust certificate; certificate of deposit for a security; interest in a limited liability company and any class or series of those interests (including any fractional or other interest in that interest), except a membership interest in a limited liability company in which the person claiming this exception can prove that all of the members are actively engaged in the management of the limited liability company; provided that evidence that members vote or have the right to vote, or the right to information concerning the business and affairs of the limited liability company, or the right to participate in management, shall not establish, without more, that all members are actively engaged in the management of the limited liability company; certificate of interest or participation in an oil, gas or mining title or lease or in payments out of production under that title or lease; put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof); or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency; any beneficial interest or other security issued in connection with a funded employees’ pension, profit sharing, stock bonus, or similar benefit plan; or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”; or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. All of the foregoing are securities whether or not evidenced by a written document. “Security” does not include: (1) any beneficial interest in any voluntary inter vivos trust which is not created for the purpose of carrying on any business or solely for the purpose of voting, or (2) any beneficial interest in any testamentary trust, or (3) any insurance or endowment policy or annuity contract under which an insurance company admitted in this state promises to pay a sum of money (whether or not based upon the investment performance of a segregated fund) either in a lump sum or periodically for life or some other specified period, or (4) any franchise subject to registration under the Franchise Investment Law (Division 5 (commencing with Section 31000)), or exempted from registration by Section 31100 or 31101.

  15. When someone called CHASE CEO Jamie Dimon, JAMIE DEMON I thought they were joking.

    Then I did some resesrch, & I found out FRAUDCLOSURE is some sort of FREEMASONIC SATANIC RITUAL where they secretly sacrifice people, their pets, entire families, possessions, property & their TITLES to demons without their victims knowing it.

    The criminal jerks call it SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE (SRA) & it’s described in the book EVIL INCARNATE by FRANKFURTER.

  16. I don’t recognize FREEMASON RUSSIAN MOBSTER PLOTS to target CATHOLICS for FORCED DRUGGING MURDER under the guse of FRAUDCLOSURE to be some sort of “OPERATION OF LAW.”

    Moreover, it doesn’t matter who you misrepresent yourself to be FORCED COERCION under FALSE PRETENSES is ATTEMPTED MURDER.

    Just because you think you’re smarter than everyone else doesn’t make it true.

  17. kali…there’s a huge back story to the Montana case. but note that Montana’s trust law requiring a MBS trust to register, is very specific about what constitutes doing business in the state necessitating registration. and an MBS trust qualifies as doing biz in Montana, period. other states without such specific language are probably up for grabs, either way.

  18. Kali…i don’t agree entirely with most of your posts today. it seems as though you’re engaging in what i call “Rorschach Legal Construction.” The law looks to mean what you want it to mean, rather than what it actually does mean.

    For example, you seem to be confusing REITs with REMICs. Two distinctly different sections of the IRC. REITs are covered in the 850 section, while REMICs are covered in 860.

    You cite 18625 re the third person. The “third person” that you refer to is an outsider, say a purchaser of an asset from the subject entity, not a deal principal servicer. If he’s part of a scheme who purpose is to cheat the investors, he can be enjoined from doing so. but a homeowner lacks standing to seek an injunction in the regard.

    Bailor/Bailee. When you bring your clothes to the dry cleaner, you are the bailor, and the dry cleaner is the bailee. In the context of MBS, the bailor is the party that (supposedly) gives the loan collateral files to the Custodian, who is the bailee.

    The purchasers of the security certificates have no liability whatsoever, but the entity exercising a power of sale has naked exposure to both the purchasers of the certificates, and the causation for injury to BAILOR’s real and personal property.

    In Kalifornia, these investment trusts are defined in the Kal. Corporations Code as “unincorporated associations,” also known as foreign business trusts (foreign in that the birth occurred outside of Kalifornia, most likely in New York or Delaware) that are collecting monies within and from the People of the State of Kalifornia, and are thereby considered conducting an unincorporated business subject to business registration compliance with the Secretary of State. As such, just as an “unincorporated association” birthed within the State of Kalifornia must comply, so must the foreign investment trusts.

    Thus far, while not exhaustive, I have not located an investment trust that is registered with Kalifornia’s Secretary of State.

    You say….”Hence, without a registration the investment trust has no standing in a court of law or equity in Kalifornia. Moreover, under the Private Attorney General’s Act, which any of the People of the State of Kalifornia are entitled to enforce on matters of statewide and public concern, and most likely under some derivative of a false claims provision, the fiduciary of the investment trust is a proverbial “fish in a barrel” hoping and praying no one “gets it.” ” ….

    Again, it’s capacity not standing that’s the issue. And no pro se litigant is going enforce any private AG matters of this magnitude in CA. Just not gonna happen. Would be laughed out of court. And no reputable atty is going to take a case in which he might make the CA AG look like a fool. So it’s not gonna happen. And by the fiduciary, I presume you mean the trustee. but this is an indenture trustee, and its fiduciary duties don’t come alive until there is a default by one of the deal principals. then the ttee has to take action to cure the default. just the way it is.

    You said the trusts “are collecting monies within and from the People of the State of Kalifornia, and are thereby considered conducting an unincorporated business subject to business registration compliance with the Secretary of State….” I think that collecting moneys in the form of principal and interest payments from CA residents might not necessarily be considered doing business in CA. You need to find some statutory definition or case law that supports your contention.

    I just don’t see any of the section 18xxx citations being correctly interpreted and thus being of assistance to a homeowner in his/her effort to defeat a bankster.

    My advice to anyone who really wants to do this right, is to get a copy of your state’s civil procedure code along with a practitioner’s civil procedure treatise (you do not want the student editions); a copy of your state’s real property actions and proceedings code; a copy of your state’s evidence code; a book on how to do legal research; a book on writing legal documents; a book on depositions and pre-trial litigation practice; black’s law dictionary (online version will do); and a copy of “Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts” by Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner (Garner is the editor of Black’s Law Dictionary).

    I’d also spend a couple hundred bucks and by the Jurisdictionary course from Dr. Frederick Graves.

    that’s my advice for what it’s worth.

  19. Although the analysis concerns a living trust dispute, in an unpublished Montana Supreme Court case:

    The court ruled that the Trusts were invalid because they were business trusts which had failed to comply with the requirements of § 35-5-201, MCA, and had unlawfully conducted business in the state. The court held that the Trusts were invalid and the transfers to them void, denying Defendants a grace period to apply for a license.


  20. Greg, thank you for recording and posting the cast.

  21. while you guys were typing over here you missed my first follow up Q&A call…

  22. By operation of law, the securitization scheme results in a REMIC/REIT/MBS — in form and substance, a real estate investment trust.

    The question presented: Was the NOTE negotiated and converted into some form of a security, and if so, what kind or type?

    IF it was converted into a security of some sort, then, in Kalifornia there is a well established body of law on civil liability, fraudulent conduct, crimes, etc. to drill down into.

    I invite all theories or leads on the question presented herein.

  23. No ma’am. I did not. You did in: lvent, on September 21, 2015 at 12:53 pm said:

  24. Okeedokee then what’s your name Kali since you decided to poster me like this blog is the billboard for The RIO in Vegas or something?

  25. Kal. Corporations Code

    § 23002. Claims; application of § 23001

    Section 23001 shall apply to any real estate investment trust organized under the laws of this state with respect to liabilities, debts, obligations and claims wherever arising, and to any real estate investment trust organized under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction with respect to liabilities, debts, obligations and claims arising in this state.

  26. Kal. Corporations Code

    § 23001. Nonliability of shareowners

    No shareowner of a real estate investment trust shall be personally liable as such for any liabilities, debts or obligations of, or claims against, the real estate investment trust, whether arising before or after such shareowner became the owner or holder of the shares thereof.

  27. No Bob G., not a self-liquidating investment trust, at least not in Kalifornia. Thus, the multi-part posting for the edification of us all.

    Kal. Corporations Code

    § 23000. “Real estate investment trust” defined

    “Real estate investment trust” as used in this part means any unincorporated association or trust formed to engage in business and managed by, or under the direction of, one or more trustees for the benefit of the holders or owners (hereinafter in this part “shareowners”) of transferable shares of beneficial interest in the trust estate (hereinafter in this part “shares”) and which meets one of the following two tests:

    (a) It received, prior to the effective date of this part, an order, permit or qualification from the Commissioner of Corporations pursuant to the provisions of the Corporate Securities Law of 1968 [FN1] or any predecessor statute finding that it was a real estate investment trust, notwithstanding the subsequent amendment, suspension or revocation of any such finding, order, permit or qualification, and it has for one or more of its three fiscal years immediately prior to the effective date of this part complied with, or in good faith filed a federal income tax return
    on the basis that it has complied with the requirements for real estate investment trusts set forth in Section 856 of the Federal Internal Revenue Code; or

    (b) It is formed for the purpose of engaging in business as a real estate investment trust under Part II of Subchapter M of Chapter 1 of Subtitle A of the Federal Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended from time to time; the sale of its shares has been qualified at any time by
    the Commissioner of Corporations pursuant to the Corporate Securities Law of 1968; and in good faith it has commenced business as a real estate investment trust. An unincorporated association or trust which otherwise meets the requirements of this section shall not be affected in its status as a real estate investment trust whether or not it is in fact
    taxable for any year or years under Part II of Subchapter M of Chapter 1 of Subtitle A of the Federal Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended from time to time.

  28. It gets funnier & funnier because they’re so serious over their own criminal nonsense that if you don’t see the humor in that you get bogged down by it.

  29. The question of law for a de novo judicial ruling.

    Kal. Corporations Code

    § 18300. Legislative intent

    It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to the governance of unincorporated associations.

  30. They’re SERVICER AGENTS OF EVIL & I’m sure of it, LOL

  31. …continued.

    Parties banding themselves together to conduct road races and defray the expense from moneys raised by subscriptions, entrance fees, and gate charges, whether forming a partnership in the generally accepted sense or not, were engaged in a joint venture, in which each was
    personally liable for the debts incurred by certain members who purported to act as officers of the association. Leake v. City of Venice (App. 2 Dist. 1920) 50 Cal.App. 462, 195 P. 440.
    Corporations And Business Organizations 3524; Joint Adventures 7

  32. OOPS! I apologize. Its Ms. Venturella.

  33. There is lots of think speech by those trying to convince us that VICTIMIZATION by CRIMINALS is legal & it’s not.

    No matter how matter of factly it’s stated, nothing makes CRIMINALIZING THE INNOCENT the proper legal remedy for BANK FRAUD.

  34. Yes Ms. Venturalla.

  35. Servicers are the agents.

    Kal. Corporations Code

    § 18250. Liability of unincorporated association for directors, officers,
    agents, and employees

    Except as otherwise provided by law, an unincorporated association is liable for its act or omission and for the act or omission of its director, officer, agent, or employee, acting within the scope of the office, agency, or employment, to the same extent as if the association were a
    natural person.

  36. Servicers do not have legal rights over U.S. citizens & they certainly don’t have the SECURITY so they don’t have legal rights to collect last weeks newspaper from us. Even if they have the right to service written on some piece of paper the TRANSFER was fraudulent.

  37. Yes siree Greg and Bob G., no capacity… but that is the least of their problems once Pandora’s Box is opened.

    Kal. Corporations Code

    § 18200. Statement of unincorporated association

    (a) An unincorporated association may file with the Secretary of State, on a form prescribed by the Secretary of State, a statement containing either of the following:

    (1) A statement designating the location and complete street address of the unincorporated association’s principal office in this state. Only one place may be designated.

    (2) A statement (A) designating the location and complete street address of the unincorporated association’s principal office in this state in accordance with paragraph (1) or, if the unincorporated association does not have an office in this state, designating the complete street address and mailing address, if different, of the unincorporated association to which the Secretary of State shall send any notices required to be sent to the association under Sections 18210 and 18215, and (B) designating as agent of the association for service of process any natural person residing in this state or any corporation that has complied with Section 1505 and whose capacity to act as an agent has not terminated.

    (b) If a natural person is designated as agent for service of process, the statement shall include the person’s complete business or residence street address. If a corporate agent is designated, no address for it shall be included.

    (c) Filing is deemed complete on acceptance by the Secretary of State of the statement and the filing fee.

    (d) At any time, an unincorporated association that has filed a statement under this section may file a new statement superseding the last previously filed statement. If the new statement does not designate an agent for service of process, the filing of the new statement shall be
    deemed to revoke the designation of an agent previously designated. A statement filed under this section expires five years from December 31 following the date it was filed in the office of the Secretary of State, unless previously superseded by the filing of a new statement.

    (e) Delivery by hand of a copy of any process against the unincorporated association (1) to any natural person designated by it as agent, or (2) if the association has designated a corporate
    agent, to any person named in the last certificate of the corporate agent filed pursuant to Section 1505 at the office of the corporate agent shall constitute valid service on the association.

    (f) For filing a statement as provided in this section, the Secretary of State shall charge and collect the fee provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 12191 of the Government Code for filing a designation of agent.

    (g) Notwithstanding Section 18055, a statement filed by a partnership under former Section 24003 is subject to this chapter until the statement is revoked or expires.

  38. Here’s where the servicer is “the third person [that] has actual knowledge that the act [of power to sell] was unauthorized.”

    Kal. Corporations Code

    § 18125. Prohibited defense

    No limitation on the power of an unincorporated association to acquire, hold, manage, pledge, encumber, or transfer an interest in real or personal property, or the manner of exercise of those powers, shall be asserted as between the unincorporated association or a member of the
    unincorporated association and a third person, except in the following proceedings:

    (a) A proceeding to enjoin an unauthorized act, or the continuation of an unauthorized act, where a third person has not yet acquired rights that would be adversely affected by the injunction, or where, at the time of the unauthorized act, the third person had actual knowledge that the act was unauthorized.

  39. kali…if you limit your affirmative defense to standing re an unregistered trust, you lose.

    anyone with an injury has standing…although they might lack capacity. capacity is an affirmative defense and is waived in NY if not raised in the answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss.

    Example: a 10 year old kid gets run over by a bicylist. he has injuries. he therefore has standing to sue for his damages. but he lacks capacity to sue, because he’s a minor. his parent or guardian would have to bring suit on his behalf.

    Example 2 – the kid’s mother sees her son run over by the bicyclist. She’s a mentally competent adult, over the age of 18. She has capacity to sue, but she can’t sue because she wasn’t the one who got run over by the bicyclist. She therefore lacks standing.

    Example 3 – an unregistered corporation lacks capacity. game over. case must be dismissed. the dismissal will be without prejudice, with a right to cure and refile suit. as long as the corp is unregistered, the court must dismiss the case. they can’t cure while the case is still pending, at least not in NY.

    They will probably claim that they are a self-liquidating investment trust, and that unlike a REIT, they are not engaged in operating a business, as that term is defined in your state codes.

  40. Here’s where the rubber meets the road: …a VERIFIED and ACKNOWLEDGED STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY…

    Kal. Corporations Code

    § 18120. Statement of authority

    (a) An unincorporated association may record in a county in which it has an interest in real property a verified and acknowledged statement of authority stating the name of the association, and the names, title, or capacity of its officers and other persons who are authorized on its behalf to acquire, transfer, or encumber real property. For the purposes of this section, “statement of authority” includes a certified copy of a statement recorded in another county.

    (b) An unincorporated association may revoke a statement of authority by recording either of the following documents in the county in which the statement of authority is recorded:

    (1) A new statement of authority that satisfies the requirements of subdivision (a). The new statement supersedes the revoked statement.

    (2) A verified and acknowledged document that expressly revokes the statement of authority.

    (c) It shall be conclusively presumed in favor of a bona fide transferor, or purchaser, or encumbrancer for value of real property of the association located in the county in which a statement of authority has been recorded pursuant to subdivision (a), that a person designated in
    the statement is authorized to acquire, transfer, or encumber real property on behalf of the association.

    (d) The presumption provided in subdivision (c) does not apply if, before the acquisition, transfer, or encumbrance, either of the following occurs:

    (1) The statement of authority is revoked by the unincorporated association.

    (2) A person claiming to be a member, director, or officer of the unincorporated association records, in the county in which the property is located, a verified and acknowledged document stating that the statement of authority is erroneous or unauthorized.

  41. Kal. Corporations Code

    § 18115. Execution of acquisitions, transfers, and encumbrances
    The acquisition, transfer, or encumbrance of an interest in real property by an unincorporated association shall be executed by its president and secretary or other comparable officers, or by a person specifically designated by a resolution adopted by the association, or by a committee or other body or person authorized to act by the governing principles of the association.

    [****Applied to investment trusts, think in terms of the PSA & Purchase Agreement]

  42. Kal. Corporations Code

    § 18110. Property not owned by members individually
    Property acquired by or for an unincorporated association is property of the unincorporated association and not of the members individually.

  43. …continued

    3. Trusts

    A valid grant may be made to trustees for an unincorporated voluntary association. San Juan Gold Co. v. San Juan Ridge Mut. Water Ass’n (App. 3 Dist. 1939) 34 Cal.App.2d 159, 93 P.2d 582. Associations 15(3)

    Individual members of unincorporated religious association could hold title for church as trustees. Bomar v. Mt. Olive Missionary Baptist Church (App. 3 Dist. 1928) 92 Cal.App. 618, 268 P. 665. Religious Societies 18

  44. …continued

    2004 Addition
    Section 18105 continues the substance of former Section 20001, except that the limitation on the permissible purpose for which property is acquired, held, managed, encumbered, or transferred is not continued. Under this section, an unincorporated association has all of the powers granted under former Section 20001, including the power to purchase, receive, own, hold, lease, mortgage, pledge, or encumber, by deed of trust or otherwise, manage, and sell property.
    See also Section 18035 (unincorporated association defined). [33 Cal.L.Rev.Comm. Reports
    752 (2003)].

  45. Kal. Corporations Code

    18105. Ownership of property
    An unincorporated association may, in its name, acquire, hold, manage, encumber, or transfer an interest in real or personal property.

  46. Kal. Corporations Code

    § 18100. Interest of member
    The interest of a member in an unincorporated association is personal property.

  47. Kal. Corporations Code

    § 18065. Agency law
    Except to the extent this title provides a specific rule, the general law of agency, including Article 2 (commencing with Section 2019) of Chapter 2 of Title 6 of, and Title 9 (commencing with Section 2295) of, Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, applies to an unincorporated association.

  48. Kal. Corporations Code

    § 18035. “Unincorporated association” defined
    (a) “Unincorporated association” means an unincorporated group of two or more persons joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose, whether organized for profit or not.

  49. Bob G. hits the bull’s eye when he says to attack the contract, e.g., the putative consummation of the NOTE & DOT (the Subject Contract).

    The ORIGINATOR/BAILEE represented itself as a “Lender,” but never loaned loaned any of its own money, and never intended to loan any of its own money; rather the undisclosed intention was to conceal the bailment of the NOTE which would be conveyed to “someone.” But there was no lending of anything by the BAILEE; only the LOAN of the BAILOR’s NOTE which was subjected to an undisclosed securitization scheme, the location of the NOTE being unknown other than in an investment trust. Because there was no “Lender” there was no validity to the Subject Contract: A fraud in the inception.

    Factor in the fact that the BAILOR’s NOTE is in possession of a putative investment trust, and the DOT is recorded in the land records in the name of the ORIGINATOR/BAILEE as “Lender” in the Subject Contract, on its face there is a separation of the Subject Contract components in two divergent directions causing the NOTE to be unsecured and the provisions of the DOT (power of sale) worthless.

  50. The PAY DAY LOAN SHARKS usually throw their PERJURED hate speech in following false indictments of us, their FRAUDCLOSURE victims.

    That’s usually when they think they can steal your TITLE by FORCED ENTRAPMENT of their victims.

  51. Of course it is become fashionable in this country to be completely ludicrous & pretend you’re not.

    Every suit is warantless because the AFFIDAVITS SUBJORN PERJURY. That’s why the FRAUDCLOSURE prostitutes fail to include those in their FRAUDCLOSURE autopsies of their dead corporate fictions.

    They’re full of parasites & other contagions like MORTGAGE SERVICING FRAUD.

  52. Correction: NDEX WEST, LLC, for example…

  53. Correction: if the members…

  54. Further, ff the members of the “unincorporated association” are collecting monies from the people domiciled in a state, regardless of which state, that is a fact well established as “doing business” in the state, subjecting the investment trust to some state taxation, and mandated foreign entity registration.

    Take a foreclosure trustee such as NDEX WEST, LLC, or example (now BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TREDER & WEISS, LLP, or one its other alter egos). It has headquarters in Addison, TX, but a subsidiary law firm in Diamond Bar, Kalifornia. Although the Secretary of State’s website shows no registration, a trip to the Secretary of State’s office(s) in Sacramento evidenced a business registration with various amendments thereto indicating it was a FOREIGN ENTITY registered to conduct business in Kalifornia. Had I not exercised the due diligence, my credibility with the court would have been destroyed, and the gavel would have slammed the doors on me. The point is, a FOREIGN ENTITY, investment trust or otherwise, must get permission from the state in order to conduct business therein.

  55. Once again, Greg’s contribution is hitting the bull’s eye.

    It is well established that the investment trust (REMIC/REIT/MBS) serves many purposes for the various parties in privity. NG has made it abundantly clear that the purported ORIGINATOR/”Lender” was a HOLDER for “a cup of coffee” (the amount of time) before the NOTE (the BAILOR/MAKER’s personal property in the undisclosed BAILMENT) was conveyed to the securitization scheme; ostensibly to a putative investment trust. The chain of indorsements should evidence the delivery of the BAILMENT, that must end with an acknowledgement of delivery to the investment trust, as well as every other corporation’s “cup of coffee” in between, in order for any legitimate authority to exist to act under the terms and conditions of the NOTE.

    The purchasers of the security certificates have no liability whatsoever, but the entity exercising a power of sale has naked exposure to both the purchasers of the certificates, and the causation for injury to BAILOR’s real and personal property.

    In Kalifornia, these investment trusts are defined in the Kal. Corporations Code as “unincorporated associations,” also known as foreign business trusts (foreign in that the birth occurred outside of Kalifornia, most likely in New York or Delaware) that are collecting monies within and from the People of the State of Kalifornia, and are thereby considered conducting an unincorporated business subject to business registration compliance with the Secretary of State. As such, just as an “unincorporated association” birthed within the State of Kalifornia must comply, so must the foreign investment trusts.

    Thus far, while not exhaustive, I have not located an investment trust that is registered with Kalifornia’s Secretary of State.

    Hence, without a registration the investment trust has no standing in a court of law or equity in Kalifornia. Moreover, under the Private Attorney General’s Act, which any of the People of the State of Kalifornia are entitled to enforce on matters of statewide and public concern, and most likely under some derivative of a false claims provision, the fiduciary of the investment trust is a proverbial “fish in a barrel” hoping and praying no one “gets it.”

  56. unless, by using a local attorney, the attorney becomes the temporary registered agent for the foreign trust…???

  57. Just skipping the question of the Trust making an invalid claim to be the holder of your Note & Mortgage… let’s let them have that one just “academically” for a minute…

    There are many types of trusts – a private foreign (non-domestic) trust not organized by or in any State has little for any government to control.

    However, these trusts are public trusts accepting public funds, organized strictly under the laws of the United States (federal) and the State of their origin (so they are domestic to the United States and the State who’s laws of creation they rely upon). They are foreign to all other States, and almost all other States have a requirement that to do business in their State they must register with that Secretary of State’s Office.

    What they will probably say is that they are NOT doing business in your state, that all their business is conducted in their State of origin and the United States (federal) so they don’t need to register…

    The States’ Attorneys General, by their many lawsuits, have indicated they do not buy that argument… To have standing to sue, i think they must have a registered agent in the State they are appearing in… most if not all, do not.

    Further, if that were true, how do they appear in a State Court foreclosure case and not be doing business there?


  58. There is the ridiculous & then there is the preposterous like for example the REMIC 2010-12 SERIES.

    The FEDERAL RESERVE BANKSTERS trying to oblige themselves criminally by trying to permanently TATTOO their victims to their own BANK FRAUD.

    If i wanted to become some biker broad, I sure don’t need these EL RUKIN street thugs to do that for me.

  59. Furthering Greg’s contribution, and NG’s references to unregistered entities conducting business without so much as a bank account, let alone a registered agent for service of process (offering a putative attribution to Bob G.), in many states the unincorporated association (investment trust) failing to register with the state results in a variety of adverse consequences including, but not limited to, severe penalties for back taxes, registrations, and most of all: no standing to enforce the laws/statutes/codes of the venue and jurisdiction of the state.

  60. if you recall – i previously brought up the issue of homeowners/citizens/taxpayers borrowers being real third party beneficiaries of the MBS/REMIC Trusts with a real interest…

    The evidence i found in the annual reports of the Illinois State Board of Investments from 2005 to 2014 showed that Illinois is investing citizen/taxpayers’ money in those Trusts and has suffered an ongoing loss since the collapse…

    The beneficiaries of Illinois’ investments are the people/citizens/taxpayers, in the form of supplemental funding, through dividends, of their essential services like water, streets, police, fire, etc… The resulting losses have caused direct out-of-pocket damage to the people/citizens/taxpayers in the form of higher taxes to compensate for said losses…

    Now Illinois cannot even pay its lottery winners because the budget shortfalls created by these investment losses have gone so deep…

    Therefore – get copies of your state, county, city investment reports, show the losses – Then get copies of your taxes and show the increases – Finally get a report from your comptroller or treasurer showing reduction in services…

    Altogether, there is your smoking gun… there is your direct interest… there is your standing to sue.

  61. These DRUG DEALERS running U.S. COURTROOMS think we’re stupid.

    Watch for their EL RUKIN GANG BANGER hand signs.

    Of course most of it they do behind our backs but not some of it.

  62. Dbelanger….at the appropriate time. wouldn’t benefit everyone here, anyway.

  63. What backs their claims because no contracts were ever executed?

    The PSA, the prospectus describes the duties that must be performed post ARTICLE 3 by the ISSUER of the purported INVESTMENT SECURITY & they’re not the security.

    The TRUST AGREEMENTS never existed.

    PARTIAL GRAND DEEDS convey nothing & when they’re left blank they’re SECURITIES FRAUDS.

    Therefore, people might want to investigate DEMONOLOGY because that’s what is really going on in these united states, DEMON WORSHIP.

  64. We have U.S. COURTROOMS being run like BARNEY FRANK’s BROTHEL so obviously the POLITICIANS think we’re their PREY, & their ATTORNEY’S & JUDGES think they’re pimps for the FRB debt fraud whorehouse on WALL STREET.

    I was never party to that debt fraud orgy, & I never would be & that’s the bottom line in fraudulent debt creation. You can’t force people to comply with your CRIME SYNDICATE by pretending to be someone you’re not.

  65. Moreover, we don’t even know what these purported “INSTRUMENTS” they’re trying to FRAUDCLOSE upon could possibly be.

    Where’s the SECURITY?

    Do the JUDGES have mountains of cocaine & PABLO ESCOBAR hidden somewhere in those courthouses because that’s SECURITIES FRAUD.

  66. Funny how we’re having obscure laws thrown in like that when these “ATTORNEY’S” don’t even have “the NOTES.”

    Is this MUTUAL OF OMAHA’s WILD KINGDOM? Because I see nothing but the JUNGLE that’s full of MEDELLIN DRUG CARTEL VIPERS running roughshod over their own criminal bs. in every U.S. courtroom.

  67. Thee entire BAILOR/BAILEE theory is CRIMINAL B.S. because the INDENTURE was never formed & the TRUSTS were never created.

    So now the FRB DRUG CARTEL is saying they’re BAILBONDSMEN when their the crooks who belong in prison.

    FRAUDCLOSURE is one vast CRIMINAL RACKET by DRUG DEALERS who never lent no one money.

  68. The BAR certainly knows these ATTORNEYS don’t do one thing that is legal, & they don’t try to deny it either TU.

    In fact, I got the impression they think it’s humorous these ATTORNEY’S RACKETEER with our TITLES like one vast CRIME SYNDICATE.

  69. So if the Trusts do not exist or no longer exists…
    The baillment property goes back to the bailors/estate.
    The granters/bailors then become obligated for the taxes.

  70. MBS GMAC Mortgage Corporation Series Reports Shelf Documents

    this shows all that is in my trust. hahahah. wait to you see whats in it. and the name it is under isnt even on
    any doc, or at regestry of deeds . but really doesnt matter, as all traunches are for. home equity loans.

    go to this site, ctslink.com , once there my user name is , davidbel password- is Congess12$,

    then go to the g’s and under gmac mortgage corporation. click on series reports, once on the next page, go to

    2006 – J1 08/25/2015 09/25/2015 09/25/2015 10:00AM EDT

    click on the 2006-j1, once there start going through all tabs, but look at the tax reporting. this is were you will see what type of trust it is. once in tax reporting, it will come up showing all 1099’s
    that the trust is reporting on, all traunches reporting on. click on them, they will show you what type of trust, and name of the trust. its not mine, as they think it is. hahahahah.they say my trust is this name.

    Seller, Servicer and Sponsor

    Issuing Entity

    Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc.

    GMACM Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-J1

    GMACM Home Equity Loan Trust
    Series 2006-J1 REMIC
    9062 Old Annapolis Road
    Columbia, MD 21045

  71. bob , if what you say is true, about the following statement, why not share with all of us, the court docs showing this judge saying and ordering this.

    And just yesterday, I got a judge in NY to order a bankster trustee to comply with all 65 of my combined discovery demands. the bankster can’t do that without losing the case.

  72. Not all mortgagors are payors. ..
    Mortgagors are Not bailors in a lien theory state. ….
    Husband denies being a unregistered forien corp ….
    Denies bailee authority….

    KC … Want bailee to return property undamaged.

    KC and Husband need separate attornies?

  73. Bailor in non disclosed Baillment Agreement wants baillment property returned or its equal value by bailee.

    Attorney…what do you want?
    KC. … The baillment property.

    Kalifornia ON!
    Many Blessings to All!

  74. Bob
    Im thinking, all the time.

  75. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
    “This is not a problem caused by the borrowers. It is a problem intentionally created by the banks so that behind curtains they could take or steal the money of investors, covering their tracks by making it appear that there was a transaction when there was none. The fundamental question presented to the courts is whether we are going to allow nonexistent parties to exercise rights in court with respect to nonexistent transactions.” Amen.

  76. U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTON SCALIA who says he’s CATHOLIC, won’t go to see the POPE the news reported tonight.

    What mpre proof is needed the country is bomg fraudlently controlled by demons?

  77. I thought there was a rule that no one should be denied access to the courts based on their form, or inability to use the legal format; such that if all they have is toilet paper to write their writ, it should be accepted.

    If the Supreme Court refuses to see the writings of a man, because the man does not speak their language, that will be proof to the rest of us, that the lack of access to justice reaches the highest court of the land.

    Now I am very interested in the writ, because a man’s fact, can be ignored because he does not write in the specialized language of the law.

    I don’t do court business and I do not speak nor understand their language. I have been denied justice because I am not one of them, and I do not know what they say when they speak and I do not know that what they speak does not matter, it is what is written that matters, so why speak? I do not understand their written language, so as soon as I am compelled to be there to protect a right, I do not speak the language that is foreign to this native land, and I do not write the language that is foreign to this native land, and I wonder why are the foreign speakers and writers allowed to decide how I can use my right, and take it away from me saying I agreed to it when I do not understand them nor their writings?

    Why are they here?

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

  78. Ivent,

    Just like CFPB will not tell you if employees of a business broke the law or committed a crime; BAR does not tell you what they do to an attorney.

    The grievance is a remedy I do not abuse.
    You do not see nor should you know what happens, like Lot’s wife should not have tried to see or know what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah.

    We do our part, and let everyone else do their part.
    Nothing happens when we start by doing nothing.

    I hope that helps.

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

  79. Clearly there is no law because there is no law in equity for the issuance of credit because credit has no monetary value in its issuance.

    Credit is juice money laundered by the FRB DRUG CARTEL through its own CORPORATE DRUG RACKET, CORPORATE AMERICA.


  80. Bob: “This gent called me a couple weeks ago to discuss these matters and his brief. I read it then, and told him that i didn’t think SCOTUS would take it. First, in my opinion, it’s not very well written…grammar, syntax, etc. errors.”

    Afraid I have to agree, since I quit reading for those reasons.

    “Secondly, the font was not what SCOTUS specifies (Bookface Academic), but most importantly, it is not an important national policy issue that SCOTUS needs to settle. It can be left up to each state. The guy agreed with me, stating that it was submitted for reasons that I won’t go into here. Additionally, even if the issue were of national import, SCOTUS only hears 1% or less of the cases submitted.”

    If I had to take a position that mattered, I think I’d hope this particular one isn’t accepted. But, while I see the potential threat in a homeowner-adverse ruling, I think we need some uniformity around here (just not reached by this one), however that’s best accomplished. . .

  81. Correction: an executed Promissory NOTE,

  82. The BAILOR “loaned” his personal property, an executed the Promissory NOTE, to the bailee in an undisclosed bailment. The bailee never loaned any of its own monies. The bailee was not a “lender” of anything; merely a conduit for the putative conveyance of the NOTE to a purported foreign unincorporated association, e.g., an investment trust.

    In fact, the bailee never had any real and beneficial interest in anything that could be indorsed, assigned, or delivered because it never loaned any of its own monies. Having never “loaned” anything, there was never a consummation as contemplated and intended by the Subject Contract (NOTE & DOT).

    The bailee must return the bailment property to the bailor, or its equivalent value, and must exercise due care while in possession of the property.


  83. What is LENDER?

    He from whom a thing is borrowed. The bailor of an article loaned.

    Law Dictionary: What is LENDER? definition of LENDER (Black’s Law Dictionary)


  84. Kalifornia, on September 23, 2015 at 10:49 pm said:

    That Petition to SCOTUS echoes the Yvanova matter, fully briefed, including amicus, with an opinion pending before the Kalifornia Supreme Court.



  85. I called in my complaint with the BAR re their corrupt ATTORNEYS & they did nothing. Probably because they represent the corrupt JUDGES. Therefore we have no legal regulation & that’s why we have complete corruption.



    Therefore, I’m not voting for none of these FEDERAL RESERVE BANK DRUG PUSHERS no more.

  87. In other words, if they are supposed to get the discovery items from their client who is the Plaintiff, they have a duty to get the discovery items. They are not supposed to be invested in the outcome in any way to subvert the code and not abide by the very rules that they purport to be operating within.

    Again, my opinion.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

  88. You can always bar grieve an attorney for not performing according to the code they should be bound to comply with in order to be licensed to practice.

    If an attorney is negligent in their duties as representative for a Plaintiff, that’s enough to bar grieve them for their inadequate ability to do their ‘darn’ job.

    In my humble opinion.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

  89. Deborah wynn, on September 23, 2015 at 9:03 pm said:

    Sec website:
    “Mortgage backed securities are debt obligations that represent claims to the cash flows –

    Where represent the claim is not even the claim.
    Represent is not the thing, it’s a sign, symbol,description of the thing.


    represent (v.) Look up represent at Dictionary.com
    late 14c., “to bring to mind by description,” also “to symbolize, serve as a sign or symbol of; serve as the type or embodiment of;” from Old French representer “present, show, portray” (12c.), from Latin repraesentare “make present, set in view, show, exhibit, display,”

    MBS have no value, only the claim [security] has value.

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

  90. @ Gee Bob,

    I almost forgot…

    You are questioning my relationship with my “X”?

    Come on, hasn’t your mom suffered enough?

    We’ve been through this: of course you are a disappointment, but, your poor mother?

    Please try to show some decorum.

  91. @ Gee Bob,

    Liar and Fraud. Not a lawyer, but “23 years doing this”- “multi-billion dollar pension manager”… Remember Gee-Gaw Bob, I am willing to drive you to the nearest darkest street whenever you are willing.

    I will leave you with the following. Also, please tell me you looked into the 682 TRILLION DOLLARS AS “NOTIONAL DERIVATIVES” I ‘splained to you the other night, Lucy.

    … But, you are correct, I am tired and tomorrow is another day.

    In the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Slick Willy Clinton made a deal with three Republican Senators, Graham, leach and Bliley.

    The Graham, Leach and Bliley Act disposed of “Glass-Steagall”.

    “Glass-Steagall” was created, in the aftermath of the ’29 Crash to keep large, commercial banks from tampering with residential, home mortgages.

    Once both political parties had opened the door for Wall Street to screw American Borrowers, Subprime Lending was allowed to run rampant.

    Once Subprime Lending had provided a “Boom” period for the banks, the banks then orchestrated their intended “Bust” period: mortgage foreclosures predicated upon FRAUD, insider trading, forgeries and hopelessly corrupted land titles.

    Of course, anyone with half a brain recognizes Wall Street has created a wholly fraudulent Securitization Scam and they are simply waiting to collect on TRILLIONS owed to the phony, fraudulent “bets” they have created as derivatives.

    An election is looming.

    We The People must internalize the facts listed above and force any potential elected representative of We The People to disclose their understanding of the criminal FRAUD that is Wall Street and the central banking system.
    michael keane, on September 21, 2015 at 10:18 am said:

    The MERS is the fake gambling parlor from the movie, “The Sting”.

    In the movie, con-men posing as employees of the phony gambling parlor, took advantage of “insider information” to rig “bets” to their advantage.

    In the MERS, con-men posing as “employees”, used rubber stamps they purchased from the MERS for $25.00. The rubber stamps conferred “Senior Vice President of MERS” status on them.

    The “Senior Vice Presidents of MERS” were no such thing. Instead, the phony “Senior Vice Presidents” were employees of fly-by-night mortgage brokers.

    The CEO of the MERS was deposed and forced to admit he is the “sole employee” of his company… He also claimed his company owned 80 million mortgages… must be a busy guy.

    The con-men in the movie made “bets” on horses.

    The con-men of the MERS made “bets” on houses.

    In each instance, those making the “bets” did so using “inside information”.

    The con-men in the movie already knew which horse had won the race BEFORE THEY MADE THE “BET”.

    The con-men in the MERS used any number of FRAUDS to cause the borrower to stumble before they made “bets” on the house; a good example is encouraging borrowers to go 90 days behind in order to receive a modification.

    Once the con-men in the MERS got their 90 days, they placed short sale, derivatives “BETS” against the borrower’s performance on the loan.

    The international short-fall to “Notional Derivatives” is now reckoned as in excess of 682 TRILLION DOLLARS- OR, TEN TIMES THE GDP OF EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET, COMBINED.

    Those are the “short-sale bets” We The People know about. There are another 600-plus TRILLION DOLLARS that are being concealed from US according to some sources.

    The central banks are insolvent- As such nobody owes them anything except contempt.

    The central banks have not reported “M3” since 2006; were they to do so, it would prove their hopelessly insolvent state.

    The central banks also own the DTCC and DTC- each responsible for reporting derivatives. Just like “M3” the banks are refusing to report derivatives as well.

    The central banks also owned Fannie and Freddie at one time, until it was taken into conservatorship in 2008.

    The whole thing is an elaborate, well-orchestrated SCAM.

    In the movie, law enforcement is portrayed as a bunch of hapless, weak-minded STOOGERY.

    In the current foreclosure SCAM referring to law enforcement as weak-minded STOOGERY is to pay them a compliment.
    michael keane, on September 21, 2015 at 9:12 am said:

    This country has been here before, Google Nicholas Biddle.

    Biddle died in prison after telling the president he would “ruin him”, politically.

    Biddle, as president of the second central bank, used his influence to restrict lending and therefore, hamper growth in the economy (sound familiar?).

    President Jackson stripped the central bank of all the federal contracts and forced the country to accept the FACT: THE GOVERNMENT ISN’T THE ONE OPPRESSING THE PEOPLE, INSTEAD, IT IS THE BANKS (again: sound familiar?).

    There is a reason Andrew Jackson is on the $20.00 Bill- it is because he defeated the second central banking scam and the Pigs that ran it

  92. Deb…why don’t you file a Replevin action against the plaintiff, to recover your original wet-ink note? If they succeeded with the foreclosure, then they have no further use for the note. The note was merged into the judgment, so the judgment now takes the place of the note. Make the demand for the return of the note in a pre-suit letter to the bankster president, not their attorneys. Tell them that you intend to turn over the original wet-ink note to your State Police Crime Lab for a thorough forensic analysis so as to authenticate the note. If they don’t comply, sue them and copy the CFPB with a copy of the Complaint. If they don’t have the original wet-ink note, then they lied to the foreclosure court and you can then sue them for wrongful foreclosure. but ya gotta think like a lawyer, not a pro se litigant, to beat a lawyer. your goal is to create uncertainty about the second and third order consequences of their actions, and to get them to start thinking about costs, complexities, and possible criminal proceedings against them if they can’t comply. That’s how you get favorable settlements from these guys.

  93. We never signed contracts that said we were going to be turned into CORPORATE FICTIONS unlawfully to be criminaly victimized in FRAUDCLOSURE by the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK BOARD OF GOVERNORS.

  94. @mkeane….why don’t you run along for the evening now. go find a little anger-friendly blog where you can insult people to your heart’s content. you have nothing of use to contribute around here.

  95. Because i never got discovery i have to show that the fireclosure and the forcible detainer were wrongful actions – (the facts show this) and that i was wrongfully denied my right to amend the complaint. Oh and i rescinded lol

  96. I remember when Gee Bob told us he was in charge of a “multi-billion dollar pension plan”.

    His stall at the Republican men’s room – slash – wanna-be-lawyer pre-Supreme Court- wide stance- family values emporium must be busy indeed.

  97. The fact has been well established these frauds were never MBS’S, RMB’S, or nothing of value. REMICS fraudulently conceal TITLE FRAUD because theres no TRUST DELIVERIES POST the FRAUD IN THE FACTUM.

    Furthermore, everyone of OBAMAS IPSO FACTO laws is IRRELEVANT because of it.

  98. Deb…no, you’re not wrong. it is complicated and somewhat confusing. The trust is the legal entity that acquires the mortgage note assets (at least in theory). Think of the trustee as the president of a corporation, with the trust being the corporation. both the trust and the corporation are separate legal entities from their trustee and president. so in that context, you can see that the president of the corp doesn’t really acquire the assets, he acquires assets in his official corp capacity for the benefit of the corporation. the corporation then holds the assets and operates them for the benefit of its shareholders.

    Likewise, the trustee acquires property in it’s official capacity as ttee and not as a national bank, they say, for the trust or it’s beneficiaries. but really the trustee is acquiring property for the trust, and the trust is holding the property for the benefit of its investors (so they say). that’s how it’s supposed to work, in theory.

    with respect to your points A., B. & C. in your post, you are correct. the only thing is that the trustee is clueless about the money angle. it’s the servicer that is driving the bus. the servicer collects P&I and makes distributions to the investors. the trustee doesn’t even have a bank account (by the way, NG got that from me, by way of a famous FL foreclosure defense atty that i had explained this to in emails. toot, toot.)

    And just yesterday, I got a judge in NY to order a bankster trustee to comply with all 65 of my combined discovery demands. the bankster can’t do that without losing the case. and on another point, which i cannot discuss at present, the judge told the bankster that it had better make sure that it had ****, because Mr. Bob G appears to have found a silver bullet that will be dispositive of this case (her exact words).

    Gotta love litigating in NY.

  99. When I first encountered Gee Bob, he was here telling us we were here, “as delusional”, “wanting a free house” and “gaming the system”.

    By his or her, (I feel he is distinctly feminine), own admission, he, she or it is not a lawyer.

    As I have said, I feel this fruitcake haunts this site to spread disinformation.

  100. re: rescission under TILA
    “The lenders appeal, arguing that debtors TILA rescissions amount to substantive defenses, and therefore were inappropriately considered in a motion for relief from stay.
    Citing Ninth Circuit case law, the lenders argue that
    substantive defenses cannot justify denying a motion
    for relief from stay, and that such a defense must
    instead be raised by the debtor in an adversary
    proceeding only after the stay has been lifted.

    While both sides present credible arguments, the
    weight of authority supports Appellees. First, the
    lenders are not entirely correct that the debtors
    rescission argument is a substantive defense.

    Whether or not a loan has been rescinded gets at a
    THRESHOLD issue, namely, whether a lender has any
    rights whatsoever against the debtor. If a lender
    does not, it has no right to be relieved from the
    stay. The bankruptcy judge in this case merely
    concluded that, given the SELF-EXECUTING nature of
    TILA, the initial presumption weighed against lifting
    the stay. This conclusion, however, in no way
    prevented the lenders from challenging that
    conclusion in an adversary proceeding. The
    bankruptcy judge gave the lenders that option, and
    they chose instead to appeal. While the lenders
    clearly would prefer that the stay be lifted earlier
    rather than later, the bankruptcy judge’s conclusion
    that there were serious flaws in the lender’s
    security interests justified his decision not to lift
    the stay.
    The lenders may succeed in proving the enforceability
    of their interests in adversary proceedings, but this
    does not mean the bankruptcy judge abused his
    discretion in declining to lift the stay.”

  101. @ Gee Bob,

    Anyway, as a Republican- wanna-be-lawyer, I hang out in Men’s rooms for the past 23 years.

    Whilst comparing syntax, grammar, my mom’s phone number and applications to the Supreme Court, from among the graffiti in my stall, I have come to the conclusion I should continue to spread disinformation.

    After all, I am Gee Bob… or, is it Bob G?

    Fecked… Fecked for certain. Fecked… good and proper.

  102. What makes COUNTERFEIT U.S. BANK NOTES our debt obligation?

  103. @mkeane…well, i guess because i win cases or get favorable settlements and results.

    see, pal, unlike you, i am neither a fraud nor a loser. never been foreclosed on or kicked to the curb like you, chump. you’re not just a foreclosure loser….you’re a life loser.

    The way you interact with people here shows that you have a loser’s low EQ, IQ, and generally hostile personality disorder. I’m guessing your ex couldn’t take any more of you either. great mystery of the cosmos is how you stand being around yourself all day. which would explain why you in particular have to be “self-employed.” nobody will either hire you or will keep you on after you show your true colors in the workplace.

    and how’s that self-employment gig working for you? not making enough to pay your bills? too bad, pal. better luck next lifetime.

    if i were you, i’d just shut the hell up right about now. i don’t recall coming on this board tonite and hurling insults at your for no reason. but now I have a reason, and the more you shoot off your loser mouth, the more i’m going to continue to embarrass you here tonite.

  104. Or maybe it’s SOTOMAYERS dream to turn these UNITED STATES into some GAY RIGHTS HIPPIE COMMUNE. If not, clue me in please because that’s sure what it seems like by the innumerable frauds being perpetrated in FRAUDCLOSURE by GAY RIGHTS ACTIVIST IN CHIEF OBAMA.

  105. Sec website:
    “Mortgage backed securities are debt obligations that represent claims to the cash flows –
    From pools of mortgage loans most commonly residential property.
    Mortgage loans are purchased from banks, mortgage companies,and other originators and then assembled into pools by a government, quasi government, or private entity –
    The entity issues securities that represent claims –
    On the principle and interest payments made by borrowers on the loans in the pool, a process known as securitization”

    So a) no actual sale of real estate
    B) no actual purchase of real estate
    C) backed – only by mortgage securities, there is only sale of mortgage securities
    So in my prior post the trustee is on the one hand a trustee of a mbs and in the other a buyer of real property.

    The trustee is supposed to distribute from the cash flows to benys ( cert holders – having claim on the cash flows) payments sent by the servicers – yes?? Bob am i wrong,
    Im not being obnoxious im just trying to get the info out straight.
    How can a trustee have standing in opposing and contradictory interests, though this is in MY experience.

  106. @ Bob G.,

    Truly, go play in the street.

    If you are not near a street, I will gladly bring you to a dark street and deposit you there.

    Should you survive until the dawn, I will re-deposit you until such time as the desired outcome.

    Wear dark clothes.

  107. @ Bob G,

    To borrow a phrase: “Think like a lawyer”.

    Why in the world would anyone listen to you for any reason whatsoever?

    You are a fraud.

  108. Maybe GINSBURGS CPA fudged the numbers to cover up her fraud & blamed us.

  109. Last I checked the STATE OF ILLINOIS isn’t EGYPT & I’m not living on the river NILE in the cradle of the MESOPOTAMIAN civilization here in COOK COUNTY.

  110. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS obviously thinks he’s KING SOLOMON & SCALIA thinks he’s KING FARUK.

  111. @mkeane….nope….just been doing this for 23 years.

  112. They’re the ones doing the unlawful transfers our titles. We know this because we’re being denied our requests for DISCOVERY under the SC RULES.

  113. @ Bob G.

    Are you an attorney?

  114. @deb wynn….gotta correct you on this statement:

    ” trustees of MBS are generally not owners of real property they simply control mortgage payments in their distributiin to beneficiaries.”

    A. Correct…they are not owners of real property.
    B. Incorrect…they do not control mortgage payments in their distribution to beneficiaries. The servicers do that.

  115. This gent called me a couple weeks ago to discuss these matters and his brief. I read it then, and told him that i didn’t think SCOTUS would take it. First, in my opinion, it’s not very well written…grammar, syntax, etc. errors. Secondly, the font was not what SCOTUS specifies (Bookface Academic), but most importantly, it is not an important national policy issue that SCOTUS needs to settle. It can be left up to each state. The guy agreed with me, stating that it was submitted for reasons that I won’t go into here. Additionally, even if the issue were of national import, SCOTUS only hears 1% or less of the cases submitted.

    Most importantly, what if SCOTUS heard the case and decided in favor of the banksters? Game over for all homeowners. Better and safer to let each state decide the issue on its own. Safety in numbers.

  116. Needcaselaw
    The SCOTUS ruled for Jesinoski unanimously. thank god

  117. No trust, no trustee

  118. Ooo i remembered it right link posted
    Still cant spell though

  119. John G you are so correct
    The opposition take control of the narrative because they have to its the best defence they have, Neil always states dont let them take control of the narrative, i did not, no sir.

  120. Read from the source,
    I used the definition in my own pleadings
    Dont have link handy but google http://www.sec.gov/answers/mortgage securities.
    Point – trustees of MBS are generally not owners of real property they simply control mortgage payments in their distributiin to beneficiaries.
    how many out there have a trustee in court kicking you out of your home( forcible detainer) thus holding a contradictory position and conflict of interest. ( esp in view of the 1099a where lender is in fact the servicer – check the amount on your 1099a and the amount of the trustees deed upon sale probably a bit off ??? – mine was90k need to know what the heck thAts for)
    A trustee of a MBS and a buyer ( via credit bid) claims to have bought the property from a trustee or successor trustee, so see the contradictory stances.

    Not legal advice nit an attorney just sharing- do your research folks and get great council in the state where your property is located if you can.

  121. everyone be careful and prepared for the possible fallout if this works…

    all so-called money in USA today is based upon debt – the negative side of the balance sheet – NOT VALUE – they came up with a way to speculate currency on futures and promises instead of “VALUE-IN-HAND” (timing is everything)

    when their house of cards falls, so will the perceived value of the paper (or digital equivalents) you are holding… the good news is the rich arseholes will be poor as us…

    before then – buy as much gold, silver, copper, corn/soybean seeds, land, batteries and lightbulbs – anything edible or marketable in an agrarian culture; that you can with the paper you have while it is still perceived to be valuable… build your own windmill or solar cells… convince a farmer to sell you an acre of land for yourself… because when the paradigm shift hits… we will all be farmers without land or seeds or a mule…

    and don’t forget your personal defense tools either…

  122. Dwight, if I had rescinded my loan and it was ignored, I’d be arguing lack of jurisdiction. That’s me, not advice. Ask a lawyer.

  123. PS – there’s plenty of case law, not being used imo, about the “plain language” of statutes and courts not being allowed to give them other meanings. The legislatures said what they meant and other govt entities aren’t commissioned or allowed to give them new meaning or ignore what is said. Courts aren’t legislative branches, though it appears some didn’t get the memo.

  124. I’m with Mario Kenny. The banksters have had long enough to mess with us and the law.

  125. Happy to see this and going to read what I can. In the meantime:

    NG: “The Trusts are now known to have existed only on paper and not even registered in any state or anywhere else.”

    We’ve heard this and I’m sorry to say that’s all. I’ve also heard there were times when they didn’t need to register them. Like to hear about the latter at least, if and when you have time.

    Better get read with these answers because the UCC will now come into play (whether it’s article 3, 8, 9, whatever):

    WHO owns the note (or obligation – if there is one)?
    WHO might have security interests?
    Who might have equitable interests?

    Whose breach of fiduciary was so thorough it might if not does reach to criminality?

    Who’s going to owe the taxes due by the “organization” (if any) which was errantly called a “trust”, or something like this?

  126. I have long said, if I am not a third party or a party to this trust, then why is my property subject to the trust. I am my house, my house is me. How can you separate my house from me in this way?

  127. This is a vital question, and one that was tiptoed around by the New York Appeals Court, leaving it up in the air. Courts simply do not want to address it. I hope that does not include SCOTUS, but the high court, unfortunately, has a way of simply declining to review matters where the pot might be stirred into a cauldron.

    If anyone knows a way to encourage SCOTUS to hear a matter please speak up. I’ll be happy to assist as I am able, and I think others would too.

  128. Louise,
    I responded to your post in the certiorari link that contains your comment.


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

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: